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

Harold88

Member
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...

Older Sony projectors had a nasty issue with panel degradation. There are multiple reports of people having contrast drop after 2000-3000 h.

From my understanding they worked to solve this problem in 270es and it should be even less of a problem in 290es.
 

alebonau

Well-known Member
I understand that but X7000 had eshieft 4.

X7900 was equiped with eshift 5 which was a better, newer, technology.
I think you will find folk with real experience e-shift 4 vs e-shift 5 was 2 fifths of stuff all.

the xx00 across the gen were very minor iterations between models ... infact for most folk there was really no point upgrading.. this was the big call out folks had vs jvc between the models where they were bringing them out year upon year and it was so minor it might as well have been firmware updates(why they changed approach of firmware updated with N series)... I know plenty folk (like me) didnt bother upgrading from x7000 to either x7500 or x7900 for instance as it really was so minor not worth it...

If you want to believe shift to shift 5 was significant step up, most welcome to believe that ofcourse...

Older Sony projectors had a nasty issue with panel degradation. There are multiple reports of people having contrast drop after 2000-3000 h.

From my understanding they worked to solve this problem in 270es and it should be even less of a problem in 290es.

sorry i have not seen any such claims of improvements like this from sony, certainly there is no such claim at all with this new 290es vs 270es... main claimed fame is the new x1 for projector chip, not sure really much else different apart from software.
 

DB9S

Well-known Member
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 ....
Same marketing stuff they bring up every year. Not changed in a long time.
 

Luminated67

Distinguished Member
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.
You can also argue that you are justifying your decision to change in the same way I am justifying mine to not. ;)

I can’t speak for the N7 as I haven’t seen it yet but the 360es which was my reference point and the machine I compared directly with my 9400 in my own room didn’t impress me to the level I wanted to jump on the 4K bandwagon. Maybe there’s a bigger difference between the x7000 and the N7 than there was with the 9400 and 360es. 🤔
 

alebonau

Well-known Member
You can also argue that you are justifying your decision to change in the same way I am justifying mine to not. ;)
hi luminated, as i said in my post... justify anyways you want, it really doest bother me. as what ever id do shouldn't matter to you... do what ever you feel is justified and be happy :)

I really dont get the concern folks have for others choices. folks will relay their own thoughts choice and justification but folks have all the choice to do as please and do as they see fit to make their own decisions. And I certainly hope they do and I respect their choices...

I can’t speak for the N7 as I haven’t seen it yet but the 360es which was my reference point and the machine I compared directly with my 9400 in my own room didn’t impress me to the level I wanted to jump on the 4K bandwagon. Maybe there’s a bigger difference between the x7000 and the N7 than there was with the 9400 and 360es. 🤔
THE real problem with the 300ES series is I know for fact Javs and i spent quite a bit of time and well documented on our home forum with us comparing and gues what the x7000 of mine actually did better for detail with actual movies and real material. but I do think the sony lenses at time were sh*te ! also all that processing sony had that couldn't even be defeated... while some people are so anti patterns the 300es couldn't actually even display these properly ...again I believe processing related... guess what javs moved from his native sony to jvc X series...and for good reason...

I myself kept my x7000 quite a few years...didnt even jump on the n7 on first release infact about 12 months went by. I had my own concerns and careful comparisons were needed for my own due diligence before taking the step we are very lucky with retailers here with decent side by side comparisons possible. and infact even then i was still concerned what things would be like with the n7 if got it... all because how much enjoyed the x7000...however all my concerns were wiped away when i got my n7 and even more so when the first DTM update came and then the 2nd and when got my n7 pro calibrated...absolutely no looking back for me now ...but thats my experience...

I cna understand why folk wouldnt get a 300es or 360es for matter today vs a epson 9400. I totally expect folk go do their own due diligence. buy what ever or keep what ever happy with .... its their money and their happiness thats most important :)
 

Harold88

Member
Maybe there’s a bigger difference between the x7000 and the N7 than there was with the 9400 and 360es. 🤔

That Sony has double native contrast compared to TW9400. Also the pixel grid is much better on the Sony compared to Epson so if you were not able to spot the differences there I don't belive you would be able to do it between two JVC's from 7 series, where the differences are much smaller.
 
I have a dedicated batcave and use a HTPC MadVR for tonemapping with my JVC x9500. I just don't see any value upgrading to a N7 right now.

If I didn't have a blacked out room and HTPC, I can see the value in upgrading to a N7.
 

Luminated67

Distinguished Member
That Sony has double native contrast compared to TW9400. Also the pixel grid is much better on the Sony compared to Epson so if you were not able to spot the differences there I don't belive you would be able to do it between two JVC's from 7 series, where the differences are much smaller.
I use the dynamic contrast mode on the Epson which greatly affects how much contrast it’s capable of producing so that might have blurred to lines between the 360es having double the contrast. As for the better pixel grid, we were using a 100” 16:9 screen and my set viewing distance of 9-9.5ft depending on whether seat was upright or reclined, if it were just me saying I couldn’t see the difference then I wouldn’t have continued to bring it up but it was me, the owner of the Sony and two of my kids who were in their late teens, all of us felt the same way and in fact it took us all to move to within 7ft from the screen to start and see the trade off of the pixels grid and count, by 6ft though it was plain as day the Sony was superior.

On that occasion the owner of the Sony conceded that he wished he had bought the Epson and pocketed the difference.

I have only recently seen the x5900 with e-shift and again my opinion but I didn’t like how it’s image looks soft, maybe there is adjustments to improve this but based on what I saw I again would prefer to stick with the Epson. I know making the switch to the N series I wouldn’t make that purchase based on blind faith, I would need to see it in person and full enjoy what I see.
 

Stridsvognen

Well-known Member
I use the dynamic contrast mode on the Epson which greatly affects how much contrast it’s capable of producing so that might have blurred to lines between the 360es having double the contrast. As for the better pixel grid, we were using a 100” 16:9 screen and my set viewing distance of 9-9.5ft depending on whether seat was upright or reclined, if it were just me saying I couldn’t see the difference then I wouldn’t have continued to bring it up but it was me, the owner of the Sony and two of my kids who were in their late teens, all of us felt the same way and in fact it took us all to move to within 7ft from the screen to start and see the trade off of the pixels grid and count, by 6ft though it was plain as day the Sony was superior.

On that occasion the owner of the Sony conceded that he wished he had bought the Epson and pocketed the difference.

I have only recently seen the x5900 with e-shift and again my opinion but I didn’t like how it’s image looks soft, maybe there is adjustments to improve this but based on what I saw I again would prefer to stick with the Epson. I know making the switch to the N series I wouldn’t make that purchase based on blind faith, I would need to see it in person and full enjoy what I see.
Its not unusual that people would define higher pixelfill/ higher resolution as softer, the X5900 looks the best with e shift off in my opinion, remember it has significantly higher pixel fill, so don't need the eshift compared to the epson, I can understand that the SONY 360 might be a tough projector to like, its a quite horrible machine, and on top of that it comes with a factory warranty that contrast will degrade.
 

Harold88

Member
Maby the projector was out of focus? Who knows if the owner was able to set it coreclty.

Also that x5900 needs eshift do display 4k content so you can't just ignore it :)
 

Stridsvognen

Well-known Member
Maby the projector was out of focus? Who knows if the owner was able to set it coreclty.

Also that x5900 needs eshift do display 4k content so you can't just ignore it :)
Sure you can ignore 4K totally and play the 1080P edition of the movie, with the proper dynamic range mastering, and 1:1 pixel mapping to the projector, I have done that for years, no problem ignoring eshift at all.
 

Stridsvognen

Well-known Member
But bt2020 colors are sweet like honey for our eyes if they are displayed properly.
Thats the least to worry about, and with WCG and HDRcomes lower contrast/ less dynamic.
Most content in a HDR movie is still inside REC 709, ill bet you would not be able to see the difference in a blind test, and if you really want more saturated colors just oversaturate your 1080P movie, that's a bit what I see in HDR mastering even displayed in Rec709
 

Harold88

Member
I don't like oversaturated colors, I like natural colors. I have tested a lot of movies in both 1080p and 4k version.

There is no question for me, everything from skintones to suroundings look much better when displayed with bt 2020, although I have come to the conclusion that it's better to convert HDR-SDR and preserve bt2020 at a luminance around 150 nits, rathan than watching straight HDR.
 

Stridsvognen

Well-known Member
I don't like oversaturated colors, I like natural colors. I have tested a lot of movies in both 1080p and 4k version.

There is no question for me, everything from skintones to suroundings look much better when displayed with bt 2020, although I have come to the conclusion that it's better to convert HDR-SDR and preserve bt2020 at a luminance around 150 nits, rathan than watching straight HDR.
Thats odd, as skin colors is way inside rec709, sounds like a calibration issue, how do your rec 709 and P3 track?
With the JVC ill recommend a 2,35-2,4 power gamma, and special focus to 80% saturation of rec 709. Would be curious to see how yours track BT2020/ P3
 

Stridsvognen

Well-known Member
Sure I can, just watch the intro of Mad Max Fury Road in 1080p BD Disc and 4k UHD Disc. It's night and day difference.

Thei was only one example as it was used in many tests.
No doubt its different, the question is whats right, and ill guess the 1080P is closer to right, whatever you like or prefer is subjective, so cant be discussed.
 

Stridsvognen

Well-known Member
I don't have measuring tools.
Do you have calibration reports from when you got the 2 profiles calibrated? And how long ago was that?
 

Harold88

Member
Well I loaded the calibration done by Alaric since we have both roughly the same screen size and type, throw distance and room type.

I know it's not optimal but it was the best I could do.

1080p rec 709 look fine, there is nothing wrong but i preffer bt 2020 when it's available as the overal movie image is much more spectacular without having more saturated colors.
 

Stridsvognen

Well-known Member
Well I loaded the calibration done by Alaric since we have both roughly the same screen size and type, throw distance and room type.

I know it's not optimal but it was the best I could do.
Thats kind of compleetly usless on JVC, so what we can conclude is that its a subjective liking not knowing whats up or down, and that's a general issue, most people don't have a clue what they are looking at, other that it involves light and colors.
 

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 Blu-ray Special - The Cinema of Zhang Yimou & Gong Li
  • By Mark Costello
  • Published
Black Friday 2021: What you need to know
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
AVForums Podcast: 24th November 2021
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
Panasonic 2021 TV update brings full 4K resolution with VRR and HFR
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Best Hi-Fi Products of 2021 - Editor's Choice Awards
  • By Ed Selley
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom