82 replies to this topic

[blybo]

Sooo, after all the stupidity over certain group buys has anybody got out there and actually demo'ed these projectors and found street pricing yet?

I'm pretty time poor of late, finding it hard to finish off my HT room never mind finding time to go and suss these things out when a new replacement still seems quite some way off.

Would still like other members feedback though... Particularly the x30

Edited by blybo, 07 March 2012 - 11:51 AM.

[webbsy]

I have seen the x90 and my god its the best picture i have ever seen on a projector, the black level and colour contrast is awesome and the 3d wasnt to shabby either, havnt seen the 4k stuff but my god you wouldnt even need it.

Not a technical review but personal opinion.

[OzHTfan]

webbsy, on 08 March 2012 - 04:19 AM, said:

I have seen the x90 and my god its the best picture i have ever seen on a projector, the black level and colour contrast is awesome and the 3d wasnt to shabby either, havnt seen the 4k stuff but my god you wouldnt even need it.

Not a technical review but personal opinion.

You haven't seen the Sony VW1000 I'm guessing though. Real 4K, not pixel shifted, plus 1600 lumens+ calibrated. 3D out of it is cinema quality. Of course with a lot higher street than the X90 (depending on the JVC distrib's local markup vs OS RRP being $US11k), poss nearly double.

Edited by OzHTfan, 12 March 2012 - 03:15 PM.

[cwt]

This is a review of the x30 equivalent blybo. If 3d isnt a priority [ lumen output wise and other factors spelt out by art ] its a great 2d proj    Factors like screen size and gain  may help things..

http://www.projector...m/jvc/dla-rs45/

[mmu16]

Just set up my X30 yesterday and haven't even played with the myriad different functions but boy does it deliver! I have checked the Epson 9000, Mitsu 7800D, Pana 7000 previously and personally I find the JVC offers the most realistic movie theatre experience out of the entire bunch.  For me, I found the Epson PQ to be too harsh/cold (more like an LED tv where movies look like documentaries/soaps), the Pana was better but suffered image 'drag' on fast moving scenes (so too did the Epson).  The Mitsu was actually very nice and had very natural colours, however didn't do terribly well in dark scenes (also prone to RBE if you are sensitive to it). I am a Sci-Fi fan hence contrast management is absolutely critical for me.  I also prefer 2D movies.  Throughout my trialling/testing programme I kept coming back to the JVC - the image is extremely natural and has a wonderful balance to its colour management.  My HT room is a not exactly a bat cave and i'm projecting onto a 140" scope and even in normal lamp mode the picture is plenty bright.  Its dead quiet too.  I'm planning on getting it professionally calibrated pretty soon so that I can get the best out of it.  Only downsides are the sheer size of the thing and lack of readily available mounts (most mounts are way too small for it).  I'll put up a more comprehensive review later on but if you value PQ more in line with a traditional movie theatre experience you will be hard pressed to find a better projector.

[MRCRIST]

OzHTfan, on 12 March 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

You haven't seen the Sony VW1000 I'm guessing though. Real 4K, not pixel shifted, plus 1600 lumens+ calibrated. 3D out of it is cinema quality. Of course with a lot higher street than the X90 (depending on the JVC distrib's local markup vs OS RRP being $US11k), poss nearly double.

Yes I agree the Sony is definitely King of the Hill.

[mmu16]

with a 25k price tag it better be!!

[OzHTfan]

MRCRIST, on 22 March 2012 - 07:45 PM, said:

Yes I agree the Sony is definitely King of the Hill.

mmu16, on 23 March 2012 - 01:53 PM, said:

with a 25k price tag it better be!!

At $25k remember, rather than making the somewhat stereotypical  aus comment it better be, remember its competing with the 'bs' price league barcos, runcos, christies, etc. not really the pixel shift new jvc units. Esp in light output and feature level. That's a $25k pure street too your quoting btw, I did some 5k better anyway cutting out  MSRP via drect dealing with Sony in my fortunate biz relation situ. There r guys on the US avsforum who have gone from lower existing range VW95s and forked, a few having tested the JVCs in house but didn't hesitate to justify the extra investment in the VW1000 for the performance jump all round from it. Another reason I prob interract so little these days locally on DTV, too many members either jealous of price comparisons vs genuine big perf gains even at the sig increased premium. Remember these things a designed to stick it to 4k barcos, so take that into account as well in the bigger cost pic. in that sense Sony has again brought the obscene high end market closer to the wider projector market. Proof seems to be in global demand, I am hearing prod is fighting to keep up an a price rise as a result of supply and demand in the US for them.

Edited by OzHTfan, 24 March 2012 - 01:08 AM.

[Highjinx]

OzHTfan, on 24 March 2012 - 12:53 AM, said:

At $25k remember, rather than making the somewhat stereotypical  aus comment it better be, remember its competing with the 'bs' price league barcos, runcos, christies, etc. not really the pixel shift new jvc units. Esp in light output and feature level. That's a $25k pure street too your quoting btw, I did some 5k better anyway cutting out  MSRP via drect dealing with Sony in my fortunate biz relation situ. There r guys on the US avsforum who have gone from lower existing range VW95s and forked, a few having tested the JVCs in house but didn't hesitate to justify the extra investment in the VW1000 for the performance jump all round from it. Another reason I prob interract so little these days locally on DTV, too many members either jealous of price comparisons vs genuine big perf gains even at the sig increased premium. Remember these things a designed to stick it to 4k barcos, so take that into account as well in the bigger cost pic. in that sense Sony has again brought the obscene high end market closer to the wider projector market. Proof seems to be in global demand, I am hearing prod is fighting to keep up an a price rise as a result of supply and demand in the US for them.

These are not mean't to compete with the Barcos, Sony's commercial projectors do that. This is the first 4k HT specific unit. The Sony SRX-R220/210 and the like compete with the Barcos' at 18000/13000 lumens respectively.

Agree this is a stella effort to bring 4k to the HT scene at a 'reasonable' price, but one must wonder what the benefit is if 4k source material is some years away. Next year JVC will more than likely add 4k inputs and I am willing to bet that E-shift 4k vs true 4k with a true 4k source, hardly anyone will be able to pick the difference. No different to a deinterlacing an interlaced signal well.

Sony have a long way to go to catch JVC's native CR. The VPL1000 has a native CR of 18000:1, far from JVC 120,000:1 native. There is no denying the Sony brightness will be of benefit for 130" -140" plus screens, but for folks with smaller screens, 1080p source material, the JVC will produce a better more dynamic image, irrespective of $$$ spent, not factoring in 3D of course where brightness is valuable.....the Sony will be better in motion handling dept due to it's faster panels. I know one can dial the brightness down by limiting the max aperture ith iris opens.....but the native CR is the native CR.

Sony is a great projector for any HT enthuasist with a large screen(130"+) who sits around 1 screen width away who has access to 4k material.......sitting at 1.5 screen widths with a 110 or so inch screen for movie viewing the JVC would be my primary choice for 2D 1080p sources. Waiting for an objective non commercial review, where these two are EQ'd for brightness and tested image quality, dynamic range etc.

If the Sony had JVC's native CR along with all else it offers.........then it would truely be the current HT King.

Edited by Highjinx, 24 March 2012 - 03:28 PM.

[Owen]

+1, I need more pixels like hole in the head, I cant see any pixel structure as it is. The ONLY thing that I hanker for is MUCH greater native contrast than JVC currently offers, 300,000:1 plus native is where I want to be.

The Sony is not doubt very impressive but the limited CR is a killer as far as I am concerned.

I very much doubt current projector technologies will be able to deliver that sort of contrast so I'm not holding my breath.

[OzHTfan]

Highjinx, on 24 March 2012 - 03:07 PM, said:

These are not mean't to compete with the Barcos, Sony's commercial projectors do that. This is the first 4k HT specific unit. The Sony SRX-R220/210 and the like compete with the Barcos' at 18000/13000 lumens respectively.

Agree this is a stella effort to bring 4k to the HT scene at a 'reasonable' price, but one must wonder what the benefit is if 4k source material is some years away. Next year JVC will more than likely add 4k inputs and I am willing to bet that E-shift 4k vs true 4k Pwith a true 4k source, hardly anyone will be able to pick the difference. No different to a deinterlacing an interlaced signal well.

Sony have a long way to go to catch JVC's native CR. The VPL1000 has a native CR of 18000:1, far from JVC 120,000:1 native. There is no denying the Sony brightness will be of benefit for 130" -140" plus screens, but for folks with smaller screens, 1080p source material, the JVC will produce a better more dynamic image, irrespective of $$$ spent, not factoring in 3D of course where brightness is valuable.....the Sony will be better in motion handling dept due to it's faster panels. I know one can dial the brightness down by limiting the max aperture ith iris opens.....but the native CR is the native CR.

Sony is a great projector for any HT enthuasist with a large screen(130"+) who sits around 1 screen width away who has access to 4k material.......sitting at 1.5 screen widths with a 110 or so inch screen for movie viewing the JVC would be my primary choice for 2D 1080p sources. Waiting for an objective non commercial review, where these two are EQ'd for brightness and tested image quality, dynamic range etc.

If the Sony had JVC's native CR along with all else it offers.........then it would truely be the current HT King.

Honestly, I get tired of this constantly pulled out native CR argument with the JVCs. It's really getting long in the tooth these days. It gets touted as a argument to justify JVCs lack of DI to date. The Dynamic Iris in the VW1000 is phenomenal, in auto-limited mode it does an incredible job. Detail levels at just inside 1.5 times screen width at 110" are worth it in as is. I'm movated myself now to move up 123" diag, even pre any real 4K material. It's already touted that 4K viewing material is not that far off as some people believe. Also I can add 3D is rendered at a level that no long feels inferior to cinema and is also worth the entry price of 1000. As for not competing at barco level 2k/4k and such projectors not being considered as high end home use in the HT market, I refute that. Take this particular avs'ers recent comment specifically:

Quote

thank you very much for sharing your experiences. I considered the Barco (2k/4k) as most likely uograde path for me but the Sony certainly is a very interesting option.

The VW1000 is the first projector I've been able to truly use as a feasible sports tv projector during the day and with a lit room. So there's more to it than being solely for those 'batcave' HT enthusiasts. The nature of my setup is always going to be compromised until the day I own a dedicated room. Although, that can be at catch 22 in itself if u are not inclined to want to always feel ur always locked away, sitting in a 'batcave' to watch your fav TV series every night and sports.

Dropping back in to comment here has again just proved me why I spend my time reading and contributing over on AVSforums over spending time here these days. It just ends up with a back and forth debate here about why not to spend the $$ on cutting edge premium HT, just because it's above what's considered doable here. HT tall poppy syndrome. A remark to enlighten the Oz members that there more than the new just JVC offerings and perhaps that some posters may not have seen all that's out there currently in the latest projs , only in the end enlicteds reactions that Sony is so much higher a budget level as to make it impossible to compare and then the old chestnut about native CR justifications.

Owen, on 24 March 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

+1, I need more pixels like hole in the head, I cant see any pixel structure as it is. The ONLY thing that I hanker for is MUCH greater native contrast than JVC currently offers, 300,000:1 plus native is where I want to be.

The Sony is not doubt very impressive but the limited CR is a killer as far as I am concerned.

I very much doubt current projector technologies will be able to deliver that sort of contrast so I'm not holding my breath.

Owen my old Sony rearpro comrade, not you too still on this native CR bandwagon! I understand your arguments going back to the days when our large screen paths diverged with my entry into replacing my SXRD 70" with a VW projector, twas a massive compromise in CR- with DI( you can't be too hypocritical, you know the SXRD TV worked bloody well with its early version DI). But times have changed mate and so has the material we view. I want to see Bluray upscaled and experience BD 3D, and even my fav Mkv's at 110" and soon a hopefully 123", pixels and all! All I can say is seriously for those who want to sit in the viewing environment I've set up now and poke holes, go for it. I'll just keep enjoying it and night after night. As I've heard said on so many forums so many times, you can fence it and watch the technology get better and better or catch the smaller waves along the way and very occasionally $$ provided, drop in on a new tech surge as it kicks off.

Edited by OzHTfan, 24 March 2012 - 10:44 PM.

[Owen]

Unfortunately times have not changed, a dynamic iris will only ever make bright scenes brighter and dark scenes darker, it can NEVER improve contrast ratio in ANY scene because for any scene or average picture level the dynamic iris is fixed and has no effect on in scene CR.

A dynamic iris and associated dynamic gamma result in dynamic distortion, while a modest amount can be of benefit and Sony are quite good with its implementation, it's nothing like a high native contrast ratio and never will be.

The dynamic iris implementation of the old Sony 70" SXRD was very poor originally with noticeable pumping and brightness fluctuations, thats why I reprogramming the iris operation of mine and the result was much more acceptable.
When my SXRD was repaired recently the main control board was replaced along with the optical block, with the new firmware the dynamic iris works very well and I feel no need to reprogram it, however in scene contrast is no better than it ever was and its no where near that of the X3 even in a non ideal viewing environment.

The ONLY aspect of performance I am looking to improve with my X3 is a very significant increase in native contrast ratio, in other respects of performance the JVC is more than good enough for my use.

Edited by Owen, 24 March 2012 - 11:08 PM.

[Highjinx]

OzHTfan, on 24 March 2012 - 09:39 PM, said:

Honestly, I get tired of this constantly pulled out native CR argument with the JVCs. It's really getting long in the tooth these days. It gets touted as a argument to justify JVCs lack of DI to date. The Dynamic Iris in the VW1000 is phenomenal, in auto-limited mode it does an incredible job. Detail levels at just inside 1.5 times screen width at 110" are worth it in as is. I'm movated myself now to move up 123" diag, even pre any real 4K material. It's already touted that 4K viewing material is not that far off as some people believe. Also I can add 3D is rendered at a level that no long feels inferior to cinema and is also worth the entry price of 1000. As for not competing at barco level 2k/4k and such projectors not being considered as high end home use in the HT market, I refute that. Take this particular avs'ers recent comment specifically:

Unfortunately a dynamic iris no matter how good cannot make up for lack of native contrast, agree it can look pretty good, but not as good as native.......as I've said before high native CR and a dynamic iris used only in very low APL scenes will be stella. JVC could add an iris but high native is their primary  marketing point. However it appears laser illumination is quite close and possibly with dynamic dimming, if scanning laser either direct screen or chip scanning, then local dimming may come into play, giving us major CR improvements both ANSI and on/off without an iris.

As you say 3D must be super on a 100-110" screen.

Owen 300,000:1 sounds nice!. Have you done any work to determine what the black level needs to be for the human eye to perceive it as being black when the eyes iris is fully open?

[Owen]

I have not done any definitive tests but considering a setup with 9ftl peak brightness and about 50,000:1 native contrast gives a black level of about 0.0002ftl and thats not even close to black for me with a full black screen, I would say somewhere around 1,000,000:1 would be required before the eye would see black as truly black, especially if peak white is around 15ftl.

Obviously as average picture level rises the eyes ability to see true black rapidly diminishes so about 300,000:1 native should be good enough for anything short of a full black screen.

A laser scanning display that can turn the lasers off completely for areas of the screen that need it (like CRT could do) would provide infinite contrast.

Edited by Owen, 26 March 2012 - 11:57 AM.

[OzHTfan]

Highjinx, on 25 March 2012 - 06:57 AM, said:

Unfortunately a dynamic iris no matter how good cannot make up for lack of native contrast, agree it can look pretty good, but not as good as native.......as I've said before high native CR and a dynamic iris used only in very low APL scenes will be stella. JVC could add an iris but high native is their primary  marketing point. However it appears laser illumination is quite close and possibly with dynamic dimming, if scanning laser either direct screen or chip scanning, then local dimming may come into play, giving us major CR improvements both ANSI and on/off without an iris.

As you say 3D must be super on a 100-110" screen.

Owen 300,000:1 sounds nice!. Have you done any work to determine what the black level needs to be for the human eye to perceive it as being black when the eyes iris is fully open?

Even if people want to call the VW1000's approx best native CR when tweaked, 20,000:1, I'm fine with it. If it was such an enormous point of debate, why would any one such as myself be bothered stumping up the money for the 1000, when we could go out and buy the X90/RS65? I am not hearing pro reviewers making a huge debate about it, especially fanatical reviewers like Wolfgang Mayor from Cine4home.de. I was thinking about it last night while viewing some US TV. If your fave viewing is sci-fi starfields and shadow scenes, then perhaps native CR rules your world. Hijinx I saw your post in the VW1000 short test thread and sure enough noted you went straight for the native CR over DI argument. I also noticed no one responded or quoted your post.

Glad you can see what I'm saying regarding 3D. I heard a comment today about how poor real brightness in is even in an actual 3D cinema. The immersive PQ quality with good BD source disc is something that needs to be seen.

Owen, on 24 March 2012 - 11:07 PM, said:

Unfortunately times have not changed, a dynamic iris will only ever make bright scenes brighter and dark scenes darker, it can NEVER improve contrast ratio in ANY scene because for any scene or average picture level the dynamic iris is fixed and has no effect on in scene CR.

A dynamic iris and associated dynamic gamma result in dynamic distortion, while a modest amount can be of benefit and Sony are quite good with its implementation, it's nothing like a high native contrast ratio and never will be.

The dynamic iris implementation of the old Sony 70" SXRD was very poor originally with noticeable pumping and brightness fluctuations, thats why I reprogramming the iris operation of mine and the result was much more acceptable.
When my SXRD was repaired recently the main control board was replaced along with the optical block, with the new firmware the dynamic iris works very well and I feel no need to reprogram it, however in scene contrast is no better than it ever was and its no where near that of the X3 even in a non ideal viewing environment.

The ONLY aspect of performance I am looking to improve with my X3 is a very significant increase in native contrast ratio, in other respects of performance the JVC is more than good enough for my use.

Yes Owen, you can easily still see that affect even with the latest DI implementation in the VW1000, just throw on a high-low combo test pattern. I use auto limited iris now for all of my lights out viewing and so far I haven't felt the need to go manual iris.

The iris on the SXRD was def as you say pretty flawed, but we both agreed, for the money, size and PQ of that TV(being a TV driven by a projector), it did a heck of a job for what it was. You did do some truly amazing mods with yours.

Owen mate, if you love the pic on your X3, aside for wishing for increased native CR, then I would abstain from looking at the current gen JVC's, let along the Sony's. I don't know your viewing dist ratio, but the amount of PQ detail available even at dead-on 1.5x screen length is getting towards freakish.

[Owen]

People happily pay much more than the price of the VW1000 for high end 3 chip DLP's with fare worse native contrast than the Sony as they are happy with the overall result, for them mediocre dark scene performance is a minor concern. However for those who find dark scene performance unacceptable on DLP or other low native contrast ratio projectors options are extremely limited.
Its a shame Sony are concentrating of more pixels rather than greater contrast, I expect that trend will continue as more pixels sells.

I certainly wont be looking at any new projector that does not have much greater native contrast than what I currentelly have, and I very much doubt that current projector technologies will ever provide that. Scanning laser seems like the only option on the horizon.

I normally view 16:9 content at about 3 times picture height and scope at about 4 times (CIW), only a couple of Bluray titles I have seen look acceptable with larger viewing angles as 1080 video is really being pushed for resolution and sharpness at greater viewing angles. Sitting close enough to see the pixel grid on a 1080 LCoS projector is way to close for optimal picture quality, Bluray is just not up to it as far as I am concerned. 4k source will be better but certainly not twice as good as 2k Bluray because 35mm film has very low MTF above 2k so the improvement is be subtle.

Edited by Owen, 26 March 2012 - 01:03 PM.

[mmu16]

OK, simple question - hoping for a simple answer....

If the JVC X90 is circa 9k and say the Sony VW1000 is circa 20k, is the PQ of the Sony 2X better than the JVC? I've personally seen the X90 at work and I have to say it was sensational. Haven;t yet seen the Sony though - called around in VIC and no one seems to have a demo machine set up.

Oh OzHTFan, with all due respect I don't think DTV members suffer from tall poppy syndrome.  Some of the set-ups featured here are truly world class and you don't see anyone hating.  Spending money for the sake of spending money will not give you the best results.  Spending your money wisely, based upon your own preference would be the way forward.

Edited by mmu16, 27 March 2012 - 02:24 PM.

[oztheatre]

mmu16, on 27 March 2012 - 02:18 PM, said:

OK, simple question - hoping for a simple answer....

If the JVC X90 is circa 9k and say the Sony VW1000 is circa 20k, is the PQ of the Sony 2X better than the JVC? I've personally seen the X90 at work and I have to say it was sensational. Haven;t yet seen the Sony though - called around in VIC and no one seems to have a demo machine set up.

Oh OzHTFan, with all due respect I don't think DTV members suffer from tall poppy syndrome.  Some of the set-ups featured here are truly world class and you don't see anyone hating.  Spending money for the sake of spending money will not give you the best results.  Spending your money wisely, based upon your own preference would be the way forward.

I don't see how it can be twice as good. They're both upscaling a 1080 source. No doubt it's stunning but I'd bet the JVC gives it a run for it's money! The law of diminishing returns perhaps? But there for those who want that step up even if it's not 11K's worth of improvement.

[:)]

look the thing is unless theyre both calibrated and are comparing them both back to back in the same room, its all pretty meaningless anyways. otherwise all people will go on about are specs. which face it in the real world dont often amount to much. and either machine in isolation will both impress. I've seen the x90 back to back to the x30 for instance and to my eyes the x90 looked quite a step up. but there'll be people here who will say the x90 is not worth going for over the x30....we're all entitled to our opinions

[scottrichardson]

Im looking forward to receiving my replacement projector which will likely be an X70R. Trés cool. Hoping it will fit the mount that I use for my HD950. Oztheatre sent that down for me back when I got the HD950. Richard do you know if the 950 mounts will work with the X70Rs?

But the SONY does look nice. Our NEXT house will have a higher specced room, and a bigger budget, and I'd be quite keen to do a side by side comparison of the top JVC at the time, and the next notch up.. the SONY or a Sim2 etc...

Still the JVC's have my money at least for the next couple years. I imagine that true 4K isn't too far away either.

Who in Sydney has these set up for side by side comparisons?

[mmu16]

Has anyone checked out the latest Onkyo receivers which can upscale to 4K? Would be fascinating to see how these PJ's would perform if coupled to one of these receivers.

[OzHTfan]

mmu16, on 27 March 2012 - 02:18 PM, said:

OK, simple question - hoping for a simple answer....

If the JVC X90 is circa 9k and say the Sony VW1000 is circa 20k, is the PQ of the Sony 2X better than the JVC? I've personally seen the X90 at work and I have to say it was sensational. Haven;t yet seen the Sony though - called around in VIC and no one seems to have a demo machine set up.

Oh OzHTFan, with all due respect I don't think DTV members suffer from tall poppy syndrome.  Some of the set-ups featured here are truly world class and you don't see anyone hating.  Spending money for the sake of spending money will not give you the best results.  Spending your money wisely, based upon your own preference would be the way forward.

Well the answer there is indeed if you do think it is once you've seen it. No point in such a speculation till you do. There are plenty of those who have in the US and Europe, who do think it is worth it on a price/performance ratio.

I have heard that kind of response here as well many times over the years to justify spending arguments. Sony didn't price the VW1000 the way they did to get people to spend the extra money over other choices just for the sake of it. Your using an analogy better suited to esoteric hifi brands and components like speakers. What a person should do is spend money wisely to their own budget and examine what they are getting for their money.

oztheatre, on 27 March 2012 - 03:39 PM, said:

I don't see how it can be twice as good. They're both upscaling a 1080 source. No doubt it's stunning but I'd bet the JVC gives it a run for it's money! The law of diminishing returns perhaps? But there for those who want that step up even if it's not 11K's worth of improvement.

What part about the fact the Sony accepts actual 4K source material didn't you get, or haven't you bothered to read it's spec/any reviews? Of course they both can upconvert or pixel shift 1080 sources to 4K. Comparisons can be made about which is doing a better job in that area,etc,etc. But that's not the end of the story at all. When proper 4K sources arrive the Sony will be good to go with them.

mmu16, on 28 March 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:

Has anyone checked out the latest Onkyo receivers which can upscale to 4K? Would be fascinating to see how these PJ's would perform if coupled to one of these receivers.

I just landed the Integra 80.3 version. Unfort in my case, since I wanted 4K passthrough -not 4K scaling- with audio decoding from my HTPC's Radeon 7950, it won't do it as yet(pending any possible firmware changes that may or may not make it poss). As for the scaling, you know that only applies to projectors with ability to accept 4K sources right? With that said having tested it myself and had a fellow owner make the same comment, the scaler in the Onkyo/Integra is garbage compared to the built in one in Sony and I'd say would no doubt be same of the one in the JVC.

[:)]

quite honestly having seen the 4K upscaling switched in and out on the x90 in my opinion the whole wobbulation business is a complete w@nk ! but then the whole 4K business is a bit pointless in a domestic situation. How many people are realistically going to sit at the Imax style 1-1.5 screen heights required to actually be able to appreciate 4K ? I suspect not too many. Imax is not really something really feasible in the domestic situation in any case. but then theres the whole 4K material thing. Its not like we even have a means of delivery for that as yet. maybe in a few years if blu-ray was replaced with a 4K red ray or something ... maybe then but till then its really not even worth bothering about in my opinion !

[oztheatre]

OzHTfan, on 28 March 2012 - 10:58 AM, said:

What part about the fact the Sony accepts actual 4K source material didn't you get, or haven't you bothered to read it's spec/any reviews? Of course they both can upconvert or pixel shift 1080 sources to 4K. Comparisons can be made about which is doing a better job in that area,etc,etc. But that's not the end of the story at all. When proper 4K sources arrive the Sony will be good to go with them.

I realise it's a true 4K projector. But what true 4K dvds are around?....... none.....? They're a little ahead of things. And of course when 4K (if) becomes the norm, the sony will be ready for that.. as will every other manufacturer choosing to go down that path.... They will also be better and cheaper.

Right now, they're both scaling. I wasn't talking about what hasn't happened yet, this is about right now, not what may happen in 3 or 5 years time.

[oztheatre]

:), on 28 March 2012 - 04:04 PM, said:

quite honestly having seen the 4K upscaling switched in and out on the x90 in my opinion the whole wobbulation business is a complete w@nk ! but then the whole 4K business is a bit pointless in a domestic situation. How many people are realistically going to sit at the Imax style 1-1.5 screen heights required to actually be able to appreciate 4K ? I suspect not too many. Imax is not really something really feasible in the domestic situation in any case. but then theres the whole 4K material thing. Its not like we even have a means of delivery for that as yet. maybe in a few years if blu-ray was replaced with a 4K red ray or something ... maybe then but till then its really not even worth bothering about in my opinion !

I see your point but psuedo 4K is extremely handy combined with lens memory. With a normal 1080 panel you are zooming out 33% in image size to remove the black bars for cinemascope viewing, this can cause screen door to become noticeable more times than not. With a 4K or a wobbulation 4K upscaled image, the problem of screen door is completely removed. Simply no requirement at all for a lens, so no extra optics in front of the projector - no pin cushion, no softening, no grid distortion, none of the problems that come about from using a lens are there at all. I love this feature and haven't used a lens since I got my X70 up and running. Have tested both and the no lens option is certainly better.. even as good as the crystalmorphic is I would only now use that lens with a 2K projector.

I had always said that lenses were an 'in between' product and have a shelf life. They said 4K etc would never happen.. and only 12 months later we have JVC with the wobble 4K and now sony with a true 4K machine.. That's progress! Nobody suspected JVC were going to 'cheat' to get 4K. It's certainly a much cheaper option than the Sony 4K.

Red ray? I like it. Green ray?