If you are into high-end home theater, check out our Display and Audio Calibration Guides to maximize your experience.
UPDATE: Our final hands-on review of the NZ700 is here.
I thought it would be helpful to provide some performance predictions on the newly announced NZ700. While the NZ500 is pretty much a base-equipped NP5, with new scaling, I feel that the NZ700 is a bit more interesting one to cover.
Brightness
The improved brightness in a much smaller chassis is achieved by using a larger lens aperture than the NZ7 and NZ8 before it. In fact, the NZ700 uses an 80mm lens, which is approx. 25% larger than the current 65mm lens, and 25% smaller than the NZ9’s 100mm lens (depends how you calculate it but it’s in the ballpark).
This actually puts the NZ700 between the NZ800 and NZ900 in terms of light efficiency. However, using a larger lens will also have a knock-on effect to open-iris contrast, which we will look at in a moment.
The NZ700’s 2300 lumens is not visibly less than the NZ8’s 2500 lumens. However, consider that the NZ8 has around a 5-7% upper hand due to light recycling being higher under 10% APL than on these new DILA chips. This does make the NZ8 look brighter than the 200 lumens difference would indicate. However, 2300 lumens is still excellent and very welcome, considering this is not an LCD projector, which has a much higher light efficiency.
Contrast
Open-iris contrast will likely fall between the NZ800 and NZ900. This means I expect around 26,000:1 with iris fully open and closest to the screen. This is around the same as an NZ8 gets, and better than we can expect from the average NZ900, which is around 22,000:1. However, it is worse than we can expect from the NZ800, which has around 30,000:1.
So basically, we will be in NZ8 territory in terms of on/off contrast.
Since ANSI contrast is dependent on the end to end optical block AND the new lens system, this is much harder to predict. With DILA, we see that larger aperture higher element lenses tend to decrease ANSI somewhat – as is the case with the NZ900 versus NZ800. However, the new 80mm lens system has 15 elements versus the 65mm lens’ 17 elements. So there is a reduction of optical elements here which could help ANSI – or balance the game here.
ANSI also depends on whether the new optical block is a high-contrast optical block or not. According to our sources, it is. However, it still doesn’t mean these units will land in at over 300:1 like the NZ800 units do.
This is a wild guess, but I expect the NZ700 to be around the 300:1 mark, but not reaching the same high ANSI numbers as the NZ800, which is closer to around 400:1 at the lens, and around 330:1 when measuring using our equipment away from the lens. What hits the screen is much less than that, of course.
If our sources are wrong, and the NZ700 doesn’t contain a high-contrast optical block, then ANSI could fall in closer to 250:1, more along the lines of the X-series. This would still be a big improvement over the 175:1 that the NP5 and NZ7 generally gets.
Sharpness
The larger lens will contribute to optical sharpness. In fact, this might be a brand new lens design that JVC might migrate all other units over to over time. So I have high hopes here!
From a practical point of view, the new lens might be only a slight improvement in sharpness. However, I hope it will deliver less variation from unit to unit over time – and hopefully better edge to edge sharpness, which is what the larger lenses tend to do.
One of the bigger improvement will be the new super-resolution-enhanced scaling engine. While there is no 8K upscaling here, it will help with scaling 4K content to the full DCI 4K resolution of the panel. Since this scaling can end up softening the image without 8K eShift, JVC has done a lot of work on the scaling engine to mitigate this, as seen on the NZ800 and NZ900. So I predict that these units will look sharper than the NP5, NZ7 and even possibly the NZ8 and NZ9. However, those higher-end units will still have the edge in terms of detail retrieval.
One of the other improvements in the software is actually helping motion resolution. It should bring these units in line with the NZ8 and NZ9 in this department. (When those units are in High Resolution 2 MPC mode, as that has the highest motion resolution on those units when eShift was enabled.)
Other Performance Considerations
- Unfortunately, both the NZ500 and NZ700 seem to lose 3D support. However, I would argue that this is a good cut to get a reduced price. 3D is best with higher brightness and the higher-end units still support it.
- There is no 8K or 4K/120Hz input here. However, considering how good a gaming machine the NZ800 and NZ900 are due to the much-upgraded software and massively reduced latency with laser dimming, CMD and even Frame Adapt HDR, I would expect that people won’t miss 4K/120Hz. These machines will still perform really well.
- No eShift here, that means no 8K input. This had to go to reduce the price and it was the right thing to cut. There is no 8K content on the horizon, and as amazing as the NZ800 is with its 8K upscaling, we really needed lower-cost 4K units.
Conclusion
If I had to describe these new units in one sentence, then I would say that these are the laser follow-up units to the X-series. I believe those that waited to jump ship because of lacklustre performance or a high price will feel compelled to invest in JVC’s new NZ500 and NZ700 units, and not regret it.
The addition of a laser-light source is truly game-changing when coming from a lamp. The fact that brightness doesn’t fade and fluctuate and colours stay much more stable over time is a much better experience, and is closer to a TV.
Having said that, the laser units still shift quite a bit gamma-wise in the first 500 hours. However, once an autocal is performed at the 500hr mark, the units stay very stable for a long time without having to recalibrate. So this is a massive improvement over the lamp based units.
I do want to wait for the review units to appear – we might ask JVC for one if we get the time, so stay tuned. Until then, check out our NZ800 review here.
Discover more from Simple Home Cinema
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.



Thank you Roland for sharing and useful insight.
Coming from a current NX5 owner looking for an upgrade I’m quite interested in the current JVC lineup. Before the JVC I owned Sony Projectors and although I always (and still maybe) enjoyed Sony’s video processing, I love the black performance of the JVCs. I have the NX5 for 4 years now, with 3000 hours.
I have a few questions that I will try to clarify in the next few weeks before committing to a new projector.
Does this new form factor has any shortcomings when compared with the higher end models?
Why wasn’t the 80mm lens used in the NZ800? In theory, it would seem better.
And, for me, the main question: not caring much on 8k and thinking on a 5-10 year investment is it worth it to go for the NZ800 over a NZ700 (or even NZ500)?
My main goal is to have my 138” screen within 100nits for as long as possible.
Cheers!
No worries, Nuno.
If you’re gonna keep it for 10 years and you want the best right now then the NZ800 makes more sense.
However, the NZ800/900 are only stop-gaps for the next models with dual lasers probably and no P3 filter. So you could get the NZ500 to tie you over then switch to the higher-end model.
Nits depends on your screen type / gain so you’d need to use a calculator (projector central one is good.)
I think these two lines were designed by different teams. Hence no 80mm lens there. But I also wouldn’t want it as it reduces contrast so I prefer the 65mm until chips improve. I don’t even like the NZ900’s 100mm lens personally. I think it’s not a great compromise. Hope that clarifies… plus this new lens might still go through initial teething issues so best to do it on the lower-end models…
Hi Roland,
I followed your advice and checked at projector central de nit capabilities of the projectors that I am considering.
I know that partially it boils down to personal preference, but, would you consider a good practice to aim for a projector/screen combo that it’s able to provide more than 120nits to be able to calibrate up to 100nits and have some spare room for laser aging (considering a dark room)?
Thanks !
Hey Nuno,
I think that’s a good goal. But remember that HDR performance is also dependent on whether you’re relying on the internal tone mapping or external like Lumagen or MadVR.
Lumagen is able to run HDR comfortably even with 80nits and have it look punchy. JVC DTM might need around 100nits to look stellar. So it’s ultimately up to you.
But yes, brighter the better. Which projector are you thinking of?
When I bought the NX5 I did not think much on nits as I as just aiming for SDR and the JVC could provide enough brightness. 4 years later and I learned the hard way that more fine calculation is needed if I want to fully enjoy movies for more than a few months.
I was thinking on relying on JVCs DTM but can consider alternatives. For my scenario, I think the NZ700 will be on the verge of 100nits so, no headroom… I don’t know if Projector Central numbers are out of the box or calibrated. Either way, I would be limited from the beginning. Would a NZ700 + lumagen or madVR new low cost processors be better than an NZ800 on its own?
I don’t like much the rear exhaust of the NZ700 as I have my projector with not ideal conditions for heat dissipation at the back (no problem with intake, though). But I may make it work if necessary.
Well, 100nits is pretty good. Yes, that and a used Lumagen or Lumagen Core would work very well.
Is it as good as an NZ800? Well, we’ll have to see the tests… plus you might have to skip the colour filter unless JVC tuned the filter a bit better… 🙂
Over 10 years, when used at 1000hrs a year, you’d be down to 75nits. That’s still ok in my book – but only with external DTM.
Now Ekki at Cine4Home said they might produce tuning filters for these units. If so, you could get even more brightness and contrast out of them… as they tune them from high bright. If they do, I want to get one for my NZ800 too.
Ultimately, I would probably be ok with an NZ700 + Lumagen myself. We upgrade more often than every 10 years. I just don’t see you holding onto it for so long tbh.
* just a note… I was running HDR with Lumagen with 65nits at one point and it looked sensational once tweaked… so you can even go as low as that. Min 80nits is still a better goal for HDR.
Thank you for your inputs
So, I would say that my options are:
– Go for a new lamp to the NX5 to last another 3-4 years (but after 1 year or so it will dim below what I would like – 1.0 gain on a 138” screen);
– Go for a NZ500 as a stop gap with slightly better image than what I have now that will hold the brightness until the next generation and expect to be then an NZ8000 with dual lasers that would be worth for me the “10 year investment”;
– Go for a NZ700 with (maybe) much better image than the NX5 due to the new chip, processing , lumens. Higher investment that might make me happier from now up to the triple laser becomes real and affordable;
– Sell a kidney, go for the NZ800 now as a definitive image upgrade from the NX5 and enjoy a great projection performance that may hold to the temptation to upgrade throughout the next lineup generation…
Decisions, decisions :).
Other than the DCI-P3 filter I can’t see any other difference between the 500 and 700. Given the significant reduction in lumens if you use it, I’m wondering why the 700 is more interesting? Looking forward to your review, the 1.24 throw ratio and smaller form factor are very interesting to me and I suspect many others with big screen ambitions in a smallish room!
Hey Ian,
NZ500 lacks P3 filter and likely the high-contrast optical block. They said it lacks the new gen3 chips also but I doubt that can be kept up as that’s doubling manufacturing chain for the chips so unlikely… we’ll see…
Actually looks like HC block is included in NZ500 too. That’s good. So only possible issue is the chips. So let’s see how it turns out…
Yup, the differences between the NZ500 and NZ700 seem to come down to newer chip, color filter (that may or may not be useful) and some lumens.
So yeah, it’s indeed questionable
Well, you could also get a used NZ8 cheaply… and have almost everything. 😉
It may be something not particularly worth it, but with new chips out, I may feel much more comfortable making an investment in the newer technology. Quite curious on actual tests and reviews on these new units to see how far they fall from the current lineup and the higher end new machines.
As I said, I’m very confident in the NZ700. Not so much in the NZ500. I feel there will be a big gap. I never got along with the 5-series personally…
I hope you get a chance to review and compare the 500 to the 700. Sure looks like both will be popular.
We are so busy with other projects, that even if we do, it would be much shorter than the NZ800 review…
Hi,
I am referring to this sentence:
‘Open-iris contrast will likely fall between the NZ800 and NZ900. This means I expect around 26,000:1 with iris fully open and closest to the screen.’
I have a JVC X9900 with incredibly good contrast.
From what I’ve read so far:
1. a closed iris improves ON/OFF contrast
2. a closed iris worsens the Ansi contrast
What exactly does the distance to the screen change?
Let’s assume a 110’ 16:9 screen.
As close as possible to the projector = brightest picture!
Max far away = darkest picture!
But what happens to the contrast (ON/OFF and Ansi)?
Many thanks and greetings
Hi Andreas,
Yes to both 1 and 2.
When you place a projector closest to the screen, you use max zoom, and therefore contrast is at its lowest.
As you move the projector back, and you need to zoom in, you reduce brightness but you also improve contrast.
This is why I specified the worst-case scenario for each. Lots of reviewers and calibrators will just quote whatever contrast they are getting at their throw. That’s not exactly apples to apples. The NZ900 is likely to have the worst contrast of the 3 when set up that way, but also the brightest picture – all due to the lens. Unless JVC starts allocating the very best chips to the NZ900, which they haven’t shown in actual practice, this will stay that way. But the NZ900 will have very similar contrast to the NZ800 once brightness-matched, but at lower ANSI.
I actually think this is why they will likely move to one lens assembly, somewhere in-between the two. It is one of the recommendations we made to them (privately) after our NZ800 and NZ900 barrage of tests. We feel it would be prudent to drop the 100mm lens and do something that’s common between all the models again and drive the quality of it up hard. It’s easier to do that when you are mass-producing lenses. The current strategy isn’t the best, frankly.
But this new 80mm lens has LESS elements, which in my book is a good thing. Manufacturers tend to brag about how great their million-and-one element lenses are, but the more elements you have, the more potential for back reflections, streaking and issues with ANSI, so it’s a balance between getting the best optical sharpness edge to edge and not messing up the rest of the performance metrics.
Anyway, I hope that makes sense. I’m hoping this lens is good and will be rolled out across the line over time. But we shall see…