| Author |
Message |
ralpharch
Joined: 02 Nov 2007
Posts: 211
Location: Derwood
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 4:55 pm Post subject: 1080p versus 1080i on a Marquee 81110+ |
|
|
I have a 1998 vintage Marquee 8 inch, so it has fairly late model video chain; but none of the MP mods etc.
I feed three sources through a Moome HD box - 1080i from a PS3 (component), my Comcast HD PVR box (HDMI), and Avel Pro-HD (HDMI) for streaming HD 1080i content recorded elsewhere on the network. These three setups all use a single memory/recall on the projector and all work fine with that one recall.
Question is on the PS3 and 1080p. Others have mentioned that 8 inch Marquees lose sharpness if driven at 1080p. Is there anything gained by trying out that input (that would offset the sharpness loss) or am I just wasting my time (I know I would then need another recall memory for 1080P).
In the past I have not seen much difference at 1080p versus 1080i but that is just judging with my eyes and to tell the truth I would trust more objective evidence from knowledgeable people better than not noticing a difference from 10 feet.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Curt Palme
CRT Tech
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 24396
Location: Langley, BC
TV/Projector: All of them!
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I personally would prefer to have the astig control that the 8500 has, I can never get corner focus perfect without it, so that limits what you can feed to the set. But you're also discovering that there's NOT a lot of difference between 1080i and 1080p.
I am contemplating selling off the stig modification sets (3 yokes, output and driver boards) out of some of my parts as I have a few sets here now. Figure on $250 for the lot. PM me if you're interested...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
draganm
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 8990
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ralpharch wrote: | | Question is on the PS3 and 1080p. Others have mentioned that 8 inch Marquees lose sharpness if driven at 1080p. Is there anything gained by trying out that input (that would offset the sharpness loss) or am I just wasting my time (I know I would then need another recall memory for 1080P). In the past I have not seen much difference at 1080p versus 1080i but that is just judging with my eyes and to tell the truth I would trust more objective evidence from knowledgeable people better than not noticing a difference from 10 feet. |
dpends on your screen aspect ratio really? with a 4:3 screen and full tube ratser (Vertical size 67) 1080P is no problem and really looks best IMO. Once you start squeezing the raster down the scan lines overlap quickly, so 720P or 1080i is the better choice here.
On my 8500, 1080i produces very large and distracting scan lines so I went with 720P.
| Curt Palme wrote: | | I am contemplating selling off the stig modification sets (3 yokes, output and driver boards) out of some of my parts as I have a few sets here now. Figure on $250 for the lot. PM me if you're interested... |
any chance you might have a seperate Wave board to sell seperately.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Person99
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4899
Location: Flower Mound, TX
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| draganm wrote: | | dpends on your screen aspect ratio really? with a 4:3 screen and full tube ratser (Vertical size 67) 1080P is no problem and really looks best IMO. |
"1080p" (written in that form) is by definition 16:9. I'm not sure the point of ever talking about 1080p on a 4:3 screen, do you think there are actually people that like to watch their 16:9 content vertically stretched?
| draganm wrote: | | On my 8500, 1080i produces very large and distracting scan lines so I went with 720P. |
As mentioned here both 720p and 1080i are better choices. Your PJ will struggle and will not resolve all the horizontal resolution of 1080i, but will still look good. Many don't mind interlacing artifacts and some really hate them. One thing to note, if you want to compare the two (which you should), you can optimize for each. For 720p, make your spot shape as small and as circular is you can. For 1080i, do the "Tim-trick": make your spot shape a vertically oriented ellipse with a height to width ratio of about 1.33:1. This will do two things:
1) Diminish scan line visibility by getting the different fields to overlap a bit
2) Increase your horizontal resolving ability to get close to about 1800 or so.
I for one prefer 1080i on an optimally set up 8" especially if you have the means to frame rate convert movie content to 72 or 96 and video content to 90. The high rates will also soften up the 'Quee, but 60 for video and 72 for film are still not too bad.
_________________
Dave
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
draganm
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 8990
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 10:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Person99 wrote: | | draganm wrote: | | dpends on your screen aspect ratio really? with a 4:3 screen and full tube ratser (Vertical size 67) 1080P is no problem and really looks best IMO. |
"1080p" (written in that form) is by definition 16:9. I'm not sure the point of ever talking about 1080p on a 4:3 screen, do you think there are actually people that like to watch their 16:9 content vertically stretched?. |
Well when you have a customer who insists on a 4:3 screen and he's running a BR player (with no 4:3 AR option) directly to a moome card, then you live with a little stretching. On a 4:3 screen I would prefer to set-up a scaler and do 1440 x 1080P but you work with what you have.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Person99
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4899
Location: Flower Mound, TX
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| draganm wrote: | | Person99 wrote: | | draganm wrote: | | dpends on your screen aspect ratio really? with a 4:3 screen and full tube ratser (Vertical size 67) 1080P is no problem and really looks best IMO. |
"1080p" (written in that form) is by definition 16:9. I'm not sure the point of ever talking about 1080p on a 4:3 screen, do you think there are actually people that like to watch their 16:9 content vertically stretched?. |
Well when you have a customer who insists on a 4:3 screen and he's running a BR player (with no 4:3 AR option) directly to a moome card, then you live with a little stretching. On a 4:3 screen I would prefer to set-up a scaler and do 1440 x 1080P but you work with what you have. |
This makes no sense. You don't have to live with stretching. You set up the 1080p memory block with the raster squished and centered on the 4:3 screen.
But, back the the original point, 1080p in a 4:3 AR is not "1080p" by definition. Here is a cool handy chart with all the common resolutions, their "names" if they have one, and their aspect ratios.
_________________
Dave
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ralpharch
Joined: 02 Nov 2007
Posts: 211
Location: Derwood
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 1:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Person99 wrote: | | draganm wrote: | | Person99 wrote: | | draganm wrote: | | dpends on your screen aspect ratio really? with a 4:3 screen and full tube ratser (Vertical size 67) 1080P is no problem and really looks best IMO. |
"1080p" (written in that form) is by definition 16:9. I'm not sure the point of ever talking about 1080p on a 4:3 screen, do you think there are actually people that like to watch their 16:9 content vertically stretched?. |
Well when you have a customer who insists on a 4:3 screen and he's running a BR player (with no 4:3 AR option) directly to a moome card, then you live with a little stretching. On a 4:3 screen I would prefer to set-up a scaler and do 1440 x 1080P but you work with what you have. |
This makes no sense. You don't have to live with stretching. You set up the 1080p memory block with the raster squished and centered on the 4:3 screen.
But, back the the original point, 1080p in a 4:3 AR is not "1080p" by definition. Here is a cool handy chart with all the common resolutions, their "names" if they have one, and their aspect ratios. |
Thanks to all for the feedback.
I have the more common situation with HD material squeezed vertically when outputting 1080i. However Draganm is correct that I have a 4:3 screen - so I do have a memory block set for outputting 4:3 material full screen. From above that is one situation where it looks like I could try out 1080p instead (but I don't watch much 4:3 material on the projector although a lot more of that is available (eg out of the cable box - but that's 1080i native) than HD.
So I guess I got my expected answer to not bother trying 1080p; but with a recommendation to try 720 as an alternate (my three sources can all output 720p as well). Will try that and see if one is considerably better than another (Edit - I don't have the scan line problem with my setup- I'm about 12 feet away and my eyesight is not that great).
I don't think I have the fine control on focus Person99 was mentioning - as Curt notes I don't have the Astig controls and at the moment doubt I will upgrade my 81110+ - mostly because it will still have halos and this is one aspect of the AC projector that does bother me.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
draganm
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 8990
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 1:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Person99 wrote: | | draganm wrote: | | Person99 wrote: | | draganm wrote: | | dpends on your screen aspect ratio really? with a 4:3 screen and full tube ratser (Vertical size 67) 1080P is no problem and really looks best IMO. |
"1080p" (written in that form) is by definition 16:9. I'm not sure the point of ever talking about 1080p on a 4:3 screen, do you think there are actually people that like to watch their 16:9 content vertically stretched?. |
Well when you have a customer who insists on a 4:3 screen and he's running a BR player (with no 4:3 AR option) directly to a moome card, then you live with a little stretching. On a 4:3 screen I would prefer to set-up a scaler and do 1440 x 1080P but you work with what you have. |
This makes no sense. You don't have to live with stretching. You set up the 1080p memory block with the raster squished and centered on the 4:3 screen.But, back the the original point, 1080p in a 4:3 AR is not "1080p" by definition. Here is a cool handy chart with all the common resolutions, their "names" if they have one, and their aspect ratios. |
you don't understand, when he'swatching broadcast TV he wants it to be "big", so if I squeezed his raster down it would make him unhappy. Dave you have to remember that not everyone out there running a projector is a videophile. There are some things which make people happy that are technically "incorrect" but it's their HT so they get to have it any way they like. I actually do have 2 different re-call memory's on that machine so when he's watching BR the raster isn't stretched to the point of looking unsuall to the casual viewer. Also, some of the left-porches with BR are actually clipped anyway so what you wind up with is a home-made psuedo "full screen" in 1080P . When he switches to broadcast and goes to re-call 2 it's get's a little taller still or true 4:3 . Is this an ISF certified set-up by-the-book 1080P, NO it isn't. But once again the guy is happy, that's how he likes it.
Anyway, this wasn't about whether 1080P on a 4:3 screen is "correct" it's about whether a Marquee 8500 can resolve 1080 vertical ines in full raster height. the answer is yes.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ralpharch
Joined: 02 Nov 2007
Posts: 211
Location: Derwood
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 1:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| draganm wrote: |
you don't understand, when he'swatching broadcast TV he wants it to be "big", so if I squeezed his raster down it would make him unhappy. Dave you have to remember that not everyone out there running a projector is a videophile. There are some things which make people happy that are technically "incorrect" but it's their HT so they get to have it any way they like. |
OT for CRTs - but this is similar to the situation I have with my wife and her viewing habits on our Sony36kd955xs direct view.
Its a 36" 4:3 with autosqueeze to a 33" 16:9 for 1080i and 720p.
She invariably wants to watch the analog cable channels because they are bigger. Never will tune to any of the digitals as she just likes that 25% bigger picture and could care less about better resolution.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spanky Ham
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 5643
Location: Comedy Central
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
As Digital Dave said give the 1080i oval dot a try. You can try 1080p and see if you like it, but its major advantage is reducing scan line visibility which is something that doesn't bother me.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Person99
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4899
Location: Flower Mound, TX
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Spanky Ham wrote: | | Digital Dave |
OOOOOOO, Spanky gave me a fancy new nickname! 
_________________
Dave
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spanky Ham
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 5643
Location: Comedy Central
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Person99 wrote: | | Spanky Ham wrote: | | Digital Dave |
OOOOOOO, Spanky gave me a fancy new nickname! |
Kimcoder, Digital Dave - hell I have to be good at something. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
