SONY VPL-VW500ES vs JVC X700 and X900

SMCED

Novice Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2015
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Age
58
Location
Ontario
Just wondering if anyone could help me decide between these projectors.
I will be using a Stewart 2.35:1 wall screen, and if necessary a 16:9 motorized drop down screen.
The room will have the ability for complete darkness if required.
 
I did look at the JVC options but plumped for the Sony, had a smile on my face for the 14 months and 2200 hours of use (it is our main TV/movie source). It also comes with a 3 year warranty and 4000 hour bulb life
Absolutely no regrets
kc
 
Really you need to see them both. JVC goes "blacker" Sony doesn't go as black but appears to have better in scene contrast. With a small screen and a completely BLACK room you are going to notice the difference in absolute black levels between the two. In a not completely black room (ie normal floor coverings and ceiling) and a large (say3m wide) screen, not so much. The Sony is my preferred option in most cases if it is within budget. I have supplied both to happy clients. I do know of one customer who i calibrated an X500 for who then bought a VW500, but then sold it almost immediately to get another X500...he didn't like the higher black level of the vw500 but his screen was under 3 wide and was in a basement cinema with black walls, ceiling, floor etc...
 
With native 4k bluray coming very soon and 4k Netflix available now,
I wouldn't buy a 1080p PJ, I'm very happy with my 500ES :D
 
I know what you mean Jackass but i have supplied two X500's in last month to clients who are just not interested in 4K just now as there is so little content, plus the fact the forthcoming 4K BD is still 9 months away...and when it does come out, if the discs they make are mastered with digital cinema colourspace in the rec2020 carrier your 500ES can't actually display the full gamut....so with 4K so "unknown" with little content for at least 12-24 months...they have taken the choice to just go 1080p at lower cost and wait to see how things pan out. Both solutions are excellent though.
 
I went for the VW500 for my own cinema and love the image, it displays movies with a beautiful picture that is so perfect to my eye I don't make unconsious mental notes to make minor tweaks upon another calibration...
Gordon, what projector do you most enjoy watching at home?
 
Sony VW1100 is an awesome projector and I agree with you Gordon, but my pocket was pretty much emptied out with the VW500. I am really pleased with the 500 image, especially after I calibrated it and on my 2.7M screen I'm over the moon with the end result
 
I totally agree with Gordon.

I have tested both a 500ES and an X500 in my room (fully dedicated, black velvet covered, but screen size only 88" diag 16/9).

In my room, as I don't need the extra brightness and can make the most of the better on/off on the JVC as the iris is fully closed, the X500 better fits my needs, as I like watching dark sci-fi, thrillers, etc. I just bought one as a transition projector, until UHD Bluray and fully compatible native 4K projectors become available.

I don't even use eshift with SD or 1080p content because in my room with the narrower pixel gap in the new JVC models, I can't take advantage of the increased resolution. Even sitting at 1.15SW, I can't see any pixel structure so e-shift only adds a bit of fan noise for 1080p content. It's nice to be able to play UHD/4K content for test/demo, but most of the time eshift is off here.

The 500ES is a great projector, displays upscaled 1080p beautifully, and doesn't add the small amount of video noise that the JVCs add to the picture (the picture is slightly cleaner). Its colors are also fantastic, and out of the box it's very accurate. The JVC needs the JVC Autocal software (and a Spyder4) to get as close without an external VP.

But given that the 500ES is not fully compatible with the upcoming UHD Bluray and UHDTV (it lacks DCI gamut compatibility and HDMI 2.0 Level A), the fact that it's 4K and supports HDCP 2.2 isn't really relevant if you don't need the brightness or can't make most of the added resolution.

So here is my advice:

- If you watch mostly TV and favour bright movies (comedy, drama) over dark movies (thrillers, sci-fi), especially if you like having a bit of ambient light, the Sony might be a better choice.
- If you have a fully dedicated room, with velvet or dark material on the walls, ceiling, floor at least 1.5m into the room, and if you don't need the extra brightness offered by the Sony (i.e. your screen is smallish like mine) the JVC is probably a better match.
- If you play games, the Sony is a better choice as its lag is much lower than the JVC (I don't have the exact numbers but I think it's something like 28ms in game mode for the Sony vs 120ms for the JVC)
- If you like 3D, the Sony has a bit less ghosting and is able to upscale 1080p 3D bluray to UHD, which produces the best 3D I've watched outside of DLP projectors. The Sony 3D glasses stink though IMHO, so I'd buy 3rd party glasses like the xPand 105.
- Remember that the JVC only has a better native on/off contrast if you can use it with the iris fully closed or near closed. With the iris fully open, they is much less of a gap between the two. so if you need to fully open the iris of the JVC, getting the Sony might be a better choice due to the better ANSI and higher true resolution, lower lag, HDCP 2.2 support etc.
- If you have native 4K content to display, then the Sony does a better job as it has native 4K panels. However, its lens is not as good as the VW1x00ES and it doesn't resolve the full 4K. It's more than what e-shift resolves, but it's less than what the VW1x00ES resolves with its better lens. If you want to be able to play commercial 4K/UHD content like Bluray 4K or UHDTV, then the Sony is the better choice, even if it won't be able to do so in full quality.

Remember that neither of these two projectors is fully compliant with the upcoming standards. While the Sony will allow you to display something, it won't make the most of the quality of either UHD Bluray (it doesn't support the wider gamut as it doesn't have a DCI filter) or UHDTV (its bandwidth limited to 10.2Gb/s, same as HDMI 1.4 means that it can't display UHD in 4:2:0 10bits as UHDTV requires, but is limited to 4:2:0 8 bits in 50/60p). The JVC won't display any commercial UHD content due to the lack of HDCP 2.2. It might be able to display UHD Bluray in 1080p, but no-one knows yet the restrictions for UHD Bluray content when the HDCP 2.2 protection chain is broken.

Whether all this matters to you or not, only you can tell, but given the price difference of the two models today (the X500 can be had around £3200 new with a 3 year warranty), I went for the X500 as it fits my set up and my needs better.

Another option you might want to add to your list is the Epson LS10000, which is expected to land in the UK next month. Laser, eshift (like the JVC) but with HDCP 2.2 (unlike the JVC) and DCI gamut support (unlike the 500ES). Unfortunately, it's HDMI 2.0 is limited to Level B (same as the Sonys), so UHD is limited to 4:2:0 8bits at 50/60p. Not a problem for bluray movies, but a limitation for UHDTV or bluray concerts/sports titles.

I plan to upgrade to a native 4K projector later this year or early 2016, when they offer models with DCI gamut support (like the VW1x00ES), HDCP 2.2 and HDMI 2.0 Level A (which the VW1x00ES doesn't have).

If you tell us more about your set up (screen size, viewing distance, room) and favoured content (2D/3D/Game/4K/bright/dark), we might be able to advise further.
 
Last edited:
500ES: "Doesn't resolve the full 4k"

Manni can you explain this to me? It has a 4k panel. :confused:
 
500ES: "Doesn't resolve the full 4k"

Manni can you explain this to me? It has a 4k panel. :confused:

It has a 4K panel but a lens which doesn't fully resolve the 2160p. It's been widely reported. The result is something in between the JVCs and the VW1x00ES. Better than eshift - which is about midway between 2K (4MP) and 4K (8MP) with about 6MP (effective) resolution - but not full 4K. So maybe around 7MP? You can see this with various patterns which come up with artifacts. I'll try to find the links to a few reviews, and a thread on a French forum which reported this.

Still, a very good picture if you ask me, but a notch below the vw1x00es.
 
Last edited:
As promised, a link to one of the reviews mentioning the lower MTF of the 500ES vs the 1x00ES (look at the 4K/UHD section):

Sony VPL-VW500ES 4K Projector Review

I couldn't find the archive of the French forum reporting the same and showing the patterns.

I wouldn't worry about this, I was just pointing out that replacing the front lens (the largest hence the most expensive) with a plastic lens had some consequences re PQ compared to the VW1x00ES which is all glass.

Probably not visible from a normal viewing distance with actual content, unless you have eagle eyes.
 
I totally agree with Gordon.

I have tested both a 500ES and an X500 in my room (fully dedicated, black velvet covered, but screen size only 88" diag 16/9).

In my room, as I don't need the extra brightness and can make the most of the better on/off on the JVC as the iris is fully closed, the X500 better fits my needs, as I like watching dark sci-fi, thrillers, etc. I just bought one as a transition projector, until UHD Bluray and fully compatible native 4K projectors become available.

I don't even use eshift with SD or 1080p content because in my room with the narrower pixel gap in the new JVC models, I can't take advantage of the increased resolution. Even sitting at 1.15SW, I can't see any pixel structure so e-shift only adds a bit of fan noise for 1080p content. It's nice to be able to play UHD/4K content for test/demo, but most of the time eshift is off here.

The 500ES is a great projector, displays upscaled 1080p beautifully, and doesn't add the small amount of video noise that the JVCs add to the picture (the picture is slightly cleaner). Its colors are also fantastic, and out of the box it's very accurate. The JVC needs the JVC Autocal software (and a Spyder4) to get as close without an external VP.

But given that it's not fully compatible with the upcoming UHD Bluray and UHDTV (it lacks DCI gamut compatibility and HDMI 2.0 Level A), the fact that it's 4K and supports HDCP 2.2 isn't really relevant if you don't need the brightness or can't make most of the added resolution.

So here is my advice:

- If you watch mostly TV and favour bright movies (comedy, drama) over dark movies (thrillers, sci-fi), especially if you like having a bit of ambient light, the Sony might be a better choice.
- If you have a fully dedicated room, with velvet or dark material on the walls, ceiling, floor at least 1.5m into the room, and if you don't need the extra brightness offered by the Sony (i.e. your screen is smallish like mine) the JVC is probably a better match.
- If you play games, the Sony is a better choice as its lag is much lower than the JVC (I don't have the exact numbers but I think it's something like 28ms in game mode for the Sony vs 120ms for the JVC)
- If you like 3D, the Sony has a bit less ghosting and is able to upscale 1080p 3D bluray to UHD, which produces the best 3D I've watched outside of DLP projectors. The Sony 3D glasses stink though IMHO, so I'd buy 3rd party glasses like the xPand 105.
- Remember that the JVC only has a better native on/off contrast if you can use it with the iris fully closed or near closed. With the iris fully open, they is much less of a gap between the two. so if you need to fully open the iris of the JVC, getting the Sony might be a better choice due to the better ANSI and higher true resolution, lower lag, HDCP 2.2 support etc.
- If you have native 4K content to display, then the Sony does a better job as it has native 4K panels. However, its lens is not as good as the VW1x00ES and it doesn't resolve the full 4K. It's more than what e-shift resolves, but it's less than what the VW1x00ES resolves with its better lens. If you want to be able to play commercial 4K/UHD content like Bluray 4K or UHDTV, then the Sony is the better choice, even if it won't be able to do so in full quality.

Remember that neither of these two projectors is fully compliant with the upcoming standards. While the Sony will allow you to display something, it won't make the most of the quality of either UHD Bluray (it doesn't support the wider gamut as it doesn't have a DCI filter) or UHDTV (its bandwidth limited to 10.2Gb/s, same as HDMI 1.4 means that it can't display UHD in 4:2:0 10bits as UHDTV requires, but is limited to 4:2:0 8 bits in 50/60p). The JVC won't display any commercial UHD content due to the lack of HDCP 2.2. It might be able to display UHD Bluray in 1080p, but no-one knows yet the restrictions for UHD Bluray content when the HDCP 2.2 protection chain is broken.

Whether all this matters to you or not, only you can tell, but given the price difference of the two models today (the X500 can be had around £3200 new with a 3 year warranty), I went for the X500 as it fits my set up and my needs better.

Another option you might want to add to your list is the Epson LS10000, which is expected to land in the UK next month. Laser, eshift (like the JVC) but with HDCP 2.2 (unlike the JVC) and DCI gamut support (unlike the 500ES). Unfortunately, it's HDMI 2.0 is limited to Level B (same as the Sonys), so UHD is limited to 4:2:0 8bits at 50/60p. Not a problem for bluray movies, but a limitation for UHDTV or bluray concerts/sports titles.

I plan to upgrade to a native 4K projector later this year or early 2016, when they offer models with DCI gamut support (like the VW1x00ES), HDCP 2.2 and HDMI 2.0 Level A (which the VW1x00ES doesn't have).

If you tell us more about your set up (screen size, viewing distance, room) and favoured content (2D/3D/Game/4K/bright/dark), we might be able to advise further.

And this is why I love avforums.

Great, incisive and balanced post.
 
The 'issue' with not resolving 4k with the Sony lens was quoted by the review linked to as follows..."Unsurprisingly, the 3-chip projector design, affordable price point and lens do result in a slightly lower MTF (softer image) than the tremendously expensive VW1000ES. ..As with the VW1000, from a normal viewing position, projecting a 123″ image, we couldn’t spot this. The limiting factor, ultimately, was our eyes."

Also that review was updated to say"Note: (November 8, 2013): our originally published review featured a miscommunication, stating that the VW500′s lens elements were plastic. In fact, only the front lens is plastic, with the majority being glass."

As regards 4k broadcast content the last thing I saw from Sky was that they were looking at a two phase 4k rollout, firstly with limited colour depth and then some time later adding the wider colour range.

In terms of the original post I'd say the incremental value of the x700 over the x500 was always hard to justify for most and as time passes with 4k getting closer I'd say gets harder to justify by the day. I think the x500 is still a sound purchase at the right price for those who understand its limitations with new content.

As for the vw500 you're into is it worth the extra over the vw300. All the reviews I've seen of the vw300 say that the on-paper issues with lack of iris are in reality much less significant than they would first appear.
 
The 'issue' with not resolving 4k with the Sony lens was quoted by the review linked to as follows..."Unsurprisingly, the 3-chip projector design, affordable price point and lens do result in a slightly lower MTF (softer image) than the tremendously expensive VW1000ES. ..As with the VW1000, from a normal viewing position, projecting a 123″ image, we couldn’t spot this. The limiting factor, ultimately, was our eyes."

Also that review was updated to say"Note: (November 8, 2013): our originally published review featured a miscommunication, stating that the VW500′s lens elements were plastic. In fact, only the front lens is plastic, with the majority being glass."

As regards 4k broadcast content the last thing I saw from Sky was that they were looking at a two phase 4k rollout, firstly with limited colour depth and then some time later adding the wider colour range.

In terms of the original post I'd say the incremental value of the x700 over the x500 was always hard to justify for most and as time passes with 4k getting closer I'd say gets harder to justify by the day. I think the x500 is still a sound purchase at the right price for those who understand its limitations with new content.

As for the vw500 you're into is it worth the extra over the vw300. All the reviews I've seen of the vw300 say that the on-paper issues with lack of iris are in reality much less significant than they would first appear.

Re the lens, I did mention in my post that only the front glass was plastic, they did initially misreport this but that was corrected later.

Re bit depth and wider gamut in UHDTV, you are confusing the two things.

The gamut for UHDTV is indeed limited to rec-709 (same as HDTV and bluray) in phase 1 from 2016, and will only switch gradually to rec2020 in 2018, until rec2020 becomes the only option in... 2020 :).

However, the bit depth is 10bits from the first stage. This means that if your PJ is limited to HDMI 2.2 Level B, you won't be able to display UHDTV in full quality, as the bit depth in UHD will be limited to 8 bits in 50/60hz in 4:2:0.

No idea how much this will impact the actual quality, given the way compression already degrades HDTV broadcast. They might have a dual stream (8bits and 10bits) for compatibility with HDMI level B displays, or the setbox might downconvert if the display reports a limited 8bits compatibility in 50/60hz.

In any case, the full spec for UHDTV requires 10bits rec-709 4:2:0 UHD in phase 1.

See: UHD Rollout Timetable at NAB 2014 - AVS Forum
 
Last edited:

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom