NEWS: Sony launches two new Native 4K SXRD Laser Home projectors

Rickyj at Kalibrate

Distinguished Member
AVForums Sponsor
all sounds very sensible Ricky - i guess we are all looking for something 4k native with a laser light source with NZ7 performance at half the price - we can but dream
It will come, but may just take more time... :)
 

jakimp

Distinguished Member
It will come, but may just take more time... :)
i can wait Ricky - i still have the new bulb you supplied to fit in my N5 so i guess my need for a new PJ is not urgent - yet!
 

Rickyj at Kalibrate

Distinguished Member
AVForums Sponsor
Uh oh the JVC black floor has been toppled! The JVC looked flat out boring. You can call it filmic and squint all you like, I'll take the Sony's detail and lack of colour crush thanks!
It does look like RC is on though.
Damn 5000 Vs 12000b now!


I would not read too much into this. Both the Sony and JVC have good calibrated gradation. JVC was better on previous generations. You can tell these have not been set up properly due to the colour differences. At SDR they should be fairly close.

As for the black. All the measured contrast figures floating around do not support the Sony being darker on blacks, so I wonder if there is dynamic lasers running differently etc.

Time will tell, but do not read too much into it yet. ;)
 

jakimp

Distinguished Member
I would not read too much into this. Both the Sony and JVC have good calibrated gradation. JVC was better on previous generations. You can tell these have not been set up properly due to the colour differences. At SDR they should be fairly close.

As for the black. All the measured contrast figures floating around do not support the Sony being darker on blacks, so I wonder if there is dynamic lasers running differently etc.

Time will tell, but do not read too much into it yet. ;)
i also wondered about the comparison as the JVC NZ7 looked awful - my N5 with 2150 on its first bulb looks miles better
 

3t3p

Active Member


use auto-translate
liquid cooling?!
says lens is v sharp, amongst the sharpest.
not sure what final P3 was but he seemed happy with it.
If it's as quiet as the ls12000b then for me it's if I can live without UHD 120fps, probably I can but I know my RTX3080 wants to put RDR2 onto the big screen at higher than 60fps!
 

bandyka

Member
: ) : ) I know what you meant and SONY's marketing department always did the same. But probably theirs new lasers give us a very good picture quality.

590ES & 790ES users are very happy with PQ and we can expect PQ improvements in the new lasers.

Now you can access to an bulb based 590ES for 6999€. New scenario bring us the chance to access a better PQ than 590ES for 1000€ less and laser source.
Yes, I see your point however a laser engine won't make up for cheap optics and hand adjusted zoom. When you look at options from the competition its hard to justify getting one of these logically. Need to wait for more reviews and owner experiences though. Contrast will be a big deciding factor form some.
 
Last edited:

bandyka

Member
£6k and £15k is enthusiast-only money IMO. Easy to lose sight of that when we've all been into this sort of gear for half a lifetime. But Joe Bloggs isn't going to dump £15k on a projector, or even £6k.
Yes and no. I personally know heaps of folks who have the money and do fork out for these not knowing anything at all about the "backend" but they want to be able to brag about their setup, then when they come over and see my cave they all call me for a calibration and setup :)
 

kenshingintoki

Distinguished Member
That is an interesting expectation. Not saying you are wrong, but there is quite a bit of change in the main parts of the projector (lens and SXRD chips), missing iris (unconfirmed at the moment), that may mean whilst brightness is up, other things could suffer. Only time will tell.



Dolby Vision is not going to happen any time soon, but this is a limitation of Dolby, as they have not produced standards or specifications for home projectors, so no projector can be certified for it at this point. If 3D is important, I would not wait to long, we are already seeing it being dropped from some new projectors, and I expect it will be dropped from more new models in the future. It is a dying format unfortunately.


Hopefully it is resolved now. The chip is much better with around 3x the processing power of the previous generation, so they should have the power to do it now.



I had a quick look, and did wonder if some of the perceived increase in sharpness is actually reality creation. On a bigger screen this may look to digital/artificial.

I am not trying to rain on anyone's parade, but trying to keep things realistic, as there is too much hype around products at the moment, these Sony's were one, the Epson Lasers before, and only creates unrealistic expectations. We are certainly looking forward to getting a Sony in for demo/testing in the next few months.


Reality creation was set at 40 which is pretty god damn high, so you're right Ricky.

If they played some 1080p or 720p content, the reality creation would have destroyed the image.
 

kenshingintoki

Distinguished Member
Uh oh the JVC black floor has been toppled! The JVC looked flat out boring. You can call it filmic and squint all you like, I'll take the Sony's detail and lack of colour crush thanks!
It does look like RC is on though.
Damn 5000 Vs 12000b now!




Not sure if you're being serious but neither were calibrated, the Sony had reality creation on which is just an extreme sharpening filter whilst the JVC didn't, the JVC had their 8K e=shift which @Strids has already reported can cause blurring.

The black level comparison is interesting and shocking but again, probably a setup feature issue because JVC's can come overbrightened out of the box. Mine did (press the hide button and the hide screen is darker than the full black screen sample image). Easily fixed.

Filmic wise, both the Sony and JVC use much higher end less perceivable pixel structures than the competition so I don't know anyone who calls JVC's more filmic than a Sony, they're about equal.

I'd just wait for measurements at this point as that video is very dubious.

Would not be surprised if some of these dealers are pushing Sony to push stock in all honesty as JVC's supply chain looks poor and the margins on JVC look lower than Sony (Sonys bigger company, always going on sale, more aggressive pricing these days, had some excellent 790ES sales).

The fact they undermined dynamic tone mapping was a bit eye rolling as we all know how important it is by now.

Also the projectors were NOT brightness matched, so if the JVC was brighter than the Sony substnaitally, then of course the blacks were be brighter too.

Wait for someone like @Rickyj at Kalibrate to post honest measurements.
 

Slinkywizard

Distinguished Member
With an 870, coupled with a Lumagen, it's really hard to see how I can improve the images I already get anyway, so definitely not interested in these models. If I want a proper upgrade I'd best start saving for a Christie Eclipse.
 

geogan

Well-known Member
Why is there no mention of the middle model here, the XW6000ES, which I hear from Sony is the step up model from the XW5000ES but with the much needed (for me anyway) motorized zoom/shift lens system.

Knowing Sony though they will probably add another 3K to the XW5000ES price though for the privilege of having this extra mechanism (which probably costs them very little to add - projector equivalent to a "go large" Burger King meal markup for a bit of extra free ice for the company).

Although from what I hear from current Sony owners, the motorized zoom/shift on current PJs is not accurate enough to be usable anyway - hear JVC is much better in this regard.

I did see a video review on some American dealer site where they demonstrated the manual zoom/shift and its same clunky manual two rollers mechanism as the bottom-end 45ES etc models... they even mentioned this. Also the dials are under a closed flap door this time.

I watched the American dealer video above comparing the JVC... the Sony image definitely looked way better there - the JVC looked blurred by comparison - but maybe they had max Reality Creation on.
 
Last edited:

Harold88

Member
The black level comparison is interesting and shocking but again, probably a setup feature issue because JVC's can come overbrightened out of the box.

Also could be that they got a bad unit from JVC.

If you get a trash unit I don't think it's impossible to have the contrast smaller than a Sony.
 

kungfuman

Well-known Member
Why is there no mention of the middle model here, the XW6000ES, which I hear from Sony is the step up model from the XW5000ES but with the much needed (for me anyway) motorized zoom/shift lens system.

the XW6000ES appears to be a US exclusive model. shame as i think it would sell quite well in the UK/EU market.
 

geogan

Well-known Member
the XW6000ES appears to be a US exclusive model. shame as i think it would sell quite well in the UK/EU market.

What? No way... can't believe that. Why would Sony Europe think that none of us want motorized lens unless we pay them 15+ grand for the privilege? They must be just holding it back for a few extra months to try and sell a load of XW5000ES first. Like every generation NVidia selling X080 to enthusiasts before they release the X080Ti model many months later.
 
Last edited:

kenshingintoki

Distinguished Member
If you get a trash unit I don't think it's impossible to have the contrast smaller than a Sony.

Doubt it. Never heard of a measurement of a jvc being as low as a Sony and I’m sure they can tell a faulty unit as they are a revolutionary Av company who have invented their own hand calibration methods
 

Harold88

Member
Never heard of a measurement of a jvc being as low as a Sony

Search database of Projector Reviews Archives - ProjectionDream.com

For example JVC DLA-X5000: Review of the projector! - ProjectionDream.com on/off just under 12000:1

They claim the Sony 520 they had was better for contrast Review Projector Sony VPL-VW520ES - Projectiondream.com with 15000:1

So it's the same room, same guys, same tools, same method, it's not like we are looking at something different.
 
Last edited:

kenshingintoki

Distinguished Member
Search database of Projector Reviews Archives - ProjectionDream.com

For example JVC DLA-X5000: Review of the projector! - ProjectionDream.com on/off just under 12000:1

They claim the Sony 520 they had was better for contrast Review Projector Sony VPL-VW520ES - Projectiondream.com with 15000:1

So it's the same room, same guys, same tools, same method, it's not like we are looking at something different.


Find some evidence of a JVC N series or NZ series model having a lower contrast than a Sony model.
 
Last edited:

Harold88

Member
I am not a detective to search for evidences :D

Unfortunately those guys closed the shop long ago. It's a pity.

If you think it's not possible than by all means belive it!
 

kenshingintoki

Distinguished Member
I am not a detective to search for evidences :D

Unfortunately those guys closed the shop long ago. It's a pity.

Well you did a fair bit of digging to go to a review site from 2016.

Common sense being applied, I don't think comparing a £9,000 to pro line Sony to a £3999 entry level JVC is very sensible. I believe in those situations, the JVC is probably bettered and not due to sample variation but probably because it was an entry level projector versus the best of the best from Sony at the time which would make more sense.

I think more apples to apples comparisons would make more sense.
 

kenshingintoki

Distinguished Member
Hopefully Sony have made contrast leaps tbh. Its not like they're a low-contrast projector manufacturer like Epson.

The gap is obviously closer than what some JVC owners would want to make out.

JVC halved their contrast numbers going to the N or at least darastically decreased them from the X so if Sony have closed the gap, I'm personally very happy and excited because their noise floor is much better and I'd love to blast the projector on high lamp/laser.

However for that video review, they seem like cowboys in how they've just opened them up out of the box and then told the world they 'hand calibrated' the machines. Maybe I'm being harsh on them. 99% chance its due to them rather than the 1% they have a diaststarous sample.
 

Harold88

Member
Well you did a fair bit of digging to go to a review site from 2016.

Actually I have read that site from top to bottom long ago so it's natural to remember some stuff from there. I was not ,,searching for evidences'' to prove anything as I have absolutely nothing to gain or to lose here.
 
Last edited:

Slinkywizard

Distinguished Member
Although from what I hear from current Sony owners, the motorized zoom/shift on current PJs is not accurate enough to be usable anyway - hear JVC is much better in this regard.
I think you mean lens memory. The zoom/shift/focus itself is highly accurate on all models (and I've had 'em all pretty much). But yes, some models have struggled with accurate lens memory.
 

3t3p

Active Member
10:42 again blacker floor than JVC.

 

geogan

Well-known Member
I think you mean lens memory. The zoom/shift/focus itself is highly accurate on all models (and I've had 'em all pretty much). But yes, some models have struggled with accurate lens memory.

What I mean is, I heard the older motorized Sony models did not have very accurate - as in repeatable - zoom/focus/shift, so if you try to use on say a constant-image-area screen (not constant-image-height so the 16:9 mode is taller than the 2.40:1 mode) and were swapping back and forth between the wide 2.40:1 aspect and a zoomed 16:9 aspect, it did not always return to exactly the same position every time.

By this I mean if you saved these two positions in lens memory, and tried to jump back and forth between the two lens memory positions, it did not accurately go back to exactly where you set the lens memory to go to. Which IMO completely defeats the entire point of lens memory.

I don't know, maybe this is irrelevant for most people who just buy a 2.40:1 screen or a 16:9 screen and zoom to one position and leave it there, but I definitely could not watch a 16:9 movie in centre of 2.40:1 screen where it is way smaller, especially when a lot of the new blockbusters are in 16:9 or even less eg 4:3 for that DC movie. Basically I will be constructing a custom IMAX ratio floor-to-ceiling screen and masking for all movie ratios needed after that. So I need a projector to be accurately able to go between all ratios on this screen... ie 2.40:1 (and all the minor variations of this), 16:9, 4:3

I am also a bit annoyed about the very limited wide angle available on all these home PJs - I could have much bigger screen if they went wider - for 2.40:1 I use maximum wide, and screen is still not really big enough even from 4.5m throw distance.

I think the lenses they all seem to use have way too much on the "zoom" end that nobody uses - most of the time we at at the maximum "wide" end of the lens. Wish they would choose better lenses for home use - eg. instead of 70-200 (35mm equivalent) zoom they gave us 35-100 zoom lenses which go much wider.

Maybe these lenses the ship on PJs by default suit US rooms which are much bigger than European/UK rooms.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Samsung S95B QD-OLED Review - A Quantum Leap for OLED!
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

Amazon Prime Day 2022: 12-13 July
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
PSB Speakers unveils Passif 50 loudspeaker
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Samsung Gaming Hub goes live
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Huawei unveils FreeBuds Pro 2 true wireless earbuds
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom