JVC D-ILA convergence behavior/ tolerance.

CurtPalme.com Home Theater Forum
A forum with a sense of fun and community for Home Theater enthusiasts!
[ Products for Sale ] [ FAQ: Hooking it all up ] [ CRT Primer/FAQ ] [ Best/Worst CRT Projectors List ] [ Setup Tips & Manuals ] [ Advanced Procedures ] [ Newsletter ]

Blu-ray disc release list and must-have titles. Buy the latest and best Blu-ray titles to show off in your home theater!

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!

JVC D-ILA convergence behavior/ tolerance.
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.

This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

CurtPalme.com Forum Index -> Digital Projectors

Author

Message

kal
Forum Administrator

Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 18114
Location: Ottawa, Canada

TV/Projector: JVC DLA-NZ7

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 2:26 pm Post subject:

HogPilot wrote:

Chris is a great guy - I purchased my first HT3000E from him. That guy goes through projectors like no one else - and we're not talking $500 Dell business models, we're talking $20K-$50K units and up! His most recent acquisition was a Barco 4K DCI unit that puts out some serious light (24.5K calibrated lumens). To say he's loaded would be an understatement Smile

Yep. I forget what his story is (trust fund baby I think). He's in his 20's and has a home theater like this in his house:

Kal
_________________

Support our site by using our affiliate links. We thank you!
My basement/HT/bar/brewery build 2.0

stridsvognen
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 2:29 pm Post subject:

Wow...

kal
Forum Administrator

Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 18114
Location: Ottawa, Canada

TV/Projector: JVC DLA-NZ7

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 2:30 pm Post subject:

VideoGrabber wrote:

stridsvognen wrote:

And looks like it put some ringing to the edges with e shift.

Yes, HogPilot did already indicate that e-shift could introduce some ringing.

Could be the source material too. (EDIT: As SC mentions). Those warning/MPAA rating screens often are not the best quality. You really need to use known test patterns if anything needs to be analyzed closely.

Kal
_________________

Support our site by using our affiliate links. We thank you!
My basement/HT/bar/brewery build 2.0

VideoGrabber

Joined: 09 Apr 2006
Posts: 933
Location: Michigan

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 2:57 pm Post subject:

kal wrote:

Yep. I forget what his story is (trust fund baby I think). He's in his 20's and has a home theater like this in his house:

You're not giving Chris enough credit. He designed that HT himself, though he did contract out the construction. He didn't just wave his checkbook and have someone else do it all for him.
_________________
- Tim

kal
Forum Administrator

Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 18114
Location: Ottawa, Canada

TV/Projector: JVC DLA-NZ7

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 3:08 pm Post subject:

VideoGrabber wrote:

You're not giving Chris enough credit. He designed that HT himself, though he did contract out the construction. He didn't just wave his checkbook and have someone else do it all for him.

Sorry - didn't mean to sound negative about Chris. I've followed his threads at AVS and he *definitely* knows his stuff inside and out, including setting up his latest projector: A Barco DCI projector. Very impressive.

He's one of the few out there that has very deep pockets and actually knows this stuff inside and out. Really nice to see. Not your typical multi-millionaire who who gets others to do everything for him and just signs the check like your said. Arnold Chase with his 105 seat HT (achase here on the forum) is another great example of this.

Kal
_________________

Support our site by using our affiliate links. We thank you!
My basement/HT/bar/brewery build 2.0

digital1234

Joined: 21 Jun 2012
Posts: 1

Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 11:07 am Post subject:

e -shift is clearly revealing detail in the source. there is none of that in the green area on the non e shift, and not knowing how the picture is made, same time and so ill not complain, but in the pic it clearly looks like the green color changed and needs re calibrating.

ecrabb
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah

TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010

Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 1:14 pm Post subject:

digital1234 wrote:

e -shift is clearly revealing detail in the source. there is none of that in the green area on the non e shift, and not knowing how the picture is made, same time and so ill not complain,

Yes, it is... Exactly why I said just that...

ecrabb wrote:

The ringing is clearly visible in the first (non-e-shift) photo... It's just made much more clear and visible in the second e-shifted image. In other words, e-shift is clearly revealing more detail in the source.

However, I'd point out that that the ringing actually is visible in the first non-e-shift photo; it's just much less visible. Look closely, and you'll see the ringing (actually edge-enhancement) there, too. It's just mostly obscured by very visible the pixel grid (in spite of the high fill-rate).

This is why think people need to stop discounting the value of 4k and how fast it is going to permeate the market; yes, even without 4k source material. 4k allows for much larger viewing angles without fear of showing pixels or grids.

Having seen the e-shift machines at CEDIA, I would definitely pay the extra for an RS55 to get e-shift if it were in my budget. I have no doubt that I'll have either an e-shift machine or a real 4k machine in the next few years.

With 1080p projectors, and any technology, I can occasionally see pixels/grid from my close seating position/large viewing angle. With 4k (even without 4k source material), and from any reasonable seating position, the image becomes a very artifact-free, smooth, film like image, and therefore removes one more disadvantage to digital compared with CRT.

digital1234 wrote:

but in the pic it clearly looks like the green color changed and needs re calibrating.

I highly doubt e-shift is changing color balance. I think you're discounting or forgetting how these shots were taken...

VideoGrabber wrote:

Also amazing is that he took these shots hand-held, using the camera on his iPhone 4S! Smile

Having several flavors of iPhone myself, white balance is one adjustment that varies significantly from shot to shot in difficult-to-assess situations like this one.

SC

kal
Forum Administrator

Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 18114
Location: Ottawa, Canada

TV/Projector: JVC DLA-NZ7

Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 1:32 pm Post subject:

ecrabb wrote:

It's actually amazing to see how much the SDE (screen door effect) "hides" detail from our eyes. The detail is all there as SC said. It's not like there's actually more content when e-shift is enabled, it's just that with the SDE you just don't see the detail. SDE masks it.

And this is with LCoS technology which has the highest fill factor (thinnest lines between pixels)! If anything this is also a great example for fans of CRT projector technology to use to show how having no visible pixel structure is beneficial at showing detail.

Though logically, one could argue that if you don't see SDE at the seating position then the extra detail that it's masking wouldn't be seen either so it's all a moot point for those who sit far enough back. This is why people say that e-shift is most beneficial for those who like to sit close.

ecrabb wrote:

4k allows for much larger viewing angles without fear of showing pixels or grids.

I don't follow... what does viewing angle have to do with it? Did you mean "closer seating distance" when you said "larger viewing angles"? Or is pixel structure more evident on wider viewing angles? (If yes, I'm trying to wrap my head around why...)

Quote:

Having seen the e-shift machines at CEDIA, I would definitely pay the extra for an RS55 to get e-shift if it were in my budget.

Agreed. To me it's definitely the biggest benefit on on the RS55 as compared to the RS45 and is the main reason why I'm leaning towards the RS55 over the RS45.

Kal
_________________

Support our site by using our affiliate links. We thank you!
My basement/HT/bar/brewery build 2.0

stridsvognen
Guest

Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 1:41 pm Post subject:

Have anyone tried the focus trick to hide the pixel structure i suggested.? I cant see pixels on mine when i'm more than 1m from my 110" screen, and even very close its hard to see. It clearly makes a more CRT alike image, with less stress in the picture.? It is free of any kind of scaling / manipulation to the image. And some might prefer that.

HogPilot

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 2383

TV/Projector: Vizio P702ui-B3, Pioneer Elite Pro-151FD & 111FD

Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 1:49 pm Post subject:

stridsvognen wrote:

Have anyone tried the focus trick to hide the pixel structure i suggested.? I cant see pixels on mine when i'm more than 1m from my 110" screen, and even very close its hard to see. It clearly makes a more CRT alike image, with less stress in the picture.?

It is free of any kind of scaling / manipulation to the image. And some might prefer that.

I've played around with it on my RS35, RS50, and RS55 - I don't like the significant tradeoff in sharpness that is required to make it work. The image looks far too soft and fuzzy with the focus set to a point where I can't make out pixel structure anymore. Pixel structure really only makes itself readily apparent across high contrast boundaries, and even then if you're sitting at appropriate viewing distances from your screen it's more or less a non-issue.

But I can see how someone who prefers a softer image wouldn't mind defocusing the image. I personally prefer a very sharp image, so YMMV.
_________________

ecrabb wrote:

Curt Palme wrote:

Interesting, Mac isn't returning my emails. Go figure.

He's mad at us for making Hog a moderator. He took his ball and went home.

SC

stridsvognen
Guest

Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 2:03 pm Post subject:

HogPilot wrote:

stridsvognen wrote:

I'm sure its all about taste, i don't defocus so the pixel is all gone, its visible on a close range.

I think the sharpness to digital projectors is artificial, like making a digital image you have to decide light and color of each pixel, so that define borders much harder than in real life. Whats so great to me with crt, is that i think it actually soften the resolution so you hit a very realistic balance to real life sharpness / focus. The sharper and more focus you get on everything in the image the more dept you loos, and it feels much more flat. Look AVATAR on Digital and CRT..

On digital you often gets sharp focus on objects 20m back from the actual action area. Its kind of wow, but wrong to human eyes/ vision.

I'm all in for realistic and authentic look.

Spanky Ham

Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 5643
Location: Comedy Central

Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 2:10 pm Post subject:

ecrabb wrote:

Having seen the e-shift machines at CEDIA, I would definitely pay the extra for an RS55 to get e-shift if it were in my budget. I have no doubt that I'll have either an e-shift machine or a real 4k machine in the next few years.

SC

It may not be to long. You can get a refurbished RS50 from JVC now for $2800.

ecrabb
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah

TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010

Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 2:24 pm Post subject:

kal wrote:

ecrabb wrote:

4k allows for much larger viewing angles without fear of showing pixels or grids.

Kal, "closer seating distance" is a useless metric unless you also know screen size. It's too nebulous. "Close" compared to what?

I sit 10-feet from my 8-foot wide screen, and I can just see pixels occasionally in bright white areas. Another person sitting 10-feet from a 6.5-foot wide screen probably wouldn't be able to.

"Viewing angle" is a function of screen size and viewing distance, so it eliminates the variability of both. If I talk about a large viewing angle, that could mean sitting 10-feet from an 8-foot wide screen, or 20-feet from a 16-foot wide screen. Both are approximately 1.2x screen widths, or what most of us would call "large viewing angles".

SC

macgyver655

Joined: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 8508

Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 2:40 pm Post subject:

Hmmmmmmm.

kal
Forum Administrator

Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 18114
Location: Ottawa, Canada

TV/Projector: JVC DLA-NZ7

Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:50 pm Post subject:

ecrabb wrote:

"Viewing angle" is a function of screen size and viewing distance, so it eliminates the variability of both. If I talk about a large viewing angle, that could mean sitting 10-feet from an 8-foot wide screen, or 20-feet from a 16-foot wide screen. Both are approximately 1.2x screen widths, or what most of us would call "large viewing angles".

Doh! Of course. I don't know why but I was thinking off-axis seating when you said "viewing angle". My brain was thinking of the wrong thing. I thought that you were saying that e-shift would help off-axis viewing (which doesn't make sense).

Your definition of "viewing angle" is (of course) bang on. Time to reboot my brain.

Kal
_________________

Support our site by using our affiliate links. We thank you!
My basement/HT/bar/brewery build 2.0

stridsvognen
Guest

Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 6:22 pm Post subject:

Is there any one here that have one of the JVC with e shift that can post a RGB measurement, and CIE chart. with e shift on and off.

VideoGrabber

Joined: 09 Apr 2006
Posts: 933
Location: Michigan

Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:15 am Post subject:

kal wrote:

First off, you're making the same mistake as I did above Smile

, when HogPilot reminded me that SDE is normally reserved to describe those display systems (such as LCDs) that have significant gaps (line structure) between pixels. That's a different (but related) visual effect.

However if you replace your references to SDE with pixel-structure, then your point is right on, and very important. With CRTs, it's impossible to have a square pixel, with hard edges, but that's the norm with digital. Hard edges create a frequency spectra that was not there in the original scene being captured (under sampled). Those frequencies are noise, both literally and figuratively, and tend to have 2 effects: they make the image look 'sharper' while at the same time obscuring real 'detail'. Mike Parker has pointed this out on many occasions, from his experiences wringing the most out of CRT PJs.

Many years ago (probably 10-15), Bjoern Roy wrote up an exceptionally nice analysis of the noise effect that always results from digital rendering of square pixels, with their sharp edges. I tried finding it the other day on the A-forum archives, but only came up with a p!ssing match between darinp2 and Amir (though even there, much the same conclusions could be derived by a careful reader). In that case, a 'pixel perfect' but low-rez image was scaled up by introducing more pixels and softening the edges. The original was totally incoherent, but the scaled version was clearly a very blurry image of Elvis. Smile

Quote:

And this is with LCoS technology which has the highest fill factor (thinnest lines between pixels)! If anything this is also a great example for fans of CRT projector technology to use to show how having no visible pixel structure is beneficial at showing detail.

Absolutely true. To achieve similar quality (detail) in a digital display system, which the Gaussian distribution round dots on a CRT give you for free, you must therefore have even higher pixel density (than what would be adequate for CRTs). This can be done by increasing resolution, or using blurring/smoothing techniques to 'round off the hard edges'. (Or defocusing, or sitting farther back, so the limitations of the eye perform the low-pass filtering for you, removing the high frequency noise content.)

Quote:

Though logically, one could argue that if you don't see SDE at the seating position then the extra detail that it's masking wouldn't be seen either so it's all a moot point for those who sit far enough back. This is why people say that e-shift is most beneficial for those who like to sit close.

It's true that close-sitters benefit the most. However, even when the pixel edges can't be seen in sharp detail, as they are in these close-up shots right at the screen, there is a range where they can still be detected as 'stair-stepping' on diagonals. Which distracts from the viewing experience. And even beyond that, their fake sharpness can still obscure real detail behind a veil of digital noise.

The (perhaps surprising) fact is that the most detailed (and accurate) image possible will not always be the sharpest! Amir made an interesting point about this in reference to research done contrasting MPEG2 vs. MPEG4 systems. MPEG2 intrinsically has greater artifacting (noise) than MPEG4 at a given compression factor. And they found that observers thought that, under motion situations (where the brain tends to integrate the noisy sequence of images), folks not only felt that the MPEG2 images were sharper than MPEG4, but also sharper than reality that was being acquired by the camera! Shocked

_________________
- Tim

VideoGrabber

Joined: 09 Apr 2006
Posts: 933
Location: Michigan

Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:39 am Post subject:

kal wrote:

ecrabb wrote:

Your confusion is not all your own fault. 'Viewing angle' is an ambiguous term, and (mis)used (IMO) in a variety of different contexts. The off-axis viewing you mentioned IS truly a 'viewing angle'.

What is commonly referred to as viewing angle, I prefer to describe as 'field of view' or 'angle of view'. And I prefer the former, because the later still leaves open the possibility that you're referring to half of the full angle.

The FoV = 2 x arctan (d / (0.5 x w)).

However, I only use angular references when I need to, when interfacing with others' commentary. Like ecrabb, my natural reference mode (coordinate system) is d/w, or ratio of viewing distance to screen width. 1.2x is a metric preference we share, though others may legitimately prefer either higher or lower values (say 1.0-1.7), which will naturally vary, depending on which row of seating you're occupying. It only seems odd to me when someone indicates their preference is 2.0x and up, which would appear to defeat the purpose of a large screen in the first place.

[And to clarify, the 1.2x preference is only for widescreen (scope) content. For 1.85 AR films, and HDTV, my preference is closer to 1.4x. Which is why a CIW screen doesn't work for me (everything at 1.2x, aka too big). And a CIH scope screen doesn't work either, because then HDTV and 1.85 films would be at 1.6x (aka, too small).]
_________________
- Tim

Spanky Ham

Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 5643
Location: Comedy Central

Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:54 am Post subject:

VideoGrabber wrote:

Many years ago (probably 10-15), Bjoern Roy wrote up an exceptionally nice analysis of the noise effect that always results from digital rendering of square pixels, with their sharp edges. I tried finding it the other day on the A-forum archives, but only came up with a p!ssing match between darinp2 and Amir (though even there, much the same conclusions could be derived by a careful reader). In that case, a 'pixel perfect' but low-rez image was scaled up by introducing more pixels and softening the edges. The original was totally incoherent, but the scaled version was clearly a very blurry image of Elvis. Smile

So, who was right? Laughing

VideoGrabber wrote:

kal wrote:

ecrabb wrote:

Honestly, I preferred over 2 sw when I was running 4x3. It was still a much bigger picture than I would have gotten with any other technology.

VideoGrabber

Joined: 09 Apr 2006
Posts: 933
Location: Michigan

Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:59 am Post subject:

ecrabb wrote:

I have no doubt that I'll have either an e-shift machine or a real 4k machine in the next few years.

Spanky Ham wrote:

It may not be to long. You can get a refurbished RS50 from JVC now for $2800.

But don't the RS50 models have some fatal flaw(s?) that would preclude them from consideration? Or have those been corrected? If the later, then that refurb price looks pretty good for an e-shift capable PJ.

[Oops, looks like the RS50 doesn't have e-shift, which was just introduced with the RS45/55?]
_________________
- Tim

Last edited by VideoGrabber on Fri Jun 22, 2012 2:22 am; edited 3 times in total

	CurtPalme.com Forum Index -> Digital Projectors	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 2 of 3


	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

Suport our site by purchasing through this link. We thank you!

[ Products for Sale ] [ FAQ: Hooking it all up ] [ CRT Primer/FAQ ] [ Best/Worst CRT Projectors List ] [ Setup Tips & Manuals ] [ Advanced Procedures ] [ Newsletter ]