NEWS: Sony launches native 4K VPL-VW290ES and VW890ES projectors

metaloholic

Standard Member
Personally, I would go for faux 4K instead of 1080p, like Epson.
epson is out of the question atleast untill they update into native 4k. The pixelshifting is like rbe to me, it bothers, i experience it like rbe.
I went to see the 6050/9400 and i did not like it
 

big boss

Well-known Member
epson is out of the question atleast untill they update into native 4k. The pixelshifting is like rbe to me, it bothers, i experience it like rbe.
All I'm saying is that if I'm considering HW65 over 290 due to price, I'll prefer to go for faux 4K instead. Native 4K out of question due to budget.
 

Luminated67

Distinguished Member
epson is out of the question atleast untill they update into native 4k. The pixelshifting is like rbe to me, it bothers, i experience it like rbe.
I went to see the 6050/9400 and i did not like it
Maybe you should look at the JVC e-shift instead and see if it looks better to you.:smashin:

The main problem I would have with the 290es is it’s ultra low lumens, especially when calibrated.
 

metaloholic

Standard Member
Maybe you should look at the JVC e-shift instead and see if it looks better to you.:smashin:

The main problem I would have with the 290es is it’s ultra low lumens, especially when calibrated.
how do you know it´s low lumen when calibrated ? there isnt any reviews yet. I wonder does the jvc eshifts enhance the fullhd or does it look better when eshift disabled. Though i wonder has the eshift the same problem as epson, its not the look of pixel shifting it´s the proces of electronic shuttering that bothers me. Though the x7900 would be an exelent projector even at fullhd as i have a deticated Black room for my movies. My goal is to get more out of fullhd more than watch 4k. I also was thinking of N5 but i read it only multiplys pixels compared to sony 290 that has the X1 in it for more precise analyze, and what i have understood, sony has play over jvc when talking about upscaling.
 

Luminated67

Distinguished Member
^I understood it had the same 1500 lumens from the previous model, if that is true then anything I have read about suggest it was around 750 lumens in low lamp and 1050 high lamp when calibrated. OK for smaller screens but not great for bigger ones.

The JVC e-shifter I saw looked a bit softer than I was expecting but it was only a 1080P movie we were watching and from what I hear it’s a lot better with proper 4K. So maybe e-shift should be the reserve of 4K and left off with 1080P.
 

ask4me2

Active Member
Depends on noise floor of the room ... check it .. might be surprised ! If 26db is below that a non issue ... worth checking actual noise of the Mitsubishi ... likely higher :D
Agree 100% with you on this alebonau,, it is hard to measure or even get dedicated dB measurement devices that start as low as 17-20db, My dedicated sound level meter starts at 30dB and goes to 120dB. The only other sound pressure meters I have seen that go down in the area between 10-20dB is from different sound pressure apps on my iPhone....

One other thing when talking about noise from projectors.
dB measurements are often combined with a distance to the source, and projectors often give out different sound levels depending on where around them the measurement is done.

Here is an example from a Barco Cine9
BRdB.png


Taking this into account, I guess it is a little strange to read someone here choose projectors out of dB data because it will be hard to know for sure before the projector is installed in the HT.
 

metaloholic

Standard Member
Agree 100% with you on this alebonau,, it is hard to measure or even get dedicated dB measurement devices that start as low as 17-20db, My dedicated sound level meter starts at 30dB and goes to 120dB. The only other sound pressure meters I have seen that go down in the area between 10-20dB is from different sound pressure apps on my iPhone....

One other thing when talking about noise from projectors.
dB measurements are often combined with a distance to the source, and projectors often give out different sound levels depending on where around them the measurement is done.

Here is an example from a Barco Cine9
View attachment 1501416

Taking this into account, I guess it is a little strange to read someone here choose projectors out of dB data because it will be hard to know for sure before the projector is installed in the HT.
Actually that is a good point. Propably there is a many "official" ways to measure sound as there is to measure lumens. or atleast used to be. I remeber that was a disgussion 10 years back.

Damn im mad sony did not include iris in the new entry model. that would have made my choise an easy one.

If the x7900 offers abit smooth fullhd performance when upscaled to 4k it´s propably not for me as im looking for native4k support with as good as possible result from 1080p material as it´s 90% of my usage but is still would like to get the 4k aspect of it so i can maby shift my watching to maby 80% in fullhd and 20% 4k.

IT´s funny how even at 3-5k range the models and manufacturers make so many compromises there isnt really a one projector that does everything for everyone on that price range.
 

DB9S

Well-known Member
has anyone here who can say i can definetly get more out of 1080p with the sony entrylevel 4k ?
the new vpl-vw290es is nicely priced and for some reaons it feels stupid to get a hw65 in 2021 even if most of the content i use is fullhd.
1080p will look better on the 290 than the 65 due to the superb upscaling employed.
Don't forget that the 4k model also boasts BT2020 and HDR.
If you want to make the most of the 290's lumens then you can convert 4k HDR to 4k SDR BT2020 (at the source device) and it will look stunning.
 

mb3195

Distinguished Member
T´s funny how even at 3-5k range the models and manufacturers make so many compromises there isnt really a one projector that does everything for everyone on that price range.
I think this can be said about any projector to be honest, regardless of price.
 

metaloholic

Standard Member
1080p will look better on the 290 than the 65 due to the superb upscaling employed.
Don't forget that the 4k model also boasts BT2020 and HDR.
If you want to make the most of the 290's lumens then you can convert 4k HDR to 4k SDR BT2020 (at the source device) and it will look stunning.
Thats soothing to hear. So i think my passive 3d setup refresh using 290´s is looking more promenent :clap: .....though im not eager spending the hard earned cash :facepalm:
 

DB9S

Well-known Member
Thats soothing to hear. So i think my passive 3d setup refresh using 290´s is looking more promenent :clap: .....though im not eager spending the hard earned cash :facepalm:
You will definitely need to use high bulb for 3D I would say. I haven't seen 3D on a 270 or 290.
Going by the numbers, it likely won't be as bright as your 65.
 

Harold88

Member
If the x7900 offers abit smooth fullhd performance when upscaled to 4k it´s propably not for me as im looking for native4k support

I can bet that, from a normal viewing distance, when a 4k UHD disc runs, you will not be able to tell the difference between the resolution of that JVC eshiefter and a native 4k projector.

Eshieft projectors are not full hd projectors, even if they have a 1080p chip. The resolution and details they manage to offer is close ot native 4k when watching a movie.

Sure, on test patterns you will tell the difference quite easy but not so much whan watching a movie.

Static resolution and motion resolution are two completely different thing. None of those projectors, regardless of the price, is able to keep full resolution in motion, especially in 24p movies. On TV's the situation is much worse in this regard so projectors are still the kings of motion resolution and I belive they will continue to be for a long time.

Ted Bollinger did a very intersting comparison here between X7900 and Sony 385. You can see that eshieft 5 technology is very close to native 4k in terms of details.

Epson has the same technology but the pixel grid is different than those of JVC and Sony not becouse of the resolution but becouse of how LCD panels are built. So an eshifter projector with D-ILA will have less screen door effect becouse the pixels are larger than LCD's, but the price is also much higher.

Personally I sit fairly close, 3 m away from 120 inch screen, and I'm completely satisfied with Epson's resolution.

 
Last edited:

alebonau

Well-known Member
I can bet that, from a normal viewing distance, when a 4k UHD disc runs, you will not be able to tell the difference between the resolution of that JVC eshiefter and a native 4k projector.
i went from e-shift jvc x7000 to native 4k jvc n7. to me at my viewing distance not sure what "normal" is but i sit at THX spec 41deg for immersion so i over resolve 2k and getting some benefit for 4k. but i could tell the difference. the native jvc n7 is even smaller inter pixel gap. JVC has improved this form the previous gen again. it has a clarity and clean clear nature to the image ...pixel shifters cant match...

projector central did resolution shootout, can read background on it here,

and below the results,
I hope can see that the e-shifters epson 5050(9400) & jvc x790(7900) basically obliterate the mm lines on the scale...the DLP with their single chip(but still not native 4K), the DLP in the others do a bit better with a bit of a smudgy look and with some sort of a dotty-dash attempt. its only the native 4k n7 that actually has full mm lines to be seen... and as the test summary says contrast has a good part to play in this :) which is where the native 4k jvc and sony machines have the edge...but ofcourse for quite a jump up in price which folks have to weigh up ...

1624151236372.png
 

alebonau

Well-known Member
I’d take the Sony based on that.
main problem with that comparison and he mentions it quite a few times is the sony there is lumens limited at 1500 vs 1900 of the JVC. this is a problem for sony for HDR as will struggle to achieve lumens needed for HDR to do justice with even a 100" screen needing full power on the lamp...270es/290es still has this problem... the jvc being he e-shift also clearly lacks the dynamic tone mapping... the newer model has.

in the detail stakes what whelps the jvc there a lot its step up in contrast he also talks about.
 

metaloholic

Standard Member
I can bet that, from a normal viewing distance, when a 4k UHD disc runs, you will not be able to tell the difference between the resolution of that JVC eshiefter and a native 4k projector.

Eshieft projectors are not full hd projectors, even if they have a 1080p chip. The resolution and details they manage to offer is close ot native 4k when watching a movie.

Sure, on test patterns you will tell the difference quite easy but not so much whan watching a movie.

Static resolution and motion resolution are two completely different thing. None of those projectors, regardless of the price, is able to keep full resolution in motion, especially in 24p movies. On TV's the situation is much worse in this regard so projectors are still the kings of motion resolution and I belive they will continue to be for a long time.

Ted Bollinger did a very intersting comparison here between X7900 and Sony 385. You can see that eshieft 5 technology is very close to native 4k in terms of details.

Epson has the same technology but the pixel grid is different than those of JVC and Sony not becouse of the resolution but becouse of how LCD panels are built. So an eshifter projector with D-ILA will have less screen door effect becouse the pixels are larger than LCD's, but the price is also much higher.

Personally I sit fairly close, 3 m away from 120 inch screen, and I'm completely satisfied with Epson's resolution.

My problem with the eshift is that i can´t stand the "flickering" what the pixel shifters does. it´s not as bad as an active flashing 3d or rbe on 1-chippers but it causes discomfort in the level of not calm to watch. I chose to get 2 N5´s, the price is a quite ridicilous but luckily im atleast amazed how good the 1080p content looks upscaled in dual pj setup. im using 45/135 linear polarizers. im yet to test my omega white light filtter. there is light enough with my screen to use them also. but we will see.
for me the jvc over sony became down to the fact i still can´t rely on sxrd panels. It´s stupid but that´s it was this time. I hope sony gets praised over the newer panels over the next 10 years so when it´s time to refresh the projectors i can evaluate the situation with more fresh set of information.
 

Harold88

Member
I hope can see that the e-shifters epson 5050(9400) & jvc x790(7900) basically obliterate the mm lines on the scale.

What is the point in looking at that scale?

These projectors are ment to be used for movies, not for test patterns or reading text.
 

alebonau

Well-known Member
What is the point in looking at that scale?

These projectors are ment to be used for movies, not for test patterns or reading text.
hey look at what ever takes your fancy and makes you happy... everyone gets their jollies in their own ways :D

what the above tests show ? perhaps worth reading the back ground in the first "explaining the tech and tests" link i provided and also the commentary that also linked to in the second article that discussed the results. and no they aren't patterns they are actual photos and how rendered by the projectors

I totally understand if you see no point...in which case certainly just ignore them :D theres is no point even passing comment on them :D but I do see a point as happens and it cleary shows how the projectors and tech they use render detail and real detail in this case not a digital pattern :)
 

Harold88

Member
hey look at what ever takes your fancy and makes you happy...

Let's make it clear, it's not about what makes me happy. If there was no question about budget, I would take any day a native 4k panel instead of a near 4k one if there were no downsides. But unfortunately there are.

The question is what we give and what we take and how much benefits we have on the screen in the end for a certain amount of money.

The problem is that after X7900/x9900 there was no other projector able to deliver OLED blacks. Steve says the same thing in his review about NX7, that the new native 4k delivers black but not as black as older X seriers.

The native 4k panels offers a cleaner image compared to eshift but in terms of details you can see during a movie they are extremely close. You can see all details in face closeup for example with eshift, there is no question about that. Sure, the image is not as clean as a native 4k but the 4k details are there to be observed.

But enough with that couse we are on Sony thread. Here is much more simple since Sony improved contrast and black levels with each new series so there is no question about going back to the older Sony models.
 
Last edited:

Luminated67

Distinguished Member
I can bet that, from a normal viewing distance, when a 4k UHD disc runs, you will not be able to tell the difference between the resolution of that JVC eshiefter and a native 4k projector.

Eshieft projectors are not full hd projectors, even if they have a 1080p chip. The resolution and details they manage to offer is close ot native 4k when watching a movie.

Sure, on test patterns you will tell the difference quite easy but not so much whan watching a movie.

Static resolution and motion resolution are two completely different thing. None of those projectors, regardless of the price, is able to keep full resolution in motion, especially in 24p movies. On TV's the situation is much worse in this regard so projectors are still the kings of motion resolution and I belive they will continue to be for a long time.

Ted Bollinger did a very intersting comparison here between X7900 and Sony 385. You can see that eshieft 5 technology is very close to native 4k in terms of details.

Epson has the same technology but the pixel grid is different than those of JVC and Sony not becouse of the resolution but becouse of how LCD panels are built. So an eshifter projector with D-ILA will have less screen door effect becouse the pixels are larger than LCD's, but the price is also much higher.

Personally I sit fairly close, 3 m away from 120 inch screen, and I'm completely satisfied with Epson's resolution.

Totally agree, if you intend to use your projector to run spread sheet, graphs or the written word from the likes of a PC then I would disregard all others and go right ahead and buy a native 4K but if it’s solely movie watching the differences between 2K and 4K because blurred as to whether you can see the difference from normal viewing distances. And this is one of the reasons why I haven’t pulled the trigger and bought myself a native 4K, as @alebonau said there is a difference but it’s really small IMHO and it’s up to each one of us whether we feel this slight improvement for movie watching is worth it’s sizeable outlay.
 

alebonau

Well-known Member
The problem is that after X7900/x9900 there was no other projector able to deliver OLED blacks. Steve says the same thing in his review about NX7, that the new native 4k delivers black but not as black as older X seriers.
incase you missed my post earlier and I am a prior X7000 owner who moved to N7, I do have perspective of both :)

i went from e-shift jvc x7000 to native 4k jvc n7. to me at my viewing distance not sure what "normal" is but i sit at THX spec 41deg for immersion so i over resolve 2k and getting some benefit for 4k. but i could tell the difference. the native jvc n7 is even smaller inter pixel gap. JVC has improved this form the previous gen again. it has a clarity and clean clear nature to the image ...pixel shifters cant match...

Let's make it clear, it's not about what makes me happy. If there was no question about budget, I would take any day a native 4k panel instead of a near 4k one if there were no downsides. But unfortunately there are.
I have in making the actual move not seen any downside sorry moving to native 4K machine...only upsides...

But enough with that couse we are on Sony thread. Here is much more simple since so there is no question about going back to the older Sony models.
am not too sure actually...I dont think the sony have done much between the 570es and 590es as there is minor between 270es and 290es which his topic of this thread ... would you go back probably not...but if could get a 270es at discount its probably worth going for over a 290 :)

am sorry but i havent seen evidence of what you are saying here " Sony improved contrast and black levels with each new series" can you provide some evidence of this ? apart from iris programming between models... i havent seen evidence of anything else ....
 

alebonau

Well-known Member
Totally agree, if you intend to use your projector to run spread sheet, graphs or the written word from the likes of a PC then I would disregard all others and go right ahead and buy a native 4K but if it’s solely movie watching the differences between 2K and 4K because blurred as to whether you can see the difference from normal viewing distances. And this is one of the reasons why I haven’t pulled the trigger and bought myself a native 4K, as @alebonau said there is a difference but it’s really small IMHO and it’s up to each one of us whether we feel this slight improvement for movie watching is worth it’s sizeable outlay.
sorry but moving between x7000 and n7 was not a "really small" move quite frankly. I can understand folks justifying their own decisions and what makes sense to themselves though... that is clearly upto each and every person.

I myself have really appreciated the step in upgrades i have seen with every projector from couple of epsons to x35 to x7000 to n7. I have never upgraded every year or every model infact have usually missed quite a few releases in between upgrading every 3-4 years, infact last update had owned projector 4.5 years . for me it was worth the move each time and i tend to consider these carefully....and happy with my decision... as am sure other folks will carefully consider and be happy with what ever they might go for...

coming back to subject of this thread going from say 270es to 290es ...from my understanding the difference is "really small" so not really sure be worth it... but again folks can compare and decide for themselves...once seen for them selves really doesnt matter what anyone else thinks :)
 

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: Panasonic JZ2000 Final Thoughts - TV Calibration: Should you? And More...
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

What's new on UK streaming services for December 2021
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Best Projectors of 2021 - Editor's Choice Awards
  • By Steve Withers
  • Published
Black Friday 2021: What you need to know
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
What's new on Blu-ray Special - The Cinema of Zhang Yimou & Gong Li
  • By Mark Costello
  • Published
AVForums Podcast: 24th November 2021
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom