|
As this forum is rarely used anymore, we've locked it. Feel free to browse and read. Questions? Please reach out to us directly. Cheers! |
|
 |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| benareeno wrote: | | the list is pointless...people will defend their own projectors to their death. Minor differences between each category in pic quality...but the availability of parts/reliability and quietness of the projector are where one should choose. |
It isn't pointless. It's just a simple point of reference. An overview. Just some perspective. Nothing more. Like you said - minor differences for most machines. For those of us that understand EM vs. ES, LC vs AC, and color filtered vs. non-color filtered, yes - the list is of questionable utility. We don't need a list because we understand all this stuff. But what about the person shopping for their first projector? At least it's a frame of reference for a guy who doesn't know the difference between a 1271 and a G70 or a Barco 808 and an XG135LC.
I'd also point out that there isn't that much difference between any of these machines even in those regards, save for a a few notable exceptions. These machines should all be in a hush box if you care at all about audio and noise floor. They're all relatively similar with respect to reliability according to Curt who's worked on and supports hundreds of them, so the parts issue isn't even a real concern, unless perhaps you're deciding between a G90 or 909 and a 9500.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
benareeno
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 1614
Location: ottawa, canada
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
It's pointless to tirelessly debate projectors within a certain category...that's what I was getting at.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Agreed. I said as much earlier in thread.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spanky Ham
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 5643
Location: Comedy Central
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bruce 09 wrote: | | Quote: | | As a generalization, it's probably fair since it comes with HD10Ls |
10Ls are one of the sharpest focusing lenses out there, they only have a limited application, VERY small screens.
I have seen so many differences even between same models it is not funny, Curt mentioned this earlier about Xg`s
I have noticed this on Xgs as well . I have owned and seen 9500`s that looked as bad as a 8000
Simple Age of electronics is a HUGE FACTOR , over Heating in the ten or fifteen years before you own a projector , Misuse , Long standby hours , People making problematic parts machines into working machines for resale , f*ck*** up settings from three previous owners, Individuals not knowing what they are doing making expert comments with their limited experience with an old broken down projector .
Sadly that Is what a lot of info posted here is based on 
Bruce |
Guilty on all counts above, your honor! The worst crime is making expert comments with limited experience. Your honor, we would like Spanky sentenced to the digital forum at AVS with DP2 and Dave.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
schmoe
Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Posts: 374
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
FWIW, the rankings list on this site was a huge help to me. I think there's a tendancy to treat the list as gospel which I don't think is the intent of the list. That said, without it I would have been completely lost. And then me and every other aspiring n00b would be asking you guys on the forum for your opinions and we'd have nothing but bitchy threads like this. The list is a "necessary evil", IMO.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bruce 09
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 747
Location: Kamloops BC, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Guilty on all counts above, your honor! The worst crime is making expert comments with limited experience. Your honor, we would like Spanky sentenced to the digital forum at AVS with DP2 and Dave.
|
What kind of a sentence would that be, it's your favorite place . A more fitting punishment would be to serve drinks in a Havana Karaoke bar. 
Bruce
PS answer your phone
Last edited by Bruce 09 on Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:56 am; edited 2 times in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. Green
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1394
Location: Calgary
TV/Projector: Marquee 9501LC / NEC 9PG+
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| schmoe wrote: | | FWIW, the rankings list on this site was a huge help to me. I think there's a tendancy to treat the list as gospel which I don't think is the intent of the list. That said, without it I would have been completely lost. And then me and every other aspiring n00b would be asking you guys on the forum for your opinions and we'd have nothing but bitchy threads like this. The list is a "necessary evil", IMO. |
I totally agree. I spent a long time reviewing the list, then the specs, then all the other info. I found it very useful.
Unlike most guys I don't have a preference to any projector, though I'm leaning towards Marquee.
_________________
You can be young only once but, you can be immature forever.
Current Projector Marquee9501LC with PS3 (BLu-Ray) at 1080P LOVE IT! Screen is an Elunevision 120" 4:3 (2.4 gain - no hotspots). (also own a NEC 9PG+)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
perisoft
Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 2920
Location: Ithaca, NY
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| perisoft wrote: | | mp20748 wrote: | | It does exceptionally well with foreground sharpness. It's not the best with background sharpness... |
|
| Nashou66 wrote: | | detail(not sharpness detail is different) |
Indeed. Presumably 'detail' means the stuff you lose in the midst of black/white crush; 'sharpness' is what you lose when your lens mount gets bent over.
Regardless, a projector doesn't know about background vs. foreground whether it's detail, sharpness, color, or any other spec you could name. DVDs tend to *look* sharper with big-ass headshots, because when we see peoples' nose hairs two-pixels wide, our brains think "Whoah - a nose hair! This is a sharp image!". But they look horrid with wide-shot landscapes, because when your brain sees the same two pixels that made a nose hair make a tree trunk instead, your brain says, "Wow, I can't even see a tree trunk! That's awful!"
Exact same physical resolution on the screen. Very different perception.
The projector has nothing to do with it. Its capabilities do not depend on content. Anything else is faith.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 5:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Perisoft,
In general, you're right that detail is detail and sharpness is sharpness. But, Mike is right in that when you have those wide shots - the landscapes - and the projector has lots of bandwidth and can display ALL the detail in the source - that projector literally shows more background detail than a lesser projector. Yes, it shows less detail in the foreground, but as you pointed out, it's often less noticeable because we're not used to seeing people's nose hairs... We ARE used to seeing tree branches, though - even in the distance... So, it's especially noticeable in shots with lots of depth-of-field where foreground and background are mixed...
That was one of the things that blew my mind when I went from the 1271 to the G70... I had both the G70 and 1271 set up so I could pic mute each one and A-B... I watched various material, all on BD. The thing that really struck me was the three-dimensionality that the G70 had that the 1271 lacked... The depth the image had on the G70 was amazing. When I really analyzed it, it was two things: 1) The LC optics in the G70 smoked the 1271 so contrast was superior. Blacks were blacker, and colors were more vivid. 2) There was massive amounts more detail. As you pointed out, where the difference really stands out visually was in those big wide shots... background detail.
The 1271 didn't reveal much of the detail in the background, so the image seemed "flatter" - not just as in contrast, but actually as though the depth was compressed... As, in less contrast between sharper in-focus subjects and out-of-focus subjects gave the impression of less depth. The G70 OTOH, because the sharp things were sharper in contrast to the out-of-focus subjects, it actually gave more depth to the image - literally.
Seeing the two machines together and being able to flip back and forth was a real epiphany for me in that it was the first time I understood what Mike P was really getting at when he talked about "background detail". It was the first time I thought of a projected image description as "3D" being more than just videophile hyperbole... it was real.
Are you watching Blu-ray in your theater, yet?
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
benareeno
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 1614
Location: ottawa, canada
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 6:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
1271 -> G70....I agree, probably a huge upgrade.
9500LC -> MP Modded 9500LC...not much difference. I've seen both...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jkruger
Joined: 24 Oct 2007
Posts: 2435
Location: Carlsbad, CA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 6:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Holy Crap.....C'mon guys, just get your projectors set up the best you are comfortable with and enjoy them.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mp20748
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 5689
Location: Maryland
TV/Projector: 9500LC Ultra / Super 02 and 03 VIM
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | Perisoft,
In general, you're right that detail is detail and sharpness is sharpness. But, Mike is right in that when you have those wide shots - the landscapes - and the projector has lots of bandwidth and can display ALL the detail in the source - that projector literally shows more background detail than a lesser projector. Yes, it shows less detail in the foreground, but as you pointed out, it's often less noticeable because we're not used to seeing people's nose hairs... We ARE used to seeing tree branches, though - even in the distance... So, it's especially noticeable in shots with lots of depth-of-field where foreground and background are mixed...
That was one of the things that blew my mind when I went from the 1271 to the G70... I had both the G70 and 1271 set up so I could pic mute each one and A-B... I watched various material, all on BD. The thing that really struck me was the three-dimensionality that the G70 had that the 1271 lacked... The depth the image had on the G70 was amazing. When I really analyzed it, it was two things: 1) The LC optics in the G70 smoked the 1271 so contrast was superior. Blacks were blacker, and colors were more vivid. 2) There was massive amounts more detail. As you pointed out, where the difference really stands out visually was in those big wide shots... background detail.
The 1271 didn't reveal much of the detail in the background, so the image seemed "flatter" - not just as in contrast, but actually as though the depth was compressed... As, in less contrast between sharper in-focus subjects and out-of-focus subjects gave the impression of less depth. The G70 OTOH, because the sharp things were sharper in contrast to the out-of-focus subjects, it actually gave more depth to the image - literally.
Seeing the two machines together and being able to flip back and forth was a real epiphany for me in that it was the first time I understood what Mike P was really getting at when he talked about "background detail". It was the first time I thought of a projected image description as "3D" being more than just videophile hyperbole... it was real.
SC |
Yep -- very well explained
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
perisoft
Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 2920
Location: Ithaca, NY
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | Perisoft,
In general, you're right that detail is detail and sharpness is sharpness. But, Mike is right in that when you have those wide shots - the landscapes - and the projector has lots of bandwidth and can display ALL the detail in the source - that projector literally shows more background detail than a lesser projector.
|
OK. Now, here's a question - is the implication that background scenes (that forest) will have greater high frequency content than foreground scenes, and also that a PJ has a harder time with scenes that have a lot of high frequency content?
I'm not sure how that could be the case, off-hand - but I'm not an expert in how the signal chains work.
So, if that's the case, I could see how a PJ could appear to be less sharp with a wide shot than with a narrow shot. But if it's not the case, again - the PJ is agnostic regarding scene content. That should be pretty easy to test, though - just have a one-on-one-off dot pattern for the whole screen vs. for just the center 10x10 pixels, and see if the center 10x10 is less sharp when the rest of the screen is one-on-one-off.
| Quote: |
The 1271 didn't reveal much of the detail in the background, so the image seemed "flatter" - not just as in contrast, but actually as though the depth was compressed... As, in less contrast between sharper in-focus subjects and out-of-focus subjects gave the impression of less depth. The G70 OTOH, because the sharp things were sharper in contrast to the out-of-focus subjects, it actually gave more depth to the image - literally.
|
Right - so there are two possibilities; either the PJ is 'blurrier' during scenes with a lot of high frequency content, which happen to be background scenes, or it's just a perceptual thing, and the PJ itself is just as sharp in either case, but it's just not noticeable.
| Quote: |
Are you watching Blu-ray in your theater, yet?
SC |
I've just barely got it up and running, and the only thing I've got on bd is Wall-E. I've watched a few scenes, but nothing close to optimal - I was watching at 1440x900p48, which resolves OK, but isn't exactly a great res for HD, and there're still a lot of issues to get it looking OK that I have to work out. Even so, it was neat to see the difference between DVD and BD - a scene early on where Wall-E is watching that musical via a big fresnel lens shows just the image in the DVD, but with the BD you can trace out the circles in the fresnel.
My biggest problems now are that (a) I can't resolve 1-on-1-off even at 1080i60, and (b) I get awfulness on R and B, with the left edge of any bright block having a big (>1 pixel) halo. Problem's not in the signal, either, so I'm not sure what's up with that.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| perisoft wrote: | | OK. Now, here's a question - is the implication that background scenes (that forest) will have greater high frequency content than foreground scenes |
Absolutely. A big wide angle shot of say, a forest, or a wheat field, will have a massive amount of high frequency content... some of it approaching even the square wave in a 1-on/1-off pattern.
| perisoft wrote: | | and also that a PJ has a harder time with scenes that have a lot of high frequency content? |
Absolutely. As that signal starts to look more and more like a square wave (1-on/1-off), the "speed" of the video chain becomes crucially important. If you think about one single scan line, the "speed" of the video chain is the video amplifiers on the neckboard being able to deliver an extremely short burst of current (white pixel), then settle back to zero for a short time (black pixel), then deliver an extremely short burst of current again... and do it all in a very controlled fashion. If the rise/fall time is too long, the square wave is distorted and and the pixels don't have sharp edges - they're blurry. That's what we're talking about, here. In audio amplifiers, we'd call it slew rate... How quickly can the amplifier deliver the current, and how closely can it reproduce a square wave without distorting it. It gets more and more difficult to do, the higher the resolution.
| perisoft wrote: | | so there are two possibilities; either the PJ is 'blurrier' during scenes with a lot of high frequency content, which happen to be background scenes, or it's just a perceptual thing, and the PJ itself is just as sharp in either case, but it's just not noticeable. |
Nobody is suggesting the projector is "blurrier" during scenes with HF content... But, that's just where you notice it. That's the true test of a projector, just like in audio amplifiers... You can't judge how good an amplifier is when the sound is barely audible... and playing low-frequency content. You have to crank it up, and play something full-bandwidth - an orchestra for instance - at a decent volume to see if the amp can deliver clean (undistorted) power.
To perfectly honest, I used to think Mike was full of crap, too when he talked about "background detail". It made no sense to me. Then, I saw with my own eyes what a great projector can do with a high-bandwidth image compared to just a "decent" projector... I saw just what he was talking about with respect to "background detail" and the "speed" of the video chain. After I did some reading about analog circuits, it all started to make sense. Then, I got my G70 and saw the difference, and it was all stark obvious what Mike was talking about. I can only imagine what a G90 or MP-modded 9500LC would look like on my screen. Almost gives me puddin' pants just thinking about it!
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nashou66
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Posts: 16171
Location: West Seneca NY
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
perisoft
Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 2920
Location: Ithaca, NY
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | | Then, I saw with my own eyes what a great projector can do with a high-bandwidth image compared to just a "decent" projector... |
Obviously, the only reasonable course of action is for someone to send me a G90 so I can do an A/B test...
Now if only I can figure out why my 120mhz 808s can't resolve 1080i... 
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You have a Graphics 808s, right? What lenses?
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Angus_rg
Joined: 16 Dec 2007
Posts: 339
Location: A planet far, far away..... Baltimore, MD
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| benareeno wrote: | | the list is pointless...people will defend their own projectors to their death. Minor differences between each category in pic quality...but the availability of parts/reliability and quietness of the projector are where one should choose. |
Bingo. It's a general list, nothing more, nothing less. Plenty informative for someone to make an educated choice.
Personally, I say put the Marquee 8500 at the top of the list. Who cares about picture, tube size, and LC. You can find them for a steal, get cheap replacement parts, massive upgrade avenues, and probably the most widely used projector baseline out there making troubleshooting a breeze.
Kal, please move it so I can sleep at night.
_________________
It's good to be the king.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
perisoft
Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 2920
Location: Ithaca, NY
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | You have a Graphics 808s, right? What lenses?
SC |
Yeah, g808s, sony tubes, etc. I've got PT65s on there now; I had HD8s but saw some photos which suggested the 65s had somewhat better focus. The 65s also let me use optical color filters at the rear of the lenses, rather than gels on the tube surface - an A/B on that confirmed that there was a big advantage.
Regardless, I'm fairly sure that it's not an optical focus issue (at least at the center; I just haven't bothered getting optical right at the corners... bigger fish to fry etc) because I can see the phosphor grain clearly on all three.
Astig isn't perfect, but on the green it's pretty good, and even at 1080i60 a 1-on-1-off, either horizontal or vertical, is *barely* discernible... more like 1-on, 1 95% on. 
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hmm. Something's not quite right. Sounds about like my 1271 with PT-65's, and the G808s should be a fair bit better, I'd think. Although, now that I think about it... I have to say... Personally, I saw VERY little difference between the set of HD-8's and PT-65's I had. To be brutally honest, I thought they both sucked ass. I could see 1080i scan lines on the face of the 07MP's in my 1271 almost with the naked eye. With a loupe, they were plainly visible... Yet, on-screen, the scan lines were virtually invisible. That's obviously the lenses! If the lenses were crippling even my good 'ol 1271, it would make sense then that even with the better/newer 808s, you're seeing no more sharpness than I saw with the 1271. Chew on that...
Based on what I saw, I think the performance of some of the machines with HD-8's and similar are really hampered by the lenses themselves. I mean these lenses were common during the time when SD video ruled and even if you hooked a computer up to the projector it was 640x480, 800x600, or MAYBE 1024x768... and that was 4:3. When we run 1080i, we're running the equivalent of 1920x1440, at least as far as the optical performance required to reproduce it faithfully. That's more than double the resolution they were really designed to even begin to try to reproduce.
If I had a nice 8500 or a 808 like yours, and I could afford it, I would run, not walk to find a set of 144/145's and Joust's adapters (or a DIY version). I always wanted to try a set of HD-144's with Joust's adapters, but never wanted to spend almost as much on lenses and adapters as what I spent on the projector.
Anybody have optical resolution data from USPL for HD-8's and HD-144's? I'd be curious to see the difference.
What does the on/off pattern look like if you look right into the lenses with sunglasses on?
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Forum powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
|
|
