Results of the 2025 TSR Projector Shootout
- John Schuermann
- 2 days ago
- 21 min read
Updated: 18 hours ago
READ ON FOR OUR DETAILED REPORT!!!
If you’d like to discuss the results of this event or are interested in any of these projectors, please contact us at info@thescreeningroomav.com or call us at 720-377-3877. Content like this is difficult and expensive to produce; the business we hope to earn from this is what funds the next big event. If you find this kind of content valuable, please reach out to us about any of your audio / video needs so we can keep putting out this kind of good, reliable information. We'll be hosting a webinar soon to discuss in detail what we learned from the shootout. If you’re interested in attending the webinar, be sure to sign up for our mailing list.
INTRODUCTION
The Screening Room has always been passionate about the science of audio and video. For example, when we do product comparisons we go through great efforts to eliminate testing variables with the goal of creating a truly level, competitive playing field. Most product comparisons online or even in publications don’t put into place the stringent controls necessary to achieve reliable results, as such efforts are expensive and time consuming. However, taking the time to put strict scientific testing protocols in place is the only way to ensure you get valid data. This Projector Shootout event proved that to us once again, as the time, effort and dollars put in were not insignificant - but the end results are far more meaningful.
TEST APPARATUS
The projectors were split into two different groups and presented on two different 140" diagonal 16:9 Stewart Filmscreen Snomatte 100 (1.0-gain) screens. The sources were a Sony UHD player and a Kaleidescape Strato S. FedEx apparently forgot what "overnight" meant and failed to deliver the AV Pro Edge 8x8 matrix switcher we had planned to use, so signals were input via a Binary 4x1 HDMI switcher and 1x4 HDMI splitter using Tributaries HDMI cables.
OVERVIEW
Note - the following commentary was mostly written by John Schuermann with input from Steve, Kris, and Sammie.
Both Sony and Epson have made clear and obvious strides in improving how they handle HDR material. Mostly gone were the washed out, desaturated and "flat" looking renderings of darker HDR material that caused the JVC projectors to dominate every price point at our previous 2022 Laser Projector Shootout.
That said, JVC still dominated from a black level and shadow detail perspective. In all darker scenes, even the entry-level JVC NZ500 / RS1200 had clearly deeper blacks and more "depth" to dark images, and even those with mixed contrast (such as the sequence from Pixar's Elemental). However, the gap between how these types of scenes were handled was not nearly as great as it was back in 2022. In one clip (a very bright sequence from the film Alpha involving water, ice and snow), Sony's tone-mapping algorithms actually resulted in superior rendering of detail in bright portions of the image compared to the JVC NZ900. However, in darker scenes like those from Zero Dark Thirty (the helicopter attack near the end of the film) and the mixed-contrast in the scene from Elemental, the JVC looked richer and more dimensional. But with most material we chose that avoided extremes, the Sony and JVC were very comparable, even almost indistinguishable. It was discussed among the TSR staff that any of us would be happy with either projector, with the final tip of the hat going to the JVC due to its superior handling of lower-APL content. But make no mistake - we are happy to recommend either model depending on use-case scenarios.
The Valerion produced a pleasant image, but to my eyes (John), it lacked depth and dimensionality. It looked colorful, bright and sharp when viewing high-APL 4K SDR content. HDR content was a mixed bag; most of it looked fine while other sequences looked a little blown out and occasionally garish with an over-processed look. As we've seen with most entry-level DLP projectors, dark scenes and shadow detail were not as good as the Epson, JVC, or Sony, resulting in a flat-looking image. (For some differing views, please check out the "ATTENDEE COMMENTARY" at the bottom of the detailed write-up).
The Epson QB1000 impressed. Once again, most of the improvement came in how well their new tone-mapping engine handled darker material. Epson still suffers from bluish and somewhat washed-out blacks, but these are the kinds of things one notices far more dramatically when compared to other projectors that don't have this issue (in other words, you would notice this far less with this projector in your own room). The big selling points of the Epson, in our view, is high brightness (for large screens and/or ambient light situations) plus extremely low latency for gaming.
Note that low-latency for gaming is also a major selling point of the Sony as well as the Valerion.
One thing unanimously agreed upon (by our group, at least) - not once did "higher brightness" translate into "better HDR reproduction." HDR, after all, stands for High Dynamic Range. Dynamic Range is the difference between the deepest black you can do and the brightest white you can do. This is very much analogous to contrast. In our view, this idea of trying to improve HDR performance by only increasing brightness is a rather large mistake.
The group reviewing content on one of the projectors
IN MORE DETAIL
Out of the projectors tested, the Epson had the highest brightness, the Valerion the greatest color gamut coverage, and the JVC the best contrast / dynamic range. The JVC NZ500 / RS1200 was the dimmest projector in the first round of testing (NZ500 vs. Valerion vs. QB1000), but in almost every HDR clip, the NZ500 actually looked brighter and punchier than the other two projectors. It simply had deeper blacks with which to "anchor" the image, which is what produces what most people would refer to as HDR "pop."
But let's contextualize this. In a room with lots of ambient light- or light-colored walls and ceiling - some of this JVC advantage disappears. Getting the deep blacks and HDR pop we saw with the JVC models requires a room with very good light control. The JVC is probably also not the best choice if low latency gaming is your goal. In rooms with high ambient light situations, the extra brightness of the Epson starts making a lot of sense. Want to game in a bright room? You might be smarter to grab an Epson QB1000 or one of the high brightness Sonys, or even the Valerion.
Speaking of brightness and ambient light - special mention must be made of the Epson QL series projectors set up in the adjoining room on the enormous 180" Stewart Phantom screen. Even with the lights on at full blast in the ballroom, the images from the QL were bright, colorful and punchy. And they also have the same low latency gaming modes of the QB1000. In our view, the QL series Epsons are fantastic choices for those wanting gigantic screens - in rooms with or without light control. It's always about the right tool for the application, and if a giant screen is your desire, you need LOTS of light, which the Epsons QLs provide in spades.
Kris Deering educating the group on HDR tonemapping and how choices by the manufacturers impact the appearance of the projected image.
SUMMARY
To sum up, these are extremely generalized recommendations based on what we saw after two days of scrutinizing all kinds of different content:
The JVC NZ900 and Sony 8100 are both excellent high-end projectors that impressively handle just about any type of content you want to throw at them. JVC has the advantage with black levels and handling lower APL and mixed content, but Sony did better with some of the brighter content we threw at it (keep in mind, though, that adding an external video processor like a MadVR or Lumagen will eliminate the differences that are attributable to internal projector tone-mapping choices). Sony also has very low latency gaming modes so that may tip the scale if gaming is your thing. JVC's tone-mapping solution needs less "user intervention" than Sony's (again, this advantage is eliminated by adding a MadVR or Lumagen). If the JVC's color filter is not used, the Sony 8100 has slightly greater color gamut coverage (though side by side the two projectors looked almost identical in color reproduction). Note that one could actually increase the JVCs color gamut coverage to be better than the Sony by putting the color filter in place, but that comes at the expense of light output. Note also that the contrast advantage of the JVC can actually be improved by closing down the iris, but this also comes at the expense of brightness.
So which is better? In this regard comes down to size of screen and ambient light conditions and what features mean the most to you. For a totally darkened room where movie viewing is your thing, an optimized JVC NZ900 / RS4200 is hard to beat. If gaming is your thing, you have some ambient light issues, or you are willing to sacrifice some contrast performance to light up a very large screen, the Sony becomes a smart solution.
Much of what I stated above can also be directly extrapolated to the projectors at the lower end of the price spectrum. Have a dedicated theater with light control and want serious HDR pop and deep blacks? The JVC NZ500 (or its step-up model, the NZ700) are going to be hard to beat. Want to game and use the projector with some lights on and still have a very respectable image with most picture content? Or want to push the screen size as big as possible? The Epson should suit you nicely.
As movie fans who primarily watch films in our light-controlled spaces, we at TSR favor the JVCs for that type of application. But if gaming, sports viewing or huge image sizes become your goal, Sony and Epson fit the bill nicely. To me, the Valerion was an interesting addition to the shootout. As a lifestyle projector, it certainly has its charms and appeal. And the image quality was by no means "poor," especially when you think back to 7 or 8 years ago where you would have killed to have that level of performance in your home. But I don't think any of us would choose it for a dedicated home theater considering the other options available. That said, a $3000 price point is hard to argue with.
We did our very best to make this a fair and unbiased comparison. Not once did we offer our opinions during the comparisons as to which was better or even what to look for. And as a final note, we are dealers for ALL of these products, so there was no incentive for us to push one product over another.
READ ON FOR OBJECTIVE MEASUREMENTS AND ATTENDEE COMMENTARY!
Kris Deering (left) and Sammie Prescott, Jr (right) checking grayscale on one of the projectors.
OBJECTIVE MEASUREMENTS
Calibrated measurements of each projector in the shootout.
Valerion VisionMaster Pro2 - $2999:
SDR contrast ratio: 1839:1
SDR calibrated nits: 106
HDR contrast ratio: 1857:1
HDR calibrated nits: 143
Epson QB1000 - $7999
SDR contrast ratio: 3213:1
SDR calibrated nits: 105
HDR contrast ratio: 3331:1
HDR calibrated nits: 164
JVC NZ500 / RS1200 - $5999
SDR contrast ratio: 24,256:1
SDR calibrated nits: 102
HDR contrast ratio: 21,179:1
HDR calibrated nits: 110
JVC NZ900 / RS4200 - $25,999
SDR contrast ratio: 33,736:1
SDR calibrated nits: 104
HDR contrast ratio: 18,857:1
HDR calibrated nits: 131
SONY VPL-VW8100ES (Bravia 9) - $35,999
SDR contrast ratio: 9431:1
SDR calibrated nits: 99
HDR contrast ratio: 10,121:1
HDR calibrated nits: 152
A scene from Pixar's Elemental projected side-by-side on two different projectors after the formal comparison was over.
ATTENDEE COMMENTARY
We don't want anybody thinking this is all about us or just taking our word for it. Further, these events are all about attendees leaving having learned something, so we also emailed attendees and asked them to provide some commentary.
The Sony’s overall picture quality (specifically referencing their contrast capabilities) demonstrated to still be quite inferior to JVC’s flagship. The $8K-$10K greater MSRP for the Sony 8100 vs the JVC NZ900 just does not make any sense to me at all. Paying significantly more money…for a less capable product…no thanks. Just my $0.02. James Harmon
I was most impressed with both the JVC NZ500 and the Valerion and am very excited to see the performance levels we are able to get at their respective price points. I was expecting more from the QB1000 and assumed it would be a closer competitor to the JVC as far as black levels go but to my eyes the Valerion was less washed out than the Epson when compared to the JVC. Note that this was in HDR and projectors were not brightness matched so perhaps both Valerion and Epson could have put up more of a fight if they weren't setup significantly brighter than the NZ500. Peter Biancardi, Valerion Beta Tester aka 'FenceMan'
The biggest take away for me, who has attended a few of these of the years, is how much closer all three vendors have become. Especially Sony. In previous shootouts I wouldn't have touched Sony projectors due to how they handled dark scenes and their choices in tone mapping. I was very surprised this time how Sony was able to hold its own against the JVC in dark scenes like Zero Dark Thirty, and even produce what I perceived to be a better less blown out image in the Alpha scene. In general I didn't think either JVC handled that Alpha scene overly well and they lost some detail. The Epson while still not able to match the JVC in dark content has come a lot closer and was able to produce an overall great image in almost all the content shown. The one exception was probably Zero Dark Thirty, i thought Blade Runner was pretty close between Epson and JVC, at least much closer then it has been in the past. But the helicopters were lost to me on the Epson in Zero Dark Thirty. I wasn't a huge fan of the image produced by the Valerion, it did seem kind of flat by comparison with the JVC and Epson images. I wouldn't say it was bad, and for the price it was a good image, but it was outclassed by the other two projectors. I was surprised that even though it had the best color on paper, they didn't look as natural to me, something seemed off, it's something that would probably only be noticeable when compared directly to the other projectors in this sort of test. That's probably true for a lot of these comments however 😀. Chris Thompson
I'm a newbie when it comes to projectors. I’ve used OLEDs and plasmas for years, but just recently got a dedicated space and picked up my first projector — an Epson LS12000, which I’ve had for about six weeks. It’s very nice and I am happy with it for now. This event was my first time seeing a JVC and the Valerion in person, and the only Sony I’d seen before this was a 5000es model in a terrible Best Buy showroom setup. So I went into the shootout pretty green and without any strong bias toward any brand.For me, the JVCs delivered the most natural, cinematic, and rich image overall. Maybe it’s because it was my first time seeing one in person, but it exceeded any expectations I had going in. The other projectors were also very good in their own ways, but for my taste, the JVC gave me exactly the feel I want for a home theater. I don't like an overly processed image, and as someone who works in post-production, the JVC's image just looked right. I'm hoping to upgrade to a JVC as my next projector. Valerion:It became immediately clear that I’m sensitive to RBE. I’d heard about it before, but never experienced it until now so it won't work for me. The Valerion's picture was sharp, bright, and colorful, but it looked overly processed and far from the cinema feel that I got from the other projectors. Your description of a "garish" picture was spot on. Feels more like a living room TV replacement, not a dedicated theater projector. Still impressive for the price but not for me. Epson (QB1000):The QB 1000 was solid across the board, good at everything, but didn’t have any one area where it stood out. So it wasn’t as "exciting" as some of the others. I preferred the Epson’s image over the Valerion. Compared to my LS12000, the QB1000 didn’t look drastically different — maybe not different at all. If I had them side-by-side, I might notice something, but not enough to justify the upgrade at current pricing. The QL7000 was very impressive and looked great in all of the lighting! I have only positives to say about the JVC NZ900 and Sony 8100. The NZ900 was my favorite of the event but both looked amazing. JUSTIN LEWIS, EDITOR www.jlewisfilms.com
The Valerion, as others have noted, is very impressive for its price. I don't know if anything has changed today with its setup. It’s quite bright, and I believe it benchmarked at 99% of Rec.2020, while the rest were only hitting P3.What surprised me most was the NZ500. Despite its lower light output compared to the Epson QB1000 and Valerion, the highlights just popped. In a somewhat light-controlled room, it felt just as bright, with deep blacks. For example, in Blade Runner 2049 (chapter 12-13), the scene where the ship lands on the pad showcased brighter highlights on the NZ500 — perhaps due to its tone-mapping capabilities. Another standout scene where I (and everyone I think..) preferred the NZ500 was in Zero Dark Thirty during the mission launch, as the choppers fly into the pitch dark night. The NZ500 just had so much more detail while the Epson and Valerion were just washed out. AVS Forum user Heesenberg
My takeaway was the Epson and Sony have made significant strides compared to last shootout. The Epson had a blue hue to the blacks which was bothersome, but otherwise the image was bright and had good depth to it. To me it was a nice step up over what I saw from the LS-12000 in the last shootout. The RS-1200 was excellent, for the money there is nothing that comes close. Despite being roughly 50 nits down on the Epson, you never felt it wasn't bright enough and the detail on dark scenes was night and day to the others. The Valerion was just flat, very unimpressed on Saturday. They said it was fixed and better for Sunday which I did not stay for but I was able to watch a clip before the shootout started and while it looked a bit better it was the worst of the bunch by far. I understand its a lifestyle unit at lower price point, and I was very much looking forward to seeing it but think these hype videos on YouTube really went overboard. I think you would be better served for serious theater use to buy a used JVC or stretch to an RS-1200 if possible or Epson. The Sony and JVC at the top was a much closer battle. Both are top-tier units and the Sony would work better if you needed more light or couldn't take advantage of the JVC's iris or color filter due to screen size etc. Having said that, the cost differential between them is very high and for that reason I can't imagine somebody picking the Sony over the JVC. The post-tariff price difference will be $10,000 for around 500 lumens more light with slightly better native P3 color. Zach Faley
My wife and I attended the Sunday session. I will provide my overall impressions. First I met the owner of TSR, John and some of his team. These are great people who seem to really care about the theater experience. A lot of time and resources went into this setup. Kudos to them for that. I would not hesitate to make a purchase with them. I also met the infamous Kris Deering who moderated the session and did some of the calibrations. So we knew this would be done right. Overall all 5 projectors we looked at (NZ500, 900, Sony, Valerion and Epson) looked very good in normal non-stressing scenes. I personally was interested in how the NZ500 was going to look as an upgrade to my current older JVC projector. Except for the Valerion all the projectors now days are big and will be more challenging to ceiling mount in my theater room. Since there was discussion on this forum about the NZ500 focus and convergence and I asked Kris about it. He said he did not experience an issue. I saw no color fringing on letters. Note the Valerion seems to have some constraints in mounting due to fixed lenses so beware of that. OK so first comparison was the NZ500, Epson and Valerion. All looked good in bright normal scenes. The Valerion did have some color fringing on text letters. I could see the Valerion being a lower cost alternative for sports and gaming. But when the scenes were challenging with low light scenes, there was no comparison. The Epson and Valerion were washed out. Sometimes you could not discern the black bars at all. Scenes from Oblivion you could hardly see Morgan Freeman during the interrogation scene. In a night helicopter scene the JVC had detail where the others were washed out. So for me the Epson and Valerion are not serious contenders for critical movie watching. Now one thing that was interesting. There was scene shown from a bright festival in Rio. Although the Valerion was maybe a little too vivid (or torched) but the picture popped similar to what you might see on an OLED. The JVC by comparison was dark and not as detailed. This disappointed me. Whether that was due to lower light output or tone mapping decision I am not sure. Next we had the NZ900 and Sony. Both big expensive projectors. In general both had a great image. The way they were calibrated the JVC produced better whites in SDR mode but the Sony had much better whites in HDR. Kris said that all is fixable in calibration. Overall the JVC wins again because it has better contrast and does better in low light scenes. You could barely see Morgan Freeman in the scene mentioned above on the Sony while on the JVC you could at least make some of his face out. The night helicopter scene was no comparison. The JVC was clearly better. The Rio scene was interesting. Both the JVC and Sony looked really good and the picture was brighter than the NZ500 and more natural than the Valerion. Perfect IMO. Another scene that was interesting. There was a scene in the snow and ice. Very bright. The Sony handled it great. Even though there was a lot of white you could make out details. The JVC 900 on the other hand was completely washed out and flat. They played with the HDR settings but nothing could make it look good. Maybe the Iris needed to be closed down? Looks like a JVC HDR implementation choice. Other than that the JVC 900 was the clear winner for me. AVS Forum User DAVE1216
So I think the event went well and we really tried to do everything we could and make the best decisions we could to ensure everything looked its best and performed well. Ideally the main outcome is showing none of the projectors are bad, and all good choices and it will come down to application and a users use case. Additionally in a vacuum most people wouldn’t notice some of these things because they have nothing to compare it against. Additionally there was no leading, or pointing out anything, nor injecting our personal opinion on any of the projectors. We simply detailed the specs, answered questions and provided more information on specifics if needed or asked. In regards to the Valerion I was hesitant to update the firmware for multiple reasons which I stressed to Valerion, @FenceMan, Kris, etc. The exact reasons included some of what we saw on Day 1. Unfortunately even though I asked what stage of release status was the firmware, I never got an answer. I don’t know what was specifically fixed, changed, how many people had tested it, if there was any regression, if it was early beta, a possible release candidate. So I could only abide by their request even though I was hesitant. Just from initially updating the the firmware behavior that was not previously present, became present. One example is the unit powering back on after being turned off, which wasn’t an issue prior. Another was the kscape menu being clearly in 2020 with AUTO color space set when it worked flawlessly pre firmware. The overall performance seemed to take a hit and It seemed like a step back. Ultimately we calibrated the unit measured fine, however it just looked flat and the color just did not look right. In hindsight I should have factory reset it right away, though I didn’t so that is an oversight on my part. Though RBE did seem better in most cases. Though because it still didn’t seem correct, at the beginning of Day 2, I came in early tried a few different things, didn’t seem to help so I just recorded the settings, factory reset the unit, and reentered the settings. This is when it started to look more how it should. I started to look at content again. @FenceMan was there as well as Dewayne where we even compared it to a calibrated iPad Pro and it looked much more correct. Color Space was handled properly in Kaleidescape menu etc. It still lacked some depth and it seemed as though EBL still wasn’t functioning as strong as I recall pre firmware update but it did look better overall. Even during event prior to starting some clips on Valerion I checked to verify the correct settings were enabled.The downside is that the RBE was very strong. However even with that being said outside of Kris, Dewayne, and myself whom would discuss among ourselves “whispering” about how strong it was compared to Day 2, only one person mentioned it to me directly. Others may have seen it but didn’t mention it to me. I do wish the showing for it on Day 1 was as strong as Day 2, and again in hindsight I should have factory reset the unit immediately after updating the firmware but that was an oversight on my part and a lesson well-learned. Overall all the projectors looked good at the end, and anyone that owns any of them would and should be very happy with whatever they have or plan to get. If attendees walked away seeing that all are good and it comes down to your use case, and knowing in a vacuum you will not see most of the slight differences outside of various obvious things, Kris and I did our job. The only other thing I can say is that even though they are all good units, they could all be better. Hopefully manufactures were able to see that we need to do better in 4,000-nit content, or we need to do better with contrast, or our dynamic dimming. All of them are good, but they all can improve. SAMMIE PRESCOTT JR
The Epson QL models were on display in another room on a 180" ALR Stewart screen. They looked very good with the lights on and off. The fan noise at max laser with 10,000 lumens was incredibly quiet. There will likely be a higher lumen shootout at a later date with Barco, Christie and those QL Epsons. Zach Faley
I attended the Sunday shootout with my wife and toddler (who was pretty well behaved when he attended the budget shootout. My wife and I took turns during the top of the line comparisons with our son in the common area outside).We sat in the back row, so may not have had the best comparison perspective.First of any organized PJ shootout I've been to and was very well put on. Great and knowledgeable hosts and calibrators.All the PJs were calibrated to 100nits for the SDR scenes, and I believe each was maxed at 100% laser for the HDR scenes (I don't think the color filter on the NZ900 was used since there would be a hit in brightness to compare). On the 140" 16:9 1.0 Gain screen, what I remember/notes I took on calibrated HDR brightness were:NZ500: 110 nitsQB1000: ~163? nitsNZ900: ~133 nits Sony Bravia 9: 150nitsSince people are asking for what scenes were used. I don't have a Kaleidescape, but from my memory some scenes were: • Soccer 1080p SDR scene • Oblivion 1080p SDR 2 scenes ° Bright top of mountain scene with Tom Cruise picking up the plant ° Dark scene where we first meet Morgan Freeman • Rio 4K HDR festival scene • Blade Runner dark campfire/sparks scene • Deadpool vs Wolverine scene (never saw this one since they bypassed during budget shootout since our son was there lol, and I was with my son during this playback in the more expensive comparison). • Avatar scene (human spaceships/laser lights coming down, first initial blasts/fire through forest) • Ambulance scene (Mel Gibson joke reference to red challenger showing) • Zero Dark Thirty night helicopter low flying scene • Alpha trapped under ice scene • Elemental fire/water smoke love test scene My main interest was the budget projector shootout.Definitely was impressed with the NP500, overall provided the best mix of brightness, colors, tonemapping, and obviously blacks. The Valerion did seem to have a little yellow tint to me, but from what Kris had mentioned, they all had the sameish error so any could theoretically have been calibrated to be pushed more towards a certain color if a user had a preference. Also during the Rio scene, the Valerion seemed to just be too overly bright, like almost fake looking. Maybe it's because I was sitting in the back row, but the NZ500 didn't really look that much dimmer than the QB1000/Valerion. The JVC definitely didn't 'pop' as much in some of the brighter Rio moments. But from memory (since one PJ was shown at a time, besides for some dual side by sides per request at the end), I was expecting to notice a noticeable brightness difference during the Avatar scene or Alpha scene or the bright red challenger and really couldn't tell much at all. The main talking points were the raised blacks performance during the Zero Dark Thirty and SDR Oblivion scenes. I was very surprised how raised the zero dark thirty scene was from the Epson, definitely worse performing than the Valerion and both significantly worse than the JVC. Oblivion's SDR scene was also major with not even really being able to see Morgan Freeman's hand in the brighter projectors. I watched Oblivion this past weekend on my NP5 with my wife on 4K (and replayed the Morgan Freeman scene on the standard Blu-rays SDR afterwards). We run in low lamp primarily due to PJ noise in close proximity. But the NP5 seemed to show more detail in both HDR and SDR than those budget projectors but maybe it's poor memory or bad seating during the shootout. We did jump between low and high lamp during parts of Oblivion's 4K and it does definitely make quite a difference in the bright scenes' beauty. From the budget comparisons, seems like the NZ500 is the top pick, especially with the $2k price increase on the QB1000.Jumping up to the top of the line models (JVC vs Sony) - both were quite great. My wife somehow thinks there was noticeably more detail/sharpness compared to the budget ones but I find it hard to believe from our back row seating. Both images were beautiful, barely any difference to my eyes in most. The same Zero Dark Thirty and Oblivion scenes had the most differences, but were much less of a difference than the NZ500 vs QB1000. Like had been mentioned earlier in this thread, seeing Sony's Alpha presentation - I did seem to notice much more detail than the JVC's (or any of the budget projectors). Kris even played around with the different JVC settings and it wasn't able to reproduce the same level of detail as Sony's.I'm sure in a more dedicated room and me sitting at a more ideal seating position would make things a bit different. I for one can attest to wanting to experience more brightness and pops to HDR movies in my next projector/theater after having been able to experience a few of the popular Kansas City theaters back in January (madVR Labs Experience Center and Archaea's). Though seeing how poorly some of the raised blacks can appear after this past weekend, it'll be a tough decision when that time comes. And reading through the recent Kansas City JVC vs Epson top of the line comparisons, it seems like that's the popular battle. AVS Forum user JEEFO
In the comparisons the JVC was at its absolute worst contrast state vs Sony’s absolute best contrast state (for native). Both were using laser dimming. The JVC was in LOW for laser dimming, the Sony was in LIMITED. We felt these modes had the least amount of artifacts. Kris Deering
This is why I have said that there are advantages to the higher end JVC models over the lower models. If I had a NZ500/700, I could not do the same things I am doing now with my NZ900. So there are advantages to the headroom provided. It all comes back to what someone wants to achieve. And this applies to brightness, contrast, color volume and noise. Kris Deering
Kris Deering of Deep Dive AV explaining to the audience how the event will be conducted and why we chose to do it that way.
