Panasonic UB820/UB9000 4K UHD Blu-ray player

[sapiendut]

The differences are there but unless you know the scenes exactly, you won’t be able to tell the difference. Nearly all users only watch any movie once (as do I) and I can guarantee pretty much anybody can’t tell the difference between MadVR vs JVC’s own DTM. Realistically, how many of us, even as hobbyists, pay that much attention to the highlights/shadows as opposed to actually enjoy the movie? This is why while I do love madVR, I can’t justify the $16K cost of EE to added to my $16K RS3100 projector.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by sapiendut

The differences are there but unless you know the scenes exactly, you won’t be able to tell the difference. Nearly all users only watch any movie once (as do I) and I can guarantee pretty much anybody can’t tell the difference between MadVR vs JVC’s own DTM. Realistically, how many of us, even as hobbyists, pay that much attention to the highlights/shadows as opposed to actually enjoy the movie? This is why while I do love madVR, I can’t justify the $16K cost of EE to added to my $16K RS3100 projector.

MadVR is going for the fractional 1-percenter luxury market just like KScape or Trinnov. They could easily sell these same products for 1/3 or maybe 1/2 of the cost and make up for it in quantity, but they choose not to.



KScape, for instance, is committing highway robbery with their hardware. You could make the same DIY type SSD storage setup for a fraction and many do using Plex or some other local streamer device with similar catalog interface.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by sapiendut

The differences are there but unless you know the scenes exactly, you won’t be able to tell the difference. Nearly all users only watch any movie once (as do I) and I can guarantee pretty much anybody can’t tell the difference between MadVR vs JVC’s own DTM. Realistically, how many of us, even as hobbyists, pay that much attention to the highlights/shadows as opposed to actually enjoy the movie? This is why while I do love madVR, I can’t justify the $16K cost of EE to added to my $16K RS3100 projector.

The JVC is not even true DTM. It's only somewhat dynamic only on the upper end of the EOTF curve. There should be a dynamic mid-tone EOTF for brighter and darker scenes. The JVC's fixed settings are ALL based on the metadata of the content and that data is often wrong if it's even there. The max CLL ranges have been documented over at AVS by a couple of people. That is why people have to switch different numbers all of the time otherwise the inconsistencies are there if you know what to look for, but some of it is blatantly obvious. I cannot stand clipping and it catches my eye easy. I also don't care for the half-assed compression on some discs although others are fine with it. But the JVC is a inferior approach and it shows pretty easy IMO. It can look good on its own, but when compared to the Lumagen you really see what's missing. The Lumagen is fully dynamic analyzing multiple points of the single frame based on your brightness abilities, it doesn't stay fixed or look at metadata, which is a far superior approach. But honestly, it doesn't matter to me what the masses and others want as they will say streaming is as good as disc or that Epson blacks are nearly as good as JVC's. I also watch all of the movies in my collection and many films I've re-watched quite a bit.

[Naiera]

Originally Posted by Tok

If you have other things like a wider than 16:9 screen then a VP makes more sense. For those of us that use a fixed screen I find a VP a hard upsell just to possibly get slightly better HDR.

Pretty sure it's more than just "slightly better" at this point. I also need the calibration features and much more, so making it merely a question of "slightly better HDR" is a little reductive.

[Naiera]

Originally Posted by sapiendut

The differences are there but unless you know the scenes exactly, you won’t be able to tell the difference. Nearly all users only watch any movie once (as do I) and I can guarantee pretty much anybody can’t tell the difference between MadVR vs JVC’s own DTM. Realistically, how many of us, even as hobbyists, pay that much attention to the highlights/shadows as opposed to actually enjoy the movie? This is why while I do love madVR, I can’t justify the $16K cost of EE to added to my $16K RS3100 projector.

Why are you making it about MadVR with their MAD prices when a Lumagen Radiance Pro is just as good, and perhaps even better? As HeavyHitter has mentioned, you can get them for starting around $3K used. Instead of a massive monster box with a million unnecessary settings, the LRP is a nice, small-ish 1U box that fits anywhere you'd put any regular Blu-ray player.

[Naiera]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

KScape, for instance, is committing highway robbery with their hardware. You could make the same DIY type SSD storage setup for a fraction and many do using Plex or some other local streamer device with similar catalog interface.

Kaleidescape exists because of the very high price point, not in spite. Studios wouldn't license their stuff to them if it was priced similarly to everything else.

[Tok]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

MadVR is going for the fractional 1-percenter luxury market just like KScape or Trinnov. They could easily sell these same products for 1/3 or maybe 1/2 of the cost and make up for it in quantity, but they choose not to.



KScape, for instance, is committing highway robbery with their hardware. You could make the same DIY type SSD storage setup for a fraction and many do using Plex or some other local streamer device with similar catalog interface.

K-scape is expensive because of the deal they gave the studios. Studios are so fearful of any local storage they’d only allow K-scape to exist with the luxury price model. The studios view their core customers as thieves. It’s why managed copy for BD died before it launched.

[Tok]

Originally Posted by Naiera

Pretty sure it's more than just "slightly better" at this point. I also need the calibration features and much more, so making it merely a question of "slightly better HDR" is a little reductive.

Most that have seen DTM on JVC and HDR through MadVR or Lumagen say that it’s not necessary. Now if I had a Sony I’d definitely use one due to its lack of DTM in their HDR algorithm.

[ShadeRF]

Lots of misinformation in this thread. I've had JVC units for more than a decade including the RS3000 and it's version of DTM and now a JVC RS3100 since it was released. The Lumagen DTM is vastly superior to JVC's DTM, even the latest revision, and not just because it's set and forget, unlike the JVC solution, which requires constant fiddling depending on the movie you are watching. The Lumagen also receives multiple updates every single year improving their DTM, not just for edge cases but across the board improvements. JVC, we are lucky if we get 1 update a year, and at most 3 updates before the product is abandoned for a new model.

[sapiendut]

Hey, at least JVC updates their projectors with firmware. With Sony you don’t get new features in the firmware. They don’t even fix their problems at all

[sapiendut]

Originally Posted by ShadeRF

Lots of misinformation in this thread. I've had JVC units for more than a decade including the RS3000 and it's version of DTM and now a JVC RS3100 since it was released. The Lumagen DTM is vastly superior to JVC's DTM, even the latest revision, and not just because it's set and forget, unlike the JVC solution, which requires constant fiddling depending on the movie you are watching. The Lumagen also receives multiple updates every single year improving their DTM, not just for edge cases but across the board improvements. JVC, we are lucky if we get 1 update a year, and at most 3 updates before the product is abandoned for a new model.

What’s the difference between JVC and MadVR in terms of firmware update then? You claim MadVR update their system once a year. So that’s exactly like JVC, which is also once a year every October.

And as far saying Lumagen / MadVR to be vastly better, I beg to differ. Are they better? Yes. But put a new movie that someone have never seen before and only use the JVC DTM, they won’t be able to tell what’s lacking on the JVC’s DTM. Because at the end of the day once you’re immersed by the movie, the little differences here and there won’t be registered by the viewers’ brains.

Unless you are pixel peeping, of course.

[ShadeRF]

Originally Posted by sapiendut

What’s the difference between JVC and MadVR in terms of firmware update then? You claim MadVR update their system once a year. So that’s exactly like JVC, which is also once a year every October.

And as far saying Lumagen / MadVR to be vastly better, I beg to differ. Are they better? Yes. But put a new movie that someone have never seen before and only use the JVC DTM, they won’t be able to tell what’s lacking on the JVC’s DTM. Because at the end of the day once you’re immersed by the movie, the little differences here and there won’t be registered by the viewers’ brains.

Unless you are pixel peeping, of course.

I didn't say anything about MADVR at all, as I'm not a MADVR user. Also, are you seriously suggesting that because someone is ignorant of the fact there is a better solution it doesn't matter?

Is JVC DTM good enough for a lot, even most people... maybe. But the Lumagen is noticeably better in practically all scenarios that I have personally looked at in my own theater.... which is a lot.

[Naiera]

Originally Posted by Tok

Most that have seen DTM on JVC and HDR through MadVR or Lumagen say that it’s not necessary.

You’ve asked every one of them then?

[Naiera]

Originally Posted by sapiendut

Hey, at least JVC updates their projectors with firmware. With Sony you don’t get new features in the firmware. They don’t even fix their problems at all

No one was saying either manufacturer was better than the other

But JVC’s projectors are clearly superior…

[Naiera]

Two people in this debate seem to be trying to convince themselves, more than anyone else, that JVC’s tonemapping is good enough.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Naiera

Kaleidescape exists because of the very high price point, not in spite. Studios wouldn't license their stuff to them if it was priced similarly to everything else.

It's not the price, it's the closed, DRM system they set up with many of the studios. Their plug was almost pulled when they first came on the scene, so they had to release a locked down, proprietary setup. Even then, not all studios allow KScape to sell or rent their titles.



They could easily price at a point that would be enticing to a lot more people, but right now the marketing du jour in the AV industry is to snag the luxury, cost-is-no-object crowd.

[Naiera]

Right now? They've been around since forever ago.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Naiera

Right now? They've been around since forever ago.

They used to be priced a bit more reasonably. Now it's like they mark up their storage at about 1,000% or more. It's insane, but as they say some people have more money than brains.

[Naiera]

Far be it from me to defend rich people, but I know that there are plenty of happy Kaleidescape owners with plenty of brains.

[Naiera]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Also, the JVC DTM is not set and forget where as on the Lumagen it is.

This alone makes the JVC "DTM" useless. If it's not "set and forget", it's not doing it right.

It's too bad that HDR on projectors is such a headache, but that's what they did to use when they made the formats the way they did, where it's not somehow a layer of sorts you can just switch off.