4K Projectors from Sony and JVC

[Anthony P]

it is also not hard to find silver 3D screens this site has a list http://www.studio3d.com/pages2/silver_screens.html looks a bit out of date since Stewart now also has the Stewart silver 5D

[Flatnate]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

it is not as much hotspotting but you need material that would keep the polarity when reflecting. Cheaper screens are not as good for that and silver screens are expensive. On the other hand with a 25k projector I don't know why that will be a problem

It was my understanding that hotspotting and poor off-axis viewing was an unfortunate byproduct of going towards the silver to maintain polarity. I watched Voyage of the Dawn Treader in a smaller 3D theater with the aisle down the middle, I wasn't too far from the middle but definitely on the right side of the screen and the left side of the screen was nearly unwatchable. It was a pathetic performance for a commercial theater.

The key is to come up with a material with higher gain, that maintains polarization and has good off axis viewing without a hot spot in the middle. A quick look around the web comes up with Screen Innovations new 2.7 gain Black Diamond. I guess the entire Black Diamond series maintains polarization! That right there would be a killer screen and set up if passive 3D was your thing.

Now if only that Sony 4k did passive 3D!

[Trogdor2010]

This might explain more clearly about JVC's method of doing 4K (article in german)

http://www.cine4home.de/tests/projek...70_Preview.htm

Basically a piece of glass spliting the pixels to be perceived as 4K, kind of like wobulation.

[Flatnate]

Originally Posted by Trogdor2010

This might explain more clearly about JVC's method of doing 4K (article in german)

http://www.cine4home.de/tests/projek...70_Preview.htm

Basically a piece of glass spliting the pixels to be perceived as 4K, kind of like wobulation.

Well I have to say I'm a little more stoked about the true 4k chips and the ability to input 4k on the Sony.

However, the close up shots of how this tech performs in the JVC definately looks encouraging. I'm eager to read some more hands on reviews of each.

A truly bright 4k LED powered machine would be my ideal next projector.

[Trogdor2010]

Originally Posted by Flatnate

Well I have to say I'm a little more stoked about the true 4k chips and the ability to input 4k on the Sony.

However, the close up shots of how this tech performs in the JVC definately looks encouraging. I'm eager to read some more hands on reviews of each.

A truly bright 4k LED powered machine would be my ideal next projector.

What would be really cool too if they did, they could easily do this with a 4K projector like the Sony, and use E-Shift to turn it into an "8K" (Turn 3840x2160 into 7680x4320) projector.

Now you would need a real, real beast to do this, you have to pay top dollar for even remastered 8K content, and even the highest end consumer gaming rigs will have trouble running even rudimentary games at an 8K resolution.

[Flatnate]

Well Penton-Man shared a great link in my other 4k Blu-Ray content thread that is valid here.

http://hometheaterreview.com/cedia-2011-show-report/

Blueshadow was quick to point out a few highlights in that article. Stolen for below:

Sony
Sony was the clear winner at CEDIA this year with the introduction of their new, consumer grade, 4K front projector, the VPL-VW1000ES. Boasting a native resolution of 4,096 x 2,160, the VPL-VW10000ES is a true 4K projector that can also scale legacy sources (DVD, broadcast and Blu-ray) to 4K via its internal scaler. The VPL-VW1000ES has a reported brightness of 2,000 ANSI lumens with a 1,000,000:1 dynamic contrast ratio. On top of being a native 4K product the VPL-VW10000ES is also a 3D capable projector, though Sony was not demonstrating its 3D prowess during the show. Sony says the VPL-VW1000ES will be available later this year, think December, and will retail for a little under $25,000 - not bad, considering the nearest 4K option not named the VPL-VW1000ES starts north of $100,000.

I sat for a demo of the VPL-VW1000ES and came away very impressed. Its upscaling prowess was brilliant and showcased nicely via a clip from Resident Evil: Afterlife on Blu-ray disc. Sony did head to head comparisons of 1080p versus 4K using still photos captured on a large format still camera and again the differences in resolution were readily apparent and far from subtle. In terms of showcasing 4K in its native form, Sony had the trailer for the new Spider Man film for our eyes to feast upon, though if I'm honest the 1080p upscaled demo of Resident Evil: Afterlife was actually more impressive for it really highlighted, at least for me, why one could benefit from owning a 4K projector now versus in the future.

No word on when native 4K content will be available for home consumption, though there is a rumor swirling around CEDIA, mainly the Sony booth, that Sony is working on a new compression standard to fit 4K content onto Blu-ray discs. If this is true (and if it can be done), then 4K may be closer to becoming reality than any of us, present company included, ever thought.

JVC
JVC had a few new projectors on hand for CEDIA, two of which were being touted as 4K capable models. The DLA-RS65 and RS55 D-ILA projectors both claim to be 4K capable, though closer inspection actually revealed them to be "faux K" projectors, each possessing resolutions of 3,840 x 2,160 - not true 4K. Both the RS65 and RS55 projectors upscale legacy sources to "faux K" via JVC's e-Shift technology, which basically duplicates pixels and offsets them slightly to create a 4K-like pixel density. The RS65 will retail for a little under $12,000 whereas the RS55 will have retail price just shy of $8,000. Both projectors are 3D capable and are THX and ISF Certified.

I got up close and personal with the RS65 and found its performance to be quite good - okay, amazing - though I came away somewhat upset for once again (due to a lack of corporation among the manufacturers), we appear to have two competing standards, true DCI compliant 4K and consumer "faux K." I know why JVC has chosen to make a pit stop short of the true 4K goal - I'm just not sure it was the right move, thanks in part to another projection company named Epson.

I guess I have always been a JVC fanboy but this puts me squarely in the Sony camp in this area. Although it is at one hell of a price premium over the top of the line "faux K" JVC offering. Admittedly I believe the JVC is probably the best bet for most consumers, but its hard to not get a little excited about what Sony is doing.

Edit: To play devils advocate here one could also argue what would the consumer really do with that little bit of added resolution between the two models. My guess is the future content standard for 4k (a niche market in reality) will ultimately dictate the winner in the consumer realm.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Flatnate

Well Penton-Man shared a great link in my other 4k Blu-Ray content thread that is valid here.

http://hometheaterreview.com/cedia-2011-show-report/

Blueshadow was quick to point out a few highlights in that article. Stolen for below:

Sony
Sony was the clear winner at CEDIA this year with the introduction of their new, consumer grade, 4K front projector, the VPL-VW1000ES. Boasting a native resolution of 4,096 x 2,160, the VPL-VW10000ES is a true 4K projector that can also scale legacy sources (DVD, broadcast and Blu-ray) to 4K via its internal scaler. The VPL-VW1000ES has a reported brightness of 2,000 ANSI lumens with a 1,000,000:1 dynamic contrast ratio. On top of being a native 4K product the VPL-VW10000ES is also a 3D capable projector, though Sony was not demonstrating its 3D prowess during the show. Sony says the VPL-VW1000ES will be available later this year, think December, and will retail for a little under $25,000 - not bad, considering the nearest 4K option not named the VPL-VW1000ES starts north of $100,000.

I sat for a demo of the VPL-VW1000ES and came away very impressed. Its upscaling prowess was brilliant and showcased nicely via a clip from Resident Evil: Afterlife on Blu-ray disc. Sony did head to head comparisons of 1080p versus 4K using still photos captured on a large format still camera and again the differences in resolution were readily apparent and far from subtle. In terms of showcasing 4K in its native form, Sony had the trailer for the new Spider Man film for our eyes to feast upon, though if I'm honest the 1080p upscaled demo of Resident Evil: Afterlife was actually more impressive for it really highlighted, at least for me, why one could benefit from owning a 4K projector now versus in the future.

No word on when native 4K content will be available for home consumption, though there is a rumor swirling around CEDIA, mainly the Sony booth, that Sony is working on a new compression standard to fit 4K content onto Blu-ray discs. If this is true (and if it can be done), then 4K may be closer to becoming reality than any of us, present company included, ever thought.

JVC
JVC had a few new projectors on hand for CEDIA, two of which were being touted as 4K capable models. The DLA-RS65 and RS55 D-ILA projectors both claim to be 4K capable, though closer inspection actually revealed them to be "faux K" projectors, each possessing resolutions of 3,840 x 2,160 - not true 4K. Both the RS65 and RS55 projectors upscale legacy sources to "faux K" via JVC's e-Shift technology, which basically duplicates pixels and offsets them slightly to create a 4K-like pixel density. The RS65 will retail for a little under $12,000 whereas the RS55 will have retail price just shy of $8,000. Both projectors are 3D capable and are THX and ISF Certified.

I got up close and personal with the RS65 and found its performance to be quite good - okay, amazing - though I came away somewhat upset for once again (due to a lack of corporation among the manufacturers), we appear to have two competing standards, true DCI compliant 4K and consumer "faux K." I know why JVC has chosen to make a pit stop short of the true 4K goal - I'm just not sure it was the right move, thanks in part to another projection company named Epson.

I guess I have always been a JVC fanboy but this puts me squarely in the Sony camp in this area. Although it is at one hell of a price premium over the top of the line "faux K" JVC offering. Admittedly I believe the JVC is probably the best bet for most consumers, but its hard to not get a little excited about what Sony is doing.

Edit: To play devils advocate here one could also argue what would the consumer really do with that little bit of added resolution between the two models. My guess is the future content standard for 4k (a niche market in reality) will ultimately dictate the winner in the consumer realm.

Future 4k content sounds good to me!

[Flatnate]

Just wanted to share another hometheaterreview.com article about Faux-k and 4k. I think it does a great job summarizing where this tech could go in the consumer world. Anyway, I thought was a good read.

Why Faux-K Is Going To Win Out Over Full 4K
By: Andrew Robinson, December 5, 2011

I recently wrote an article entitled "The Next Video Format War Coming to a Home Theater Near You: 4K vs FauxK"; in that article I lobbied for the adoption of the theatrical 4K standard (as set by DCi) in the consumer or home markets. I also rallied against so-called 4K products from the likes of JVC and Onkyo/Integra saying that their 4K or 4K-like capabilities create nothing but confusion for consumers -confusion we don't need for the transition to 4K is already going to be difficult enough we don't need fakes clouding the issue. In that article I also state that I don't believe that the resolution QFHD (Quad Full HD) should be labeled as true 4K, since it does not conform to the DCi standard, which states 4K as being 4,096 x 2,160. My stance against QFHD is a personal one for in an ideal world (again, in my opinion) we would have one unified standard, both in broadcast and cinema, which would be DCi 4K. That is obviously easier said than done for as I explained in my article there is a lot more to 4K than just native resolution.

Since there is no real 4K source, format or even viable consumer grade display -minus the Sony VPL-VW1000ES of course - a lot of what I'm talking about is up for debate, which is good because that means the powers that be have time to get it right. This also means that inevitably we're all going to have to buy new products, be it a new display, player etc. Knowing that, many who are attempting to crack the 4K nut seem to be at a loss for 4K doesn't exactly fit into our current 16:9 world. 16:9 or 1.78:1 is arguably the standard aspect ratio we enjoy and use everyday. It is an aspect ratio that encompasses everything from 1080p HD (1.78:1) to 4:3 (1.33:1). It even has room, albeit with black bars, to work with 2.35:1 or anamorphic source material. It's simple, clean, and effective. This is no doubt why QFHD has a shot at being our 4K solution within the consumer realm for it too fits within our 16:9 lifestyle -it's merely four times larger at 3,840 x 2,160 (1.78:1).

But where does that put 4K or at least the DCi standard we've come to know as 4K? Sadly, 4K does not play nice with 16:9, at least not without trimming a bit here and there. In reality, in order to be displayed properly, 4K should be presented on a 1.90:1 or a roughly 17:9 aspect ratio display. Of course I'm talking about full frame 4K; anamorphic 4K would still have bars top and bottom and/or require the use of an anamoprhic lens attachment, such as those made by Panamorph, not to mention a special screen. 17:9, huh? Doesn't quite have the same ring to it though it's not outside the realm of possibility seeing as how we're all going to have to buy new displays, whether those displays are flat panel TVs or projectors, when the time to switch to 4K ultimately comes. While 17:9 may be great for native DCi 4K it's not awesome for legacy source material for everything HD or later will be presented with black bars top and bottom, i.e. letter boxing -unless of course you zoom in and or manipulate the image. Yuck.

So what are we talking about then, how different is QFHD from true 4K? It's about a six and a half percent difference in pixel quantity. Is six and a half percent enough to change what we've come to know and accept in the 16:9 aspect ratio? It appears those claiming QFHD as 4K don't think so and while it may bug me to no end I can see their point. But if we adopt QFHD as our consumer 4K standard where does that leave theatrical or cinema 4K? In truth, the conversion between theatrical 4K and QFHD would be akin to going from theatrical 2K to Blu-ray, a loss in pixels few would probably notice and or lose sleep over. As a filmmaker, I want to see true 4K adopted for the home markets for it's cleaner and more pure, however as a consumer I see and even understand a lot of the argument behind QFHD.

That doesn't mean I have to like it though.

http://hometheaterreview.com/why-fau...-over-full-4k/

[kpkelley]

With sub-$10,000 projectors offering the sort of performance they do today, the high-end home theater market is reaching for new worlds to conquer. 4K projection appears to be the obvious answer, and the Sony VPL-VW1000ES delivers the goods—at least in 2D. As for 3D, stay tuned.

Link

[Trogdor2010]

Originally Posted by Flatnate

Just wanted to share another hometheaterreview.com article about Faux-k and 4k. I think it does a great job summarizing where this tech could go in the consumer world. Anyway, I thought was a good read.

[Show spoiler]

Why Faux-K Is Going To Win Out Over Full 4K
By: Andrew Robinson, December 5, 2011

I recently wrote an article entitled "The Next Video Format War Coming to a Home Theater Near You: 4K vs FauxK"; in that article I lobbied for the adoption of the theatrical 4K standard (as set by DCi) in the consumer or home markets. I also rallied against so-called 4K products from the likes of JVC and Onkyo/Integra saying that their 4K or 4K-like capabilities create nothing but confusion for consumers -confusion we don't need for the transition to 4K is already going to be difficult enough we don't need fakes clouding the issue. In that article I also state that I don't believe that the resolution QFHD (Quad Full HD) should be labeled as true 4K, since it does not conform to the DCi standard, which states 4K as being 4,096 x 2,160. My stance against QFHD is a personal one for in an ideal world (again, in my opinion) we would have one unified standard, both in broadcast and cinema, which would be DCi 4K. That is obviously easier said than done for as I explained in my article there is a lot more to 4K than just native resolution.

Since there is no real 4K source, format or even viable consumer grade display -minus the Sony VPL-VW1000ES of course - a lot of what I'm talking about is up for debate, which is good because that means the powers that be have time to get it right. This also means that inevitably we're all going to have to buy new products, be it a new display, player etc. Knowing that, many who are attempting to crack the 4K nut seem to be at a loss for 4K doesn't exactly fit into our current 16:9 world. 16:9 or 1.78:1 is arguably the standard aspect ratio we enjoy and use everyday. It is an aspect ratio that encompasses everything from 1080p HD (1.78:1) to 4:3 (1.33:1). It even has room, albeit with black bars, to work with 2.35:1 or anamorphic source material. It's simple, clean, and effective. This is no doubt why QFHD has a shot at being our 4K solution within the consumer realm for it too fits within our 16:9 lifestyle -it's merely four times larger at 3,840 x 2,160 (1.78:1).

But where does that put 4K or at least the DCi standard we've come to know as 4K? Sadly, 4K does not play nice with 16:9, at least not without trimming a bit here and there. In reality, in order to be displayed properly, 4K should be presented on a 1.90:1 or a roughly 17:9 aspect ratio display. Of course I'm talking about full frame 4K; anamorphic 4K would still have bars top and bottom and/or require the use of an anamoprhic lens attachment, such as those made by Panamorph, not to mention a special screen. 17:9, huh? Doesn't quite have the same ring to it though it's not outside the realm of possibility seeing as how we're all going to have to buy new displays, whether those displays are flat panel TVs or projectors, when the time to switch to 4K ultimately comes. While 17:9 may be great for native DCi 4K it's not awesome for legacy source material for everything HD or later will be presented with black bars top and bottom, i.e. letter boxing -unless of course you zoom in and or manipulate the image. Yuck.

So what are we talking about then, how different is QFHD from true 4K? It's about a six and a half percent difference in pixel quantity. Is six and a half percent enough to change what we've come to know and accept in the 16:9 aspect ratio? It appears those claiming QFHD as 4K don't think so and while it may bug me to no end I can see their point. But if we adopt QFHD as our consumer 4K standard where does that leave theatrical or cinema 4K? In truth, the conversion between theatrical 4K and QFHD would be akin to going from theatrical 2K to Blu-ray, a loss in pixels few would probably notice and or lose sleep over. As a filmmaker, I want to see true 4K adopted for the home markets for it's cleaner and more pure, however as a consumer I see and even understand a lot of the argument behind QFHD.

That doesn't mean I have to like it though.

http://hometheaterreview.com/why-fau...-over-full-4k/

The guy who wrote that article obviously doesn't understand you don't need to pay a freaking arm and leg for a "special" screen. That is if you have the $25,000 to blow on it. Even $8000 for a projector, you would be concerned about what screen you buy.

Originally Posted by kpkelley

Link

Hey, I just read the review. I liked the reviewer mentioned this CAN accept the 4K signals (albeit 24/30fps), and I hope this will have 60p support in the future.

Also, here is it's dirty secret

Full-On/Full-Off Contrast Ratio: 152,000:1 (with auto full Iris)

[Flatnate]

Originally Posted by Trogdor2010

The guy who wrote that article obviously doesn't understand you don't need to pay a freaking arm and leg for a "special" screen. That is if you have the $25,000 to blow on it. Even $8000 for a projector, you would be concerned about what screen you buy.

The other big thing that the HomeTheater reviewer missed is how well true 4K plays with the current crop of anamorphic lenses. Trogdor, I figured you of all people would be behind the Faux-K standard as it keeps a 16:9 dimension screen versus 17:9. Its my understanding that a 1.33x expansion lens wouldn't play well with the true 4k DCI standard and you'd either have to zoom or grab a new lens with a different expansion ratio? Its going to be the guys who own lenses who make up the early adopter market here as well.

[Shallow_]

Im still waiting for some good and thorough reviews of the JVC x70/RS55..

Its been out for a good week now, comeon reviewers

[Big Daddy]

O am not sure if this has been posted before, but this is the December 6, 2011 review of the Sony's VPL-VW1000ES 4K projector by Home Theater magazine.

http://www.hometheater.com/content/s...rd-projector-0

[Trogdor2010]

Originally Posted by Flatnate

The other big thing that the HomeTheater reviewer missed is how well true 4K plays with the current crop of anamorphic lenses. Trogdor, I figured you of all people would be behind the Faux-K standard as it keeps a 16:9 dimension screen versus 17:9. Its my understanding that a 1.33x expansion lens wouldn't play well with the true 4k DCI standard and you'd either have to zoom or grab a new lens with a different expansion ratio? Its going to be the guys who own lenses who make up the early adopter market here as well.

While I am pro-A-lens user, the way the article was written was suggesting the zoom method as if it was an idea you wouldn't thought of , if you were to do the zoom method, the black bars would still be seen (although there is a little truth in that), most set ups and projectors (especially high end ones like the Sony) are able to hardly at all be noticable. If anything, using a 2.35:1 screen zoomed is a lot better than using a 16:9 or 4:3 screen for scope content.

If the so-called 17:9 aspect ratio is proposed, they'll likely create a different expansion stretch method (say 1.25x) to apply to this new "standard", considering how much A-lens markets are so niche, I don't think they float very well with this.

Ultimately the most efficient (and ideal) way to this ordeal is to apply a 2.35:1 version of the 4K standard (say 5076x2160), and, most importantly, create an internal masking system in the projectors, that blocks the edges of the light path, so the aspect ratio can appear to be either 2.35:1, 16:9, 4:3, etc., not a 16:9 image in a 2.35:1 frame. This would be the most consistent and effective compared to the Zoom and Anamorphic lens alternatives, and no more black bars (only leaving the unlit portions of the screen, which can be done with screen masking easily).

Originally Posted by Big Daddy

O am not sure if this has been posted before, but this is the December 6, 2011 review of the Sony's VPL-VW1000ES 4K projector by Home Theater magazine.

http://www.hometheater.com/content/s...rd-projector-0

Kpkelley posted this, thanks!

[Flatnate]

Yeah this will be interesting to watch play out in terms of which will be better for constant image height/cinescope loving people.

I know there is some heated debate over at AVS on the value of the anamorphic lens if the new JVC's pixel structure is fine enough to negate the benefit of scaling to the full panel before using the lens for expansion. Light loss with a lens compared to zooming is going to be close and probably dependent on the quality of the optics in the lens. So if the new JVC is bright enough and the pixel structure fine enough than the thought of adding a lens on top of a projector purchase could be much tougher now. I don't know if the JVC combined with a quality lens will be either amazing or frankly not very noticeable improvement compared to its zoom feature. I'm eager to hear reports from people.

The Sony is a whole different beast. First you'd need a 1.25x expansion lens due to the 17:9 aspect ratio of the DCI commercial 4k standard. I wonder if the projector could do an anamorphic stretch utilizing only the 16:9 portion of the panel to accommodate a 1.33x consumer oriented anamorphic lens? If it can not this projector would greatly benefit from a lens/focus memory due to the very few consumer lens options available.

Best case scenario for me is that the true DCI 4k standard takes off like wildfire, everyone starts buying 1.25x anamorphic lenses from now on and I get a sweet 1.33x lens for myself cheap. ... yeah right.

In the end, I have to wonder if the days of anamorphic lenses will be numbered due to both of these developments.

[Trogdor2010]

Well the idea for the JVC is creating the 2K chip into a pseudo 4K chip splitting the pixels. It might not be the question of whether it's the benefits of the A-lens, but maybe how much it is treated as the "high end" option. A lot of people that spend $25,000 on the Sony are likely to spend some cash on the ISCO III lens for example. The market that JVC is aiming for is less likely to buy an A-lens, and are more likely doing it zoomed (which is larger than the dying A-lens market), but even they will be much smaller than the market that just buys a 16:9 screen, even when the projectors will offer automatic lens adjustment.

I think they are not making the 2.35:1 chip and are not applying internal masking (like I mentioned) just so they can treat the A-lens market more "important" to the consumer. I'm frankly shocked they did not do this, other than to keep the A-lens market.

[Flatnate]

Originally Posted by Trogdor2010

Well the idea for the JVC is creating the 2K chip into a pseudo 4K chip splitting the pixels. It might not be the question of whether it's the benefits of the A-lens, but maybe how much it is treated as the "high end" option. A lot of people that spend $25,000 on the Sony are likely to spend some cash on the ISCO III lens for example. The market that JVC is aiming for is less likely to buy an A-lens, and are more likely doing it zoomed (which is larger than the dying A-lens market), but even they will be much smaller than the market that just buys a 16:9 screen, even when the projectors will offer automatic lens adjustment.

I think they are not making the 2.35:1 chip and are not applying internal masking (like I mentioned) just so they can treat the A-lens market more "important" to the consumer. I'm frankly shocked they did not do this, other than to keep the A-lens market.

I'm not sure to be honest. Like I can't fathom how the A-lens market would play in to any product development of most of these companies. I would think its more about what gives them a leg up over other projector manufacturers (possibly over other chipset makers even) in the end. I believe the cost of the widescreen aspect ratio chipset has been high enough where they were unsure if the widescreen/scope market was large enough to justify the entry and development costs.

Two other things. As far as I know Isco is the only company producing a 1.25x anamorphic lens, most likely around $10K. That is a lot of coin to shell out for possibly a marginal improvement over zooming with 4k resolution. I'm sure many will buy them if Sony does not offer a zoom/lens memory. Is Sony offering a zoom/lens memory?

My other question is if Sony offers a zoom/lens memory with enough brightness then they could pull someone away from say purchasing a JVC RS65 with an Isco III and sled? At new retail prices your probably in the same price range overall. The Sony would be more future proof with the ability to show true 4k content if a standard becomes finalized down the road. That alone would sway me. Ultimately your talking about not being able to distinguish pixel structure at close viewing distances with all options. I understand the high end market comes at exponential cost for diminishing returns but at some point people will throw in the towel because their eyes just won't be able to detect the improvements that an additional 3 to 10 grand in a lens offers. Not to mention true 1:1 pixel mapping, lack of pincushion, and other artifacts.

Interesting to watch. I do hope lenses continue to become cheaper with improved quality; otherwise I might find myself selling my RS20 for a RS55 with the zoom/lens memory someday. Either way going scope is important to me.

[Trogdor2010]

Originally Posted by Flatnate

I'm not sure to be honest. Like I can't fathom how the A-lens market would play in to any product development of most of these companies. I would think its more about what gives them a leg up over other projector manufacturers (possibly over other chipset makers even) in the end. I believe the cost of the widescreen aspect ratio chipset has been high enough where they were unsure if the widescreen/scope market was large enough to justify the entry and development costs.

Two other things. As far as I know Isco is the only company producing a 1.25x anamorphic lens, most likely around $10K. That is a lot of coin to shell out for possibly a marginal improvement over zooming with 4k resolution. I'm sure many will buy them if Sony does not offer a zoom/lens memory. Is Sony offering a zoom/lens memory?

My other question is if Sony offers a zoom/lens memory with enough brightness then they could pull someone away from say purchasing a JVC RS65 with an Isco III and sled? At new retail prices your probably in the same price range overall. The Sony would be more future proof with the ability to show true 4k content if a standard becomes finalized down the road. That alone would sway me. Ultimately your talking about not being able to distinguish pixel structure at close viewing distances with all options. I understand the high end market comes at exponential cost for diminishing returns but at some point people will throw in the towel because their eyes just won't be able to detect the improvements that an additional 3 to 10 grand in a lens offers. Not to mention true 1:1 pixel mapping, lack of pincushion, and other artifacts.

Interesting to watch. I do hope lenses continue to become cheaper with improved quality; otherwise I might find myself selling my RS20 for a RS55 with the zoom/lens memory someday. Either way going scope is important to me.

I really don't think production cost should be at all an issue making scope projector chips, even 10 years ago, it could have been possible to make a 1280x540 chip designed for scope content (not that people do). With 4K chips on the horizon, it really shouldn't be hard to add 33% more pixels for a more rectangle shape. This is not the days of CRTs when we had to cut corners for widescreen.

Remember, we are talking about the high end markets such as Sony is putting their 4K unit on, and those who invest in that kind of cash pay even more for the theater, sometimes at the $100 K range. The JVC is more suited for the DIY market, although some could pay a lot more for their theater.

In regards to the lens memory feature (and why people may buy A-lens), which we know the JVC has and probably the Sony can, this will convince people to forgo the A-lens option (and probably will); I'd be surprised newcomers will even want a lens for the JVC, but not so much with the Sony. Let's let go of the lens benefit or quality talk for a second, and think about why people would more likely pay for the lens if they are going to invest on say this Sony or most 3 chip DLP sets, and maybe not for the JVC. It's easier to swallow paying $10K for a lens with a $25K projector than say pay $8000 for the projector and paying even for a $3000 lens. See how it turns into a "Superiority Complex" mentality that plagues most markets including front projectors?

It will (and has), for most will go for the zoom method, with only the few buying the high end lens. That is not a bad thing, actually it's great alot more people can watch scope the way it's meant, but I'd personally would prefer an actual scope chip with internal masking (blanking) method, which should not be hard to make such a design.

[Flatnate]

Might have a chance to check out the 4k Sony VPL-VW1000 in two weeks. I'll post my impressions later. Did anyone have any questions they'd like me to ask if a Sony rep is around about the thing?

[Badas]

I checked out the Sony 4K at the beginning of the year. I must say I was impressed. I have it on my short list for a replacement next year. I must say I'm leaning towards the new JVC with E-shift 2 and 130,000:1 Native contrast. That thing was stella at half the price.

Ta Dono