CurtPalme.com Home Theater Forum

[J.man1503]

I do not understand why the 9" models must be ran at 1080p. If 1080i has just as many lines of resolution as the 1080p, then why would they look different? Why would the scan lines on a 1080i image be more noticeable than scan lines on a 1080p image? Thanks.

[kal]

[kal]

[J.man1503]

When I read the projector comparison and rankings I noticed that your projector (the Barco Cine 8 Onyx / Zenith Pro 1200x right) can input 1080p but not resolve it on screen because of too smeared.
"While the projectors marked with an asterisk are able to sync to a 1080p signal, the image will most likely be too soft or smeared to be usable" this was taken from the rankings page.

1. Is this correct?


2. Also, how would a Runco 991 be for 16:9 1920 by 1080? Would I have to run progressive or interlaced? Is this too subjective to each and individual projector?

3. I also notice on the projector high performance page that Curt Palme states that all the projectors have LC ("All employ liquid-coupled (LC) optics for better contrast ratio") , but still only some on the HIgh performance page indicate they are LC while others do not. Why would some idicate they do while others do not if all have LC?

[kal]

[kal]

[Person99]

OK, I'm late to the game, but that has never stopped me before!

The folks have covered most of the basics, but let me ask some questions and add some comments.

1) What is your current model PJ and what do you view as its deficiencies (i.e. why do you want to upgrade)?

2) What is your current screen size (it seems that you are doing a zooming CIH set up so just give me the 2.37:1 size)?

3) What is your seating distance (either relative to your CIH screen height or either the 16:9 or 2.35:1 image size)?

4) In what order do you prioritize performance on these types of content (rank them in order): HD Films, SD (DVD) Films, broadcast HDTV shows, broadcast SDTV shows, broadcast HD sports, broadcast SD sports

Now for some comments (warning, I'm direct and some people get offended--it is truly not my intent! ).

I'm a home theater nut and a projector nut. There is no popular projector that I don't get to check out--often in my own neighborhood. This is the list of <$3000 1080p digitals have have played with in theaters (not dealer demo rooms, and some in my theater):
Panasonic PT-AE2000
Epson 1080UB
Mitsubishi HC5000
Optoma HD80

I can sum them up in one word: CRAP

LCDs have a very flat (no depth of image look) to them that I just hate. They are not involving at all because of this. All of these models have major contrast ratio and black level issues. Further, every single one of the LCD models is hit or miss on convergence. The question is not "will the projector have convergence issues?" but "how bad will those issues be and will they fix it?" Every single one of these that I've seen has convergence issue that were visible from a normal/average seating distance, further, all of them were "within spec" and the manufacturer refuses to fix them. I view seeing red and blue outlines on peoples faces as unacceptable and certainly not worth giving a projector an excellent rating (maybe not even average).

As far as black level, none of them are very low. LCDs have HORRIBLE native panel contrast ratios, so even with the dynamic iris engaged, a full black screen is roughly equivalent to what a good DarkChip 3 720p DLP can do. In fact, the contrast ratio you really experience with these even with the dynamic iris engaged is typically the same as, or worse than a DarkChip 3 720p DLP (for instance, I can get a much better contrast ratio out of an Optoma HD7100 than I can out of any of the above PJs).

All these projectors also are not very detailed (compare them to a JVC RS2 for instance and you see there is detail missing). The LCDs obtain their sharpness artificially by the pixel spacing, not by real detail. So, if you compare for instance the Mitsu HC5000 to a JVC DLA-RS2, you will at first think the HC5000 is sharper (thanks to the pixel spacing creating hard edges), but after watching for awhile you will actually see the JVC is sharper looking because it has more detail.

This same thing happens when you compare a top end 720p DLP to these 1080p LCDs. Because of the better CR (both on/off and ANSI) and more detail, from about 1.5x the picture width, the 720p DLP will appear most of the time to have equal or more resolution. I have head to head compared the following in the same theater with the same sources:
Epson 1080UB vs. Samsung SP-H710AE
Panasonic PT-AE2000 vs. Optoma HD7100

In the case of the first one, the Sammy is only an HD2+ chip machine, so the Epson could beat it in black level and CR (only by a little). The percieved resolution of them was the same about 99% of the time (find the right scene with the right background detail and you could detect that the epson had more resolution, but for any viewer watching a movie, they would think they were the same. Now quality aside, the Sammy is an amazing little PJ. It is to this day pretty much the only digital the can be calibrated to accurate primaries and secondaries without the use of an external high end processor like the Lumagen Radiance. Let me tell you, once you've seen accurate (read: realistic) flesh tones like a CRT can do, inaccurate displays look aweful)! So, in this head to head, I'd have to give the win to the Sammy as the Epson only beat it on absolute black level and very occasionally perceived resolution. The Sammy was better on color, depth of image, grayscale accuracy, uniformity, and "film-like" appearance.

I'm not even going to waste much time on the second one. The Optoma was so incredibly superior to the Panny it was not funny. The Optoma had WAAAAY more depth of image, better uniformity, better colors, better on/off and ANSI CR, and thanks to smoothscreen, better perceived resolution.

I have to laugh at this "only resolution matters" mentality. Over on AVS, some guy was wondering why is Optoma H79 (DC3 720p DLP) looked better than his friends Mitsubishi H4900 (LCD 1080p). Both of them thought so, even the HC4900 owner. They were flabbergasted--they just kept thinking--but the Mitsu IS 1080P!!!!! how can the Optoma look better? Resolution is only one component of image quality!

As for the Optoma HD80--it actually makes 1080p DLP look bad! Its on/off CR is horrible (2200:1), its ANSI CR is 1/3 the amount of a good 720p DC3 DLP, and its black level is not that good!

OK, that long dissertation was setting up to my argument. In the digital world right now, you've got 2 reasonable options IMO):
1) Go for quality: buy an RS2 and pray to god you get one with good convergence. You will have a spectacular picture--period.
2) Go for the "best you can afford" on a "budget": Get a great 720p DLP and live with the artifacts (RBE and minor dithering and false contouring).

Expanding to a include CRTs adds a third option:
3) Equal to, or very near the performance of number 1 at a cost equal to or very near the cost of number 2.

Being flat out honest, the CRT does some things better than the RS2 in the picture quality department (motion, absolute black level, convergence accuracy) and somethings worse (brightness, uniformity, sharpness). But in the end, they are very close to each other with these differences not being huge (except for convergence accuracy). Factoring in non-picture quality components, the CRT wins on price/value and reliability/longevity and the RS2 wins on user friendliness.

So, if you are not willing to pop for an RS2, it comes down to priorities, because you are going to make sacrifices. To overly simplify, it goes like this: You either either going to sacrifice brightness and user-friendliness in favor of "film-like" appearance, depth of image, color accuracy and no artifacts (CRT), or, the other way around (<$3000 digital).

Now, I have not talked about CIH. A CRT is simply not a good candidate. If that is VERY important, that I would advise against a CRT. However, there is something that the best 8" machines and good 9" machines can do that a digital cannot do as well: constant image area. With a constant image area, you typically set up on a 2.05:1 screen. Doing this, you keep the image area roughly equal between 1.78/1.85:1 and 2.35:1 content. You do this because 1.78 content is a little taller and a little narrower than 2.35:1 content. Basically 2.35:1 content uses the full width of the 2.05:1 screen (but not the full height), whereas 1.78:1 content uses the full height of the 2.05:1 screen (but not the full width). This makes all aspects equality enjoyable to watch (as to your brain, they are all the same size).

Anyway, let me know the answers to the questions, and I'll see if I can give you some other things to think about.

[J.man1503]

[ecrabb]

Dave,

What a well composed, objective, sensible look at the current state of things. Kudos.

SC

[Person99]

[perisoft]

You can't magically lose resolution by running a projector at 'too high' a resolution. You can fail to fully resolve all the pixels you're sending, but you can't make it worse than running the lower resolution; it's just not possible.

As a thought experiment, say you're running 1920x1080 to some projector that supposedly should only handle something stupid like 480p.

Now, if you send it every other line on/off, you clearly will not see a nice stripey picture. You'll see gray.

Now suppose that you send it lines alternating every three pixels, so you're sending the equivalent of alternating lines in a 640 pixel wide image. Obviously you're going to see alternating lines quite nicely; the bandwidth, if it allows 640 pixels when driven at 640x480, will certainly be capable of the same frequency square wave when it's scanning at 1920. There may be small variations in this, but I can't imagine that there's some magic frequency that the projector 'knows' where all of a sudden all the signals drop below their rated bandwidth.

So, we've come to the conclusion that you're resolving things just as well with 1920x1080 input as with 640x480.

But let's take this a little further:

Let's suppose that now you take the second signal and shift it gradually one pixel at a time. Ah hah! Now you're going to see those bars slowly slide to the right (or left). It can obviously start the square wave where you tell it, and it can create the square wave the way you want all the way, so obviously you can now see a gradual pan of that square wave pattern.

You wouldn't be able to with just a 640x480 signal, for obvious reasons! You'd just see alternating lines.

Now let's translate this into a real image - say, a starfield.

For the sake of argument, you have a 1920x1080 image full of single-pixel stars.

Our projector will clearly display something - each pixel WILL be lit. They may be dimmer than they would be with a better projector - probably rounded off, because the bandwidth won't support the signal going BANG BANG BANG up, steady, down; it'll be more of a bump.

But the projector WILL resolve those little dots; you WILL be able to see them.

So, will running our 480p projector at 1080p, if it will physically handle it, result in more information getting to the viewer? You're damned straight it will. Will it result in a softer image? Only if you prefer artificial pixel sharpness in your 480p image - and as far as I can tell, the people around here won't.

As for 1080i vs. 1080p, the difference is, I think, in both phosphor resolution and beam focus, and in bandwidth. It's basically an optical illusion: The phosphor and the projector aren't capable of making nice sharp points while trying to do every line with 1920 pixels. But if it scans every other line, your eye will use persistence of vision to combine two of those well-resolved lines into two solid visible lines. If you take this to the logical conclusion, you could interlace it by drawing every two lines at once, then every four... pretty soon you end up with a progressive scan image at half the scanning frequency.

My experiments with my Barco bear some of this out. If I turn the contrast way the hell down and look right at the tube face, that thing will EASILY resolve 2400x1440, every other pixel. Turn up the contrast and it blows out into gray. The phosphor falls apart.

But if I light the phosphor up for half the time I can resolve more, because it doesn't get a chance to bloom. If I rely on my EYE'S persistence of vision rather than the PHOSPHOR'S persistence of luminance, I can reduce the load on the phosphor and in so doing resolve things better.

This stuff isn't rocket science. It makes no sense to keep using incorrect terminology and conclusions when we're so quick to jump on digital PJs for slight issues.


(...PS: I've never seen an LCD PJ with convergence issues. I've got a Mitsubishi HC3000 (or something, one of the first 1080p projectors) and it's flawless. With convergence, anyway.)

[Person99]

[perisoft]

[Person99]

[Person99]

OP, where are you located?

I'd say go see a CRT, but most are so poorly set up that you may get a bad impression. So, I want to make sure you are seeing a good one!

[perisoft]

[kal]

[kal]

[kal]

[kal]

[J.man1503]

[J.man1503]

[J.man1503]

[scoobydoo]

I'm running a Barco 808 with the HD Leeza from a momitsu dvd player and the picture looks pretty good. I've scaled it up to 960p as the picture does look a little soft at 1080p.

I am going to add a PS3, hdfury and RTC2200 in the near future. I have also put HD145 colour lens and that gave a huge difference to the picture colour.

I still considered myself a newbie to all of this and when I bought my first PJ a barco 800 from Curt he told me "send a few extra $$ and get a better machine". After a year or so, I ended up upgrading, should have listened to him in the first place.
So hears my words of wisdom, once you go black, you'll never go back. .....I mean...figure out what your budget it, and get the best PJ (CRT pj that is) you can find for the price. IF you are lucky enough, get one that curt has looked over and have done the mods to already.
you won't regret it.