| Author |
Message |
dturco
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 3778
Location: Eastern Shore Maryland
TV/Projector: Runco DLP VX-3000i Marquee 9500 parts doner
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
SC, The new V-2 Moome card, [with Mikes improvements] was hands down the biggest noticeable improvement on my machine. Of course now I bought a Lumagen to go with it. So.... well see... Scope movies @1920x800 or 960p at 72hz is coming my way.
Oops, let the Lumy secret out. 
_________________
Firefly rules. Can't stop the signal.
http://www.hulu.com/firefly
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Spanky Ham
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 5643
Location: Comedy Central
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
So, if you are running 1080i or 720p then the Fury2 should be adequate?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dturco
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 3778
Location: Eastern Shore Maryland
TV/Projector: Runco DLP VX-3000i Marquee 9500 parts doner
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I really don't know. I should have said in comparison to the older Moome card. I was using the one with the component and HDMI. I have never used a Fury at all.
But with that caveat the 720p and 1080i was great, the older Moome just soften the picture a lot @1080p
And well I have a Marquee 9500 too... so I guess I have no idea really?
_________________
Firefly rules. Can't stop the signal.
http://www.hulu.com/firefly
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mp20748
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 5689
Location: Maryland
TV/Projector: 9500LC Ultra / Super 02 and 03 VIM
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CIR Engineering wrote: | | mp20748 wrote: | | ecrabb wrote: | | mp20748 wrote: | Most people won't notice the difference. And as picky as I am, Craig is almost worse.
Keep in mind, before we made the changes to the Moome card, the Fury 2 blew it away and did it easily. |
I'm probably about as anal as you guys are... Well, I'm as anal as my budget and technical expertise allows, anyway... Which Moome card did the HD Fury 2 blow out of the water?
SC |
FullHD V2 |
I think you are confusing the cards now Mike?
Moome's newest card (the one that he is making now for the Marquee and Sony) is the best thing out hands down. The latest Moome is the one to get if you want up to full 1080p 72Hz without attenuation (and it is also the very best for lower resolutions IMHO). The new Moome IFB is also well filtered so the image is clean and not noisy.
All Moome boards prior to the current v2 model attenuated to varying degrees and it was a lot of attenuation (depending on which board you are looking at). None of the Moome boards with analog component ins were very good in terms of noise or bandwidth. Comparing Moome products to HDFury, the HDFury products were better than early Moome boards.
John's early internal Sony IFB could almost do full 1080p 60Hz without attenuation, but it is noisy. The HDFury version one (DVI) actually had pretty good bandwidth, but no where near as good as Moome's current card or John's Sony DVI-IFB.
craigr |
No, his latest card is what I have now (with the exception of the gamma upgrade chip added later). When I first received it, it only produced better colors than the Fury2 that I had.
It was soft but very colorful with a much better color pallet than anything else I've tried. The softness is what was corrected along with making it produce a cleaner image.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CIR Engineering
Joined: 25 Aug 2008
Posts: 4269
Location: Chicago USA & Berlin Germany
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Spanky Ham wrote: | | So, if you are running 1080i or 720p then the Fury2 should be adequate? |
I tend to think so. However, there would be a measurable increase in BW if you went up to the HDF3 or Moome v2 external.
craigr
_________________
JETI 1501-HiRes 2nm Spectroradiometer
JETI 1211 Spectroradiometer
Photo Research PR-650 Spectroradiometer
Klein K10-A Colorimeter
Murideo Fresco SIX-G HDMI 2.x Multimedia Generator
Murideo Fresco SIX-A HDMI 2.x Analyzer
Light Illusion ColourSpace XPT Color Calibration Software
Light Illusion LightSpace XPT Pro Version 10.x Color Calibration Software
OMARDRIS JVC Software Patch to use K10-A and Jeti with JVC OEM AutoCal Software!
Sencore CR7000 CRT Tube Analyzer / Rejuvenater
Authorized Dealer for Lumagen & just about everything worth buying 
www.CIR-Engineering.com - craigr@cir-engineering.com
Phone: 865-405-6892
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ilias
Joined: 20 Apr 2007
Posts: 116
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Wye 1920X817? the G70 has 1700 Horizontal only! match better is 1700X817 for 72Hz?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ilias wrote: | | Wye 1920X817? the G70 has 1700 Horizontal only! match better is 1700X817 for 72Hz? |
No. The G70 is not "1700 horizontal only". There is no "hard" limit (within reason) to the horizontal resolution the projector will display; only an electronic high-frequency attenuation slope and optical limits which result in a certain MTF number.
To put it another way, why would you intentionally throw away resolution in the digital domain and introduce scaling artifacts, to better match the display resolution? What's the benefit?
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mp20748
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 5689
Location: Maryland
TV/Projector: 9500LC Ultra / Super 02 and 03 VIM
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | | ilias wrote: | | Wye 1920X817? the G70 has 1700 Horizontal only! match better is 1700X817 for 72Hz? |
No. The G70 is not "1700 horizontal only". There is no "hard" limit (within reason) to the horizontal resolution the projector will display; only an electronic high-frequency attenuation slope and optical limits which result in a certain MTF number.
To put it another way, why would you intentionally throw away resolution in the digital domain and introduce scaling artifacts, to better match the display resolution? What's the benefit?
SC |
That has been my same argument on this....but somehow I seem to always loose the argument when I'm not wrong on this.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kiev Savoie
Joined: 25 Oct 2007
Posts: 432
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 12:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CIR Engineering wrote: | The Moome internal FULLHD v2 cards are by far the best performing DA transcoders ever produced by anyone for high frequencies. They simply blow all past products out of the water in terms of bandwidth and overall performance and image quality. The next best card (including external transcoders) was John's Sony DVI-IFB. That card looks really sharp, but it is 8-bit color only and is a little noisy, but John's old IFB is still really great IMHO.
I do have screen shots and scope shots to back up what I say. In the coming weeks (or maybe a little longer) I will write a review of almost ALL the internal cards and external transcoders including the old Moome boards and HDF1 and HDF2.
craigr |
Looking forward to that review Craig. I see you specify the INTERNAL V2 card as the best for performance. What's the difference between the internal and the external version as far as performance goes?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 12:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mp20748 wrote: | | That has been my same argument on this....but somehow I seem to always loose the argument when I'm not wrong on this. |
I got your back on this one, Mike... We ain't losing this time!
Seriously, though... I've seen this parroted so many times, but when I question it, nobody seems to be able to come up with a good reason for this "technique", nor do they ever have any hard data for how they picked the resolution they've arrived at. Does 1700 pixels yield a higher MTF on the G70 than does 1920? Sure. But, the MTF would also be higher on 800 pixels, but who cares?
Like I said, I think it's a holdover from the days of scaling SD, and in that case, it made sense to find some upper resolution limit, and only scale to that... Althought, if you had some high-frequency attention, who cares when the original source was WAY below where the rolloff was occurring anyway!
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CIR Engineering
Joined: 25 Aug 2008
Posts: 4269
Location: Chicago USA & Berlin Germany
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kiev Savoie wrote: | | CIR Engineering wrote: | The Moome internal FULLHD v2 cards are by far the best performing DA transcoders ever produced by anyone for high frequencies. They simply blow all past products out of the water in terms of bandwidth and overall performance and image quality. The next best card (including external transcoders) was John's Sony DVI-IFB. That card looks really sharp, but it is 8-bit color only and is a little noisy, but John's old IFB is still really great IMHO.
I do have screen shots and scope shots to back up what I say. In the coming weeks (or maybe a little longer) I will write a review of almost ALL the internal cards and external transcoders including the old Moome boards and HDF1 and HDF2.
craigr |
Looking forward to that review Craig. I see you specify the INTERNAL V2 card as the best for performance. What's the difference between the internal and the external version as far as performance goes? |
Tons of difference between the current Moome external and internal boards. The internals use triple DAC's and opamp amps, just to name one thing.
craigr
_________________
JETI 1501-HiRes 2nm Spectroradiometer
JETI 1211 Spectroradiometer
Photo Research PR-650 Spectroradiometer
Klein K10-A Colorimeter
Murideo Fresco SIX-G HDMI 2.x Multimedia Generator
Murideo Fresco SIX-A HDMI 2.x Analyzer
Light Illusion ColourSpace XPT Color Calibration Software
Light Illusion LightSpace XPT Pro Version 10.x Color Calibration Software
OMARDRIS JVC Software Patch to use K10-A and Jeti with JVC OEM AutoCal Software!
Sencore CR7000 CRT Tube Analyzer / Rejuvenater
Authorized Dealer for Lumagen & just about everything worth buying
www.CIR-Engineering.com - craigr@cir-engineering.com
Phone: 865-405-6892
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CIR Engineering
Joined: 25 Aug 2008
Posts: 4269
Location: Chicago USA & Berlin Germany
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here is an old thread I started on scaler optimization.
http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=737385
The thing of primary importance is to maintain 1:1 pixel mapping to actually avoid scaling. If you run 1080x1920 you do this. If you run 817x1920 you can do this if you set everything up correctly.
Running 817x1920 for 2.35 movies does not have any scaling in 1:1 and is no different than running 1080p for 16x9... as long as you don't scale.
craigr
_________________
JETI 1501-HiRes 2nm Spectroradiometer
JETI 1211 Spectroradiometer
Photo Research PR-650 Spectroradiometer
Klein K10-A Colorimeter
Murideo Fresco SIX-G HDMI 2.x Multimedia Generator
Murideo Fresco SIX-A HDMI 2.x Analyzer
Light Illusion ColourSpace XPT Color Calibration Software
Light Illusion LightSpace XPT Pro Version 10.x Color Calibration Software
OMARDRIS JVC Software Patch to use K10-A and Jeti with JVC OEM AutoCal Software!
Sencore CR7000 CRT Tube Analyzer / Rejuvenater
Authorized Dealer for Lumagen & just about everything worth buying
www.CIR-Engineering.com - craigr@cir-engineering.com
Phone: 865-405-6892
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spanky Ham
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 5643
Location: Comedy Central
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | | mp20748 wrote: | | That has been my same argument on this....but somehow I seem to always loose the argument when I'm not wrong on this. |
I got your back on this one, Mike... We ain't losing this time!
Seriously, though... I've seen this parroted so many times, but when I question it, nobody seems to be able to come up with a good reason for this "technique", nor do they ever have any hard data for how they picked the resolution they've arrived at. Does 1700 pixels yield a higher MTF on the G70 than does 1920? Sure. But, the MTF would also be higher on 800 pixels, but who cares?
Like I said, I think it's a holdover from the days of scaling SD, and in that case, it made sense to find some upper resolution limit, and only scale to that... Althought, if you had some high-frequency attention, who cares when the original source was WAY below where the rolloff was occurring anyway!
SC |
I am not sure what argument that you two are talking about. Did I miss something?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
