JVC Press Release: New JVC Laser Projectors Are World’s First With 48Gbps 8K Inputs (1 Viewer)

[Sam Posten]

Edwin,

If a person is dropping 25K on a projector then they obviously want the best video presentation. Why stop there by not investing some monies into achieving the best audio presentation?

i can answer that! Because modern receivers are quite adequate! Can you chase a fractional increase by going to separates? Absolutely and more power to you. But there’s a very specific and small percentage of people for whom that makes sense. Up till now I have not been one of those people. My receiver fed 7.1.4 setup beats all professional theaters besides IMAX and Dolby cinema and I’m quite satisfied with their power, accuracy and tone.

I’m a big boy and can take the teasing from those who advocate for separates but to make a generic statement that the only true theater sound is separate fed or that if you aren’t using separates you aren’t serious about your sound continues to be ludicrous. And antithetical to the HTF mission. It’s in the same boat as people pushing CIH. If that works for you great but it’s a CHOICE that doesn’t match up with the vast majority of HTs

 

[Robert Crawford]

i can answer that! Because modern receivers are quite adequate! Can you chase a fractional increase by going to separates? Absolutely and more power to you. But there’s a very specific and small percentage of people for whom that makes sense. Up till now I have not been one of those people. My receiver fed 7.1.4 setup beats all professional theaters besides IMAX and Dolby cinema and I’m quite satisfied with their power, accuracy and tone.

I’m a big boy and can take the teasing from those who advocate for separates but to make a generic statement that the only true theater sound is separate fed or that if you aren’t using separates you aren’t serious about your sound continues to be ludicrous. And antithetical to the HTF mission. It’s in the same boat as people pushing CIH. If that works for you great but it’s a CHOICE that doesn’t match up with the vast majority of HTs

If you're spending 25K on your video presentation, I find it hard to believe that person is not spending a good amount of money on his audio setup. It might not be separates, but I seriously doubt it's not going to be a top of the line receiver.

As to the separate versus receiver arguments and the teasing from others. Leave me out of that scrum as I have better things to do than that.

 

[Josh Dial]

One aspect driving the "spend more on video than audio" consideration is that--at least in my opinion--it's easier to decide on video and consider your upgrading "done for a while." You also have relatively fewer choices for your video "solutions" than you do with audio.

If you are a projector fan (as I am), there really only are a handful of choices at each price band. There are a few "settled" top manufacturers. If you ask 10 honest reviewers for their top 10 projectors you'll probably get a surprising amount of consistency if not consensus. If someone comes to the HTF asking for suggestions on the "best" projector for $3,000.00 (or whatever) they'll probably get the same three or four suggestions from our members.

Contrast that with audio. Irrespective of budget, one's options are effectively limitless. There's always another speaker to audition. Do you like warm sound? Bright sound? Are you using these for music? What genres? Beware of listener fatigue. These will need a mellow power source to counteract the harsh sound but if you do that you'll be in heaven. Oh, and have you considered DIY? Will you be listening off-axis? How's the timbre matching?

The mind whirls.

Tell me I have $50,000.00 to spend on audio and video. I have to split it equally. I'll likely spend no more than a week researching the video purchase and come away with "the one". I'll probably be happy. I'll spend three months on audio, buy $25,000.00 worth of components and speakers and still have buyers' remorse for years.

That all said, I love this hobby and wouldn't have it any other way.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

One aspect driving the "spend more on video than audio" consideration is that--at least in my opinion--it's easier to decide on video and consider your upgrading "done for a while." You also have relatively fewer choices for your video "solutions" than you do with audio.

If you are a projector fan (as I am), there really only are a handful of choices at each price band. There are a few "settled" top manufacturers. If you ask 10 honest reviewers for their top 10 projectors you'll probably get a surprising amount of consistency if not consensus. If someone comes to the HTF asking for suggestions on the "best" projector for $3,000.00 (or whatever) they'll probably get the same three or four suggestions from our members.

Contrast that with audio. Irrespective of budget, one's options are effectively limitless. There's always another speaker to audition. Do you like warm sound? Bright sound? Are you using these for music? What genres? Beware of listener fatigue. These will need a mellow power source to counteract the harsh sound but if you do that you'll be in heaven. Oh, and have you considered DIY? Will you be listening off-axis? How's the timbre matching?

The mind whirls.

Tell me I have $50,000.00 to spend on audio and video. I have to split it equally. I'll likely spend no more than a week researching the video purchase and come away with "the one". I'll probably be happy. I'll spend three months on audio, buy $25,000.00 worth of components and speakers and still have buyers' remorse for years.

That all said, I love this hobby and wouldn't have it any other way.

Huh... I don't really see that for the video side of the equation even though I get what you mean about the audio side.

I even regularly see HTF members point out that no display will keep you very satisfied for more than a few years... but many good pieces of audio gear can actually last much longer. That's certainly been my own experience (for nearly 30 years) even though I'm not exactly quite that quick to upgrade video gear... and has been largely why I'm fine w/ buying used for good-to-great audio gear, but not really for video (both because that tech becomes dated/obsolete much faster and also just seem to not be as durable in many cases).

You're probably the first (and only) HTFer I've seen think that way about the video side.

_Man_

 

[Josh Dial]

Huh... I don't really see that for the video side of the equation even though I get what you mean about the audio side.

I even regularly see HTF members point out that no display will keep you very satisfied for more than a few years... but many good pieces of audio gear can actually last much longer. That's certainly been my own experience (for nearly 30 years) even though I'm not exactly quite that quick to upgrade video gear... and has been largely why I'm fine w/ buying used for good-to-great audio gear, but not really for video (both because that tech becomes dated/obsolete much faster and also just seem to not be as durable in many cases).

You're probably the first (and only) HTFer I've seen think that way about the video side.

_Man_

I'm referring more to the acting of choosing. I think for many it's easier to choose your display device and be happy with it for years (though, as you say, upgrades are far more frequent on the video side). For audio, the very act of deciding what you want is plagued with choices bordering on (for some) decision paralysis. I know a lot of people like their audio setup and use it for years and years. However, I bet that now-and-then they wonder, "what if I had bought those Legacy Focus SE speakers..."

I guess I think that for some people it's easier to throw a bunch of money at the video side and be satisfied.

 

[DavidJ]

Contrast that with audio. Irrespective of budget, one's options are effectively limitless. There's always another speaker to audition. Do you like warm sound? Bright sound? Are you using these for music? What genres? Beware of listener fatigue. These will need a mellow power source to counteract the harsh sound but if you do that you'll be in heaven. Oh, and have you considered DIY? Will you be listening off-axis? How's the timbre matching?

The mind whirls.

And that’s where I’ve been. I made my projector choice pretty quickly almost a year ago, but I still haven’t pulled the trigger on my audio upgrades.

 

[Bryan^H]

3D is deaaaaaaaad

I know that has been your view for a long time, but seriously do you not find any enjoyment in 3D projection? I'm sure you quit buying 3D discs long ago, and I could understand if it were on a smaller TV, but 120" the immersion of 3D is fantastic. It is still the main reason I enjoy my projector so much.

 

[Sam Posten]

I know that has been your view for a long time, but seriously do you not find any enjoyment in 3D projection? I'm sure you quit buying 3D discs long ago, and I could understand if it were on a smaller TV, but 120" the immersion of 3D is fantastic. It is still the main reason I enjoy my projector so much.

no. Not at all. I have the setup and glasses for 6 people at a time to watch 3D movies and have not screened a single one since 2018. Even if I wanted to there haven’t been any AAA releases in years. You guys can keep screaming about it all you want but it’s not coming back.

 

[DaveF]

no. Not at all. I have the setup and glasses for 6 people at a time to watch 3D movies and have not screened a single one since 2018. Even if I wanted to there haven’t been any AAA releases in years. You guys can keep screaming about it all you want but it’s not coming back.

I thought 3D home theater would be the best. I spent a lot of time figuring out 3D on my HTPC and ripping 3D discs correctly. Got 6 sets of 3D glasses and a charging system tucked away in the electronics rack.

Have watched like two 3D movies in 3D, and never with guests. No one cares. No one wants to watch 3D. People just want to sit down and enjoy a movie. No one wants glasses, or loss of image brightness, and some people struggle with the 3D or it gives them headaches, etc.

3D is not successful in my social circles.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I wish you guys would appreciate that 3D is a niche, just as some of your high end interests are also niches. I have absolutely zero desire to try to convince someone why they should enjoy something they don’t. I just wish that those of us who enjoy 3D didn’t have it pointed out again and again that our niche is of no interest to many others.

If absolutely no one cared about 3D whatsoever, projector manufacturers wouldn’t bother including it in many models. Studios wouldn’t release discs at all. Indie labels and outfits like the 3D Film Archive wouldn’t be able to crowdfund their restoration efforts. And yet, all of those things persist.

Is home 3D an interest of a mainstream audience? No. And I don’t think you’ll see any serious pushback to that point. But then again, are $25,000 projectors or sound separates of interest to a mainstream audience? Also no. And yet, we enthusiastically research, discuss and promote those products rather than saying, “the general public isn’t into this, let’s not bother.”

As for a lack of AAA titles, I mean, Avengers Endgame is the top grossing film in the past decade and it’s in 3D. The Star Wars sequels were mega hits, they’re in 3D. Black Widow was one of the biggest movies of this summer, it’s in 3D.

A niche? Absolutely. One that consumer electronics manufactures may choose not to service indefinitely? Very possibly. But what’s the harm in allowing people who enjoy it to, you know, enjoy it? 3D is the most enjoyable part of home projection for me for the past seven years. Only projectors that offer that feature will be considered when it’s time for a replacement. It’s not unreasonable for people who enjoy this niche to inquire about its availability when learning about newer projector models.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Well said, Josh! Well said!

As someone who enjoys 3D — particularly on my 110” screen — I completely agree with everything you said.

 

[Sam Posten]

It’s actually the opposite problem for me Josh. On every major release we have people thread crapping that “since this isn’t in 3D I’m not buying it”. That gets old super fast.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

I agree w/ Josh... even though I actually haven't really bothered w/ 3D in my HT (so far) despite consistently owning displays that are capable -- my family just doesn't find it compelling enough to actually get the glasses... although I have spent a few extra dollars on 3D BDs in a (very) few specific cases...

I also generally avoid 3D in movie theaters -- just don't particularly like the experience and don't see the point in paying extra for it after a few tries.

But of course, I have no problem at all w/ anyone else enjoying the tech and am not about to discourage its inclusion, especially in PJs -- it's just not a significant consideration for me... though maybe I'll give it a real try in my own HT someday...

RE: the thread-crapping that sometimes come from a few 3D enthusiasts, I'd say just address them when that occurs... No need to do what they do here me thinks...

_Man_

 

[GeorgeHolland]

I enjoy 3D but rarely watch it and with rare exceptions don't purchase 3D Blu-ray discs anymore. I think I have just over 60 3D movies. Given a choice of 4K HDR or 3D I'm going to pick 4K HDR or DV. If a movie doesn't have a 4K option and there is a 3D + standard blu-ray I will buy that package. I am glad the new projectors support 3D though and I have the new version of glasses that have different polarization than the earlier JVC projectors.

 

[Edwin-S]

Not sure why people think 4K with HDR is somehow better than 3D. Most films released on disc aren't even 4K. They are upconverts of 2K masters.

That being said, the only reason I would want 3D capability on a projector is to be able to watch the 3D films I already purchased. It isn't for new content. It is for content that I spent a pile on and then got orphaned for absolutely no reason. TV manufacturers could have figured how to keep the capability in their sets and still have 4K HDR. HDR sucks anyway. DV is the only way to go when it comes to that technology.

I mean, for God's sake, they still have composite inputs on 4K sets. It is like tits on a Boar; however, 3D capability which is actually still useful gets dropped and anyone that spent hundreds of dollars on content gets screwed.

Now, I have to go out and spend thousands on a.projector to watch my old 3D content? It pisses me off frankly. What is worse is that 3D on LG's OLED sets was the best I had ever seen. It was better than theatrical 3D by far.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Now, I have to go out and spend thousands on a.projector to watch my old 3D content? It pisses me off frankly. What is worse is that 3D on LG's OLED sets was the best I had ever seen. It was better than theatrical 3D by far.

Well, you don't actually have to spend thousands on 3D-capable PJ. I'm not even sure if any of the major PJ makers make any that doesn't support 3D. Every entry level unit I've considered (or recommended to a friend) in the last 1/2 dozen-plus years included support, and they can usually be had for $500-800...

Of course, they're not generally as feature-rich nor offer as good PQ, especially in terms black level and contrast, as the better, expensive models, but that's just par for the course...

I would think 3D works much better in the FP domain anyway due to the immersiveness of sheer display size that you won't get w/ flat panel, direct-views... and the downsides of weaker black levels in FP may be much less of an issue w/ 3D glasses dimming the image anyway...

_Man_

 

[GeorgeHolland]

Not sure why people think 4K with HDR is somehow better than 3D. Most films released on disc aren't even 4K. They are upconverts of 2K masters.

That being said, the only reason I would want 3D capability on a projector is to be able to watch the 3D films I already purchased. It isn't for new content. It is for content that I spent a pile on and then got orphaned for absolutely no reason. TV manufacturers could have figured how to keep the capability in their sets and still have 4K HDR. HDR sucks anyway. DV is the only way to go when it comes to that technology.

I mean, for God's sake, they still have composite inputs on 4K sets. It is like tits on a Boar; however, 3D capability which is actually still useful gets dropped and anyone that spent hundreds of dollars on content gets screwed.

Now, I have to go out and spend thousands on a.projector to watch my old 3D content? It pisses me off frankly. What is worse is that 3D on LG's OLED sets was the best I had ever seen. It was better than theatrical 3D by far.

HDR sucks? I don't agree. DV is a better method but since we are talking about the new JVC projectors, or any consumer projector, it is not an option. HDR+ and HDR are supported though as well as DTM. I use a Lumagen Pro for DTM but the JVC is very close. Watching native 4K movies with HDR on my RS2000 of any kind along with DTM does anything but suck. I hope it will be even better with an RS3100.

 

[Edwin-S]

Well, you don't actually have to spend thousands on 3D-capable PJ. I'm not even sure if any of the major PJ makers make any that doesn't support 3D. Every entry level unit I've considered (or recommended to a friend) in the last 1/2 dozen-plus years included support, and they can usually be had for $500-800...

Of course, they're not generally as feature-rich nor offer as good PQ, especially in terms black level and contrast, as the better, expensive models, but that's just par for the course...

I would think 3D works much better in the FP domain anyway due to the immersiveness of sheer display size that you won't get w/ flat panel, direct-views... and the downsides of weaker black levels in FP may be much less of an issue w/ 3D glasses dimming the image anyway...

_Man_

IMO, brightness and contrast is more key to immersive 3D than picture size. The screen in the theatre that I watch 3D films in is massively larger than my original.65" OLED was, but the 3D on my OLED was vastly better to watch, regardless of the picture size, because the image was, bright, colorful and sharp compared to the dim, muddy looking 3D in the theatre. The type of 3D format was essentially the same because I could use the glasses that came with the LG set to watch theatrical releases. The LG glasses were a.lot more comfortable to wear over my glasses than the RealD glasses supplied by the theatre.

 

[Edwin-S]

HDR sucks? I don't agree. DV is a better method but since we are talking about the new JVC projectors, or any consumer projector, it is not an option. HDR+ and HDR are supported though as well as DTM. I use a Lumagen Pro for DTM but the JVC is very close. Watching native 4K movies with HDR on my RS2000 of any kind along with DTM does anything but suck. I hope it will be even better with an RS3100.

I barely notice a difference between an HDR or non-HDR release on my OLED. DV? That I notice. However, if you notice a difference then that is great.

My main point is that HDR is one of the excuses that have been used to justify dropping 3D on TV sets and it is garbage. I'm pretty sure that manufacturers could have figured out how to maintain 3D on a 4K HDR set. They just didn't want to, so they hosed an entire segment of the consumer market that had bought into the format.

Personally, I think the only reason DV is absent in projectors is due to manufacturers not wanting to pay the licensing costs.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Guys, if we’re gonna ask people who don’t like 3D to be respectful of our preferences, the least we can do is be respectful of their preferences. Whether one likes it or not, HDR has been a thing for five years now. Whether or not some may consider it necessary is beside the point. It’s here.