8.0/ 10
SCORE

JMGO N1S 4K

Pros

• Excellent cost for 4K
• Great little length
• Fairly bright

Cons

• Colors aren’t outstanding
• Not particularly beautiful
• No move

When I first saw pictures of the N1S 4K, I assumed it was a little variation on JMGO’s N1S Pro and Ultra, which I reviewed over the past two decades. There’s no denying the family connection, but the N1S 4K is considerably smaller and certainly the newborn nephew. Inside the N1S 4K is a quad laser light website, a 4K DLP device, calm cooling and Facebook Television. Perhaps most amazing, it has all that for a list price of$ 1, 300. It’s one of the smallest and least costly 4K monitors I’ve reviewed.

There are a few concessions, yet. The colour isn’t great, nor is it mainly brilliant. Nevertheless, though, it’s pretty good. Making things even more exciting, I’ve seen the N1S for about$ 1, 000, making it one of the cheapest 4K monitors, full halt. But is acceptable, but not brilliant, performance a valuable trade-off for a lower price and small package? Yeah, perhaps.

Features and for

• Resolution: 4K&nbsp,
• HDR-compatible: Yes
• Lumens kit: 1, 100
• Zoom: No
• Lens transition: Gimbal
• Laser living: 30, 000 time

I am here for the slow but steady decrease in the price of 4K monitors. While its list is$ 1, 299, I’ve seen the N1S for$ 999. Either approach, that’s a great value for 4K. The JMGO has what I’m going to visit a gimbal-like have. It doesn’t turn as readily as some gimbaled monitors, but it does pivot up and down. While I’m usually never a fan of gimbaled monitors, since they’re usually too expensive for their efficiency, cost isn’t an issue here. &nbsp,

Neither is length, which is another good for the N1S. It’s just 6.5 inches broad, 7.5 cm high and 7.3 in size. That makes it one of the smallest apartment monitors I’ve reviewed. To put that in perspective, that’s the same footprint as the Apple Mac Mini ( 2023 ), and roughly 2 inches smaller in every dimension compared to the N1S Pro. That might not sound like a bit but it makes the N1S much more “grab-and-go” than the Pro, a sensation aided by a suitable handle on the bottom.

A score of 1, 100 lights isn’t a bit. Past JMGO monitors overstated their rated lights by a considerable sum, things that did not go unnoticed. In its most exact mode, I measured 575, which is very low but however many for a darker room. In the brighter Ultra Brightness mode, which is considerably natural, the N1S was worthy of 972, which is adequately close to spec and about average for projectors I’ve reviewed. There are plenty of brighter monitors on the market, but none have the N1S’s size and price. &nbsp,

Its contrast ratios was difficult to measure. Typically, I use a full black image ( 0 IRE ) to measure black level, and the JMGO, after a split second, would dim its lasers. This improves the dynamic contrast ratio but isn’t the local contrast ratios we’re looking to determine. It’s essentially” cheating” this test. While hardly something you’d really discover or be bothered by in the real world, it does mean the 2, 562: 1 that I measured is hardly comparable to the contrast ratios of another projectors I’ve measured. Tricking the projector with an active part of the screen ( the input identifier ) so that it didn’t dim yielded 1, 196: 1. While this likely isn’t as accurate a measurement as I’d prefer, it’s probably far closer to how it looks. Which is all to say, the contrast ratio is quite decent and a little better than average.

As expected for a projector of this size and cost, there’s no zoom or lens shift other than pivoting the entire projector on its stand. Doing this too much would require keystone correction, which we don’t recommend. &nbsp,

Connections

• HDMI inputs: 1
• USB port: 1
• Audio output: eARC
• Internet: Wi-Fi
• Remote: Not backlit

Given that the N1S is on the budget side for a 4K projector, not to mention its size, it’s probably not surprising there’s only one input. One’s better than none, of course, since I imagine most people will want to connect a game console to their projector. If you want to connect a streaming stick instead of using the built-in Google TV, there’s a USB connection as well that should be able to power it.

Two 5-watt speakers are somehow squeezed into the tiny case. These sound OK, but not great. They’re fairly tinny and don’t play very loudly. Given the size of the projector and the low power, they’re “fine”, but don’t expect amazing, room-filling sound. The audio feels more budget than the image. &nbsp,

The remote is the same one that most modern projectors have, and also, like so many of them, there’s no input button. Insisting remotes have an input button is absolutely the hill I’ll die on, but it’s not a hill I’m on, it’s more like the edge of a void that I’m screaming into. ” But Geoff”, you say,” Don’t projectors auto-detect when there’s a source and switch to it”? Sometimes they do, and sometimes that feature actually works! But usually it doesn’t. If only there was a way to switch inputs, without having to remember what unrelated button on the remote pulls up a menu that you can click through to select the input you want. Whatever. ( This isn’t specifically a JMGO issue. I cast a wide net in my annoyance. )

Picture quality comparisons

BenQ HT2060

Epson Home Cinema 2350

The N1S 4K is right in the price range of two of our favorite projectors. The BenQ HT2060 is 1080p, but looks fantastic with a great contrast ratio and accurate color. The Epson HC2350 is 4K and very bright. Both are on our best projectors list and should be significant competition to the JMGO. They are both, however, much larger than the JMGO. I connected them to a distribution amplifier (aka, a” splitter” ) and viewed them side-by-side on a 1.0-gain screen.

Sometimes when I do these comparisons, the three projectors are really different, and it’s easy to pick a winner. Other times, the contenders are impressively close. In this case, they’re quite different, but each has strengths that illustrate another’s weakness. It was really interesting. &nbsp,

Take brightness and contrast. The Epson was by far the brightest. I measured 2, 075 lumens, more than twice that of the BenQ, and which itself was twice as bright as the JMGO. That’s a big spread. The eye was naturally drawn to the Epson as it was just so bright. Neither the BenQ nor the JMGO was dim, but there’s a lot more flexibility for image size and room lights with the Epson. That brightness somewhat masks its biggest shortcoming, however: a mediocre contrast ratio of 348: 1. Compared to the other two, it looked significantly more washed out. Letterbox bars were noticeably gray, whereas on the other two, they were barely noticeable. The BenQ and JMGO looked fairly similar in terms of contrast.

Detail flipped things around. Despite using a pixel shift tech that is more accurately described as” 1080p*2″, the Epson seemed just as sharp as the JMGO. That brightness does a lot of favors. Lines, wrinkles, and textures on clothing and walls were all more detailed on both compared to the 1080p BenQ. That said, while resolution always gets a lot of hype, the reality is that 1080p is plenty if the rest of the image is good. So yes, side-by-side, the BenQ isn’t as sharp, but this is just one aspect of image quality and, honestly, not nearly as important as it seems. &nbsp,

Color was probably the one aspect where they were all fairly close. The BenQ is the most accurate of the three. No surprise there, it’s one of the most accurate modern projectors. The Epson is slightly worse, though close enough that, unless you were viewing them side-by-side, you probably wouldn’t notice. The BenQ is just slightly more lifelike, especially in skin tones. The JMGO, at least in its Movie mode, isn’t terrible but definitely not as accurate as the other two. Again, skin tones are the giveaway here and they don’t look as realistic as the BenQ. &nbsp,

In the JMGO’s other modes, well, yikes. Out of the box, this projector has some of the worst color I’ve seen in a mainstream projector. Wildly oversaturated colors, distracting, overly vibrant reds, alien greens and overall just a wild ride. It was bad enough that it made me disappointed that 99.9 % of people who buy an N1S will watch it like this, having never switched modes. &nbsp,

The potential for these intense, oversaturated colors does help the JMGO with HDR content. With the right content, it’s capable of somewhat richer, deeper colors than the BenQ. I couldn’t get HDR working on the Epson, but since it’s a lamp-based LCD projector, it likely wouldn’t have improved on the color potential of the JMGO’s lasers or Ben Q’s LEDs.

Speaking of lasers, that’s worth discussing. Nearly all modern projectors use either LEDs, lasers, a combination of both, and/or occasionally with a phosphor. Going forward, that’s likely all we’ll see, and for the most part, that’s fine. With the right implementation, any version of these technologies can look great, and often, they can result in smaller, quieter projectors. Lasers have some unique characteristics, though, that were on full display in this head-to-head, given that each projector here has a different tech. Lasers create an image that can be a little sparkly. As in, there’s a sort of texture to the image due to how the lasers create light. Some laser-based projectors have this effect to greater or lesser extents, so to be clear, I’m not picking on JMGO here. It’s not unpleasant per se, but it is a little different if you’re used to one of the other techs. The other aspect is only applicable for certain people with glasses. The way the narrow wavelengths of light get bent in some glasses can result in a diffraction artifact that color-shifts the light. This is most noticeable with three-laser projectors and with white objects like credits, street lights, lamps, etc, where one side of the white object will look like it has a blue ghost or shadow, the other side a red ghost/shadow. Again, this isn’t a JMGO-specific issue, it just bothers me enough as a glasses-wearer that I wouldn’t buy a laser projector, but I also know that the vast majority of people won’t have this issue, so it doesn’t affect my reviews. &nbsp,

Baby bro brings beams

So where does this leave us? All three of these projectors end up being quite close, despite being good in very different ways. If it were my money, I’d probably buy the BenQ. Great contrast, fairly bright, excellent color. The Epson’s brightness is a wonder, and for certain setups, it’d be ideal. It looks great, though if you look beyond the brightness, the image isn’t as good as the Ben Q’s. So where does that leave the JMGO? Its contrast is good, it’s bright “enough”, and its color ( at least in Movie mode ) is decent. Where it excels is that it’s by far the smallest, quietest and easiest to set up, assuming you don’t mind the gimbal design. So, while it doesn’t beat two of the best projectors you can get for around$ 1, 000, it might be the better choice for someone looking for something good but tiny, quiet, and highly portable. It even has a handle!