CurtPalme.com Home Theater Forum

fefrank · Joined: 10 Jun 2012 Posts: 83

does the JVC have 4K Panels or only 1080p? Becasue if the panels are 1080p native then there is no way it's displaying native right?
I mean I had a Panasonic PT AX-200U it was only a 720p native projector. But when I feed it to 1080p bluray it looked fantastic! pretty much like 1080p but it wans't native. But the pixel compression was excellent, you could count 1920 x 1080p pixels on the screen according to the avs tech I talked to, but each pixel was compressed to fit a 1280 x 720 screen. Am in the wrong here? Please explain if I am

ecrabb · Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 6:06 pm Post subject:

The Panny was just doing simple scaling. Resampling to be exact. A hardware scaler took the 1920x1080 image and used a scaling algorithm to resample the 1920x1080 image to fit the 1280x720 LCD panel. What the JVC is doing is significantly different.

Like Hog pointed out, the 1920x1080 image is first scaled (upsampled, actually) to 3840x2160. They do some image-processing voodoo at that time to scale the image to work well with the step that happens next, which is the "e-Shift" panel "wiggling" to create two separate, shifted images. Those two images are displayed faster than the eye can detect, creating one, visibly homogenous pseudo-3840x2160 image scaled created from a 1920x1080 image.

There is no 4k input on the JVC projectors. The idea is not to display 4k, which it WILL NOT do. It's to display a much smoother, finer, 1080p image to create a smoother, more film-like image, which it does most excellently. I've seen it in person, seated in the front row at ~1x screen width, and standing right at the screen. It works, and works well.

Understand that it is NOT 4k. It's nothing like having a true 4k chip, but that doesn't really matter right now, and for the next few years, since there is practically zero native 4k content. What e-Shift does is create an image better than a traditional 1080p display because it visibly eliminates the pixel grid, and reduces aliasing (jaggies) significantly, which is a big deal if you like a large viewing angle. IMHO, it nudges digital back toward the smooth, film-like image quality that we like about CRT.

SC

fefrank · Joined: 10 Jun 2012 Posts: 83

HogPilot · Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 9:48 pm Post subject:

Thanks ecrabb - I typed my "explanation" before heading out the door to go fly this morning. I re-read it and it leaves much to be desired, yours describes the process much clearer and more succinctly.

mc86 · Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 12:16 am Post subject:

So it is even more slick than my fleshing-out explanation. Amazing what is built-into the projector itself. If it weren't so much effort to get a nice result, I'd almost go so far as to call it elegant. But man, what a crap ton of image processing.

"Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed."

Matt

Nashou66 · Joined: 12 Jan 2007 Posts: 16171 Location: West Seneca NY

**AnalogRocks** · Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 12:57 pm Post subject:

WanMan · Joined: 19 Mar 2006 Posts: 10273

Voodoo is the correct word. This isn't true 3840x2160. Your eyes are not making out 3840x2160 pixels in distinct parking locations, but just two 1920x1080 being overlapped by a half-pixel shift. And while this does serve to cover up the intersection of four pixels, this is by no means 3840x2160.

If anything it, to me, is like 3840x2160 interlacing.

HogPilot · Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 10:55 pm Post subject:

ecrabb · Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 11:43 pm Post subject:

Hog... Exactly.

Wan, I used the word "voodoo" simply to explain what is a very complex process of image scaling, analyzing motion vectors, and creating sub-pixels. It's "voodoo" like differential equations or particle physics are voodoo to me. If you'll notice, I also said e-Shift works, and works well.

See, the cheapest true 4k projector available right now is Sony's VW1000ES at nearly $25k. If you have money to burn, knock yourself out. Personally, I think it's bone stupid at this point, since unless you know somebody at a studio, you have nearly zero 4k content to watch on it now, and for the near future. That said, more power to the people who have the money; the more they buy those machines (and other 4k displays), the faster the business case will make sense to offer 4k content to the rest of us. But, I digress...

Here's the bottom line: A VW1000ES is $25k. A JVC with e-Shift can be had for $5000 retail; less on the street. e-Shift is perfect for those of us who like to sit close to the screen, and watch 1080p source material, and who like the "film-look" or CRT. e-Shift is excellent. That's it.

I will almost certainly trade up to an e-Shift machine if I can score a deal on a b-stock or refub unit.

Don't knock it until you've seen it.

SC

**kal** · Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 3:45 pm Post subject:

ecrabb · Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 3:52 pm Post subject:

Outstanding, Kal!!!

Smile

Can't wait to hear what you think!

SC

garyfritz · Joined: 08 Apr 2006 Posts: 12026 Location: Fort Collins, CO

Spanky Ham · Joined: 22 Mar 2006 Posts: 5643 Location: Comedy Central

Congrats, Kal!

On 4k, I agree about the content, but the displays are coming anyway.

On the Sony, I think one could have gotten it from AVS for around $20k. A lot of people that bought it wanted it for the light output. I know I told Bill Miller that he should buy it and leave AVS for a couple of years, as nothing will surpass it for awhile.

overclkr · Joined: 08 Mar 2006 Posts: 4227

jamsys · Joined: 29 Jun 2006 Posts: 152

Kal,

Gotta know the review!!!!!!

I went to watch a movie on the cine8, and the auto calibration I did last night didn't take (kal???). It's noisy, and I had a bad flash of my 17mo old getting hit with that ( the jvc is still gonna hurt). Then it's gonna cost 800 + for a good Calibration.....

Argh and I just bought a fury 3....

What are the street prices out there and the main differences between units of the jvc? Wireless HDMI as I have a good 60 run?

If its good for kal it's good for me Smile

Spanky Ham · Joined: 22 Mar 2006 Posts: 5643 Location: Comedy Central

The best thing you can do is go to AVS and ask one of their sales guys. I know Mike Garrett and he is a good guy. Give him an email and he will give you the best prices you can get.

WanMan · Joined: 19 Mar 2006 Posts: 10273

Guys, please understand my response isn't objective. I'm trying to explain my concerns in how I think my eyes will interpret that diagram. I think I might see it as a smearing of image from position (x,y) to (x+1/2, y-1/2). The persistence of phosphor utilized their own space with nothing overlapping, if I am remembering correctly. E-shifting seems to be adding frames that are simply offset by a half row/column.

Don't take what I am saying as me writing anything in stone. I'd need to see it in action, and against a non e-shifting example. Guess I have a project ahead of me.

ecrabb · Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 11:46 pm Post subject:

Wan, if it were just taking the 1080p image and feeding it into the mechanism that shifts the 1/2 pixel, then yes - it would be appear smeared. But, that's not what's happening. It's first creating a new scaled 3840x2160 image, that's motion-analyzed, and new sub-pixels created. That new image is created specifically FOR that pixel-shifting mechanism. So, no - it does not appear smeared - to your eyes, or anybody else's.

It's important to remember that, while the original source pixels may not be as sharp or as visible as they might be on a 1080p display, and that it sounds like that may be blurry, you have to remember: You don't really WANT to see hard-edged pixels. In fact, that's kind of the point.

Until you see it for yourself, there's no reason to prognosticate about how it will look smeared, blurry, or anything else. I've seen it in person, Spanky's seen it in person, HogPilot HAS one, and from all our first experiences, and it looks excellent.

SC

Spanky Ham · Joined: 22 Mar 2006 Posts: 5643 Location: Comedy Central

There was about five of us that did a comparison last year at Cedia with and without e-shift. IIRC the consensus was if it is over 1 screen width then it would be hard to see a difference. If it is under, then you could see a difference.