| Author |
Message |
km987654
Joined: 25 Jul 2007
Posts: 2874
Location: Australia
TV/Projector: Barco BG809s
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 12:29 am Post subject: 1080i/96 v 1080p/48 |
|
|
Is the Image detail the same?
Perhaps another question might be what differences would you expect in terms of image. I have been running 720p and it looks pretty good. I also tried 1080i and 1080p but I only have one perspective so its hard to know if I am seeing all that I should.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CxTurbo
Joined: 13 Oct 2008
Posts: 425
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 2:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
I run 720P@96 on my 9PG plain and love it. I did try 1080i@96 and also @ 60. The flicker in bright sceens and in whites drove me nuts. 1080P@60 was too soft on this machine so it did not stay there for too long never tried 48. You could try to do the 1920x810P @60 or what ever that active area scanning AR is, if you have HTPC or a scaler.
I prefer 720P@96 super sharp and lots of punch without the flicker. If that would bug you.
_________________
Paradigm Studio 100's,Studio 20's,CC-690, Paradigm DSP-3400 V1 SUB
Pioneer Elite SC-35 AVR
Pioneer Elite BDP-05FD Bluray
3x Bryston 3B's
URC Complete Control Medius TX-1000 Remote
HTPC (LGA775 Q6600, 8GB DDR2, 7TB Storage) Mediaportal
Lumagen MINI 3D
Moome FULLHD-EXT V2
Audioquest Cable Top to Bottom
9501LC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CasetheCorvetteman
Joined: 09 Nov 2008
Posts: 6326
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 3:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Id be thinking 48Hz is going to be rather low...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 4:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, image detail should be the same since bandwidth is the same. The only thing that is significantly different will be the vertical refresh interval. 1080p48 will probably flicker; I hated it. Whether people like/dislike it seems to depend on a number of factors, including screen size, light control, projector/phosphor, and more.
Personally, I always hated the noticeable spacial resolution loss to drop to 720p vs 1080i/p. I'd much rather go 1080i/96 than 720p at anything. Depends on your projector, though.
The best way to see what you like is load up a disc with fine detail and test patterns and just spend some watching it each way. Test patterns to first be objective to see what you're resolving, and then good material you're used to watching to see what you like.
CxTurbo, why 720p/96? 720p@72 would only require 3/4 of the bandwidth and shouldn't really flicker any more. And you noticed flicker at 1080i/96? Man, you either have fast-refresh green, or you're extremely sensitive to flicker.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CasetheCorvetteman
Joined: 09 Nov 2008
Posts: 6326
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 6:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I thought that too Crabb, the decay rate on the green tube in a plain PG isnt that fast that youd see much flicker even at 60Hz, at 72Hz i dont see how youd see any at all.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AnalogRocks
Forum Moderator
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 26706
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
TV/Projector: Sony 1252Q, AMPRO 4000G
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 6:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Give 1080i/72 a try too. I ran that for a while from the HTPC.
_________________
Tech support for nothing
CRT.
HD done right!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 7:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'd stay away from 1080i/72 if you can successfully run 1080i/96. 1080i/72 would yield an interlaced frame every three frames. Instead of 3:2 pulldown, you'll get 2:1 pulldown. It may not look too bad, but if you can run 1080i/96, you'll avoid the pulldown and resulting interlaced frames and judder.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gjaky
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Posts: 2802
Location: Budapest, Hungary
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
I myself run my pj at 720p-72 Hz most of the time, but have two other resolutions that I like to experiment: (1600x)900p-72Hz, 1080i-96Hz.
720p-72Hz: is super sharp with my 6PG xtra, very minimal flicker (to me), distinct scanlines, but it's just 720P.
900p-72Hz: still quite sharp, the flicker as above, it's the halfway between 720P and 1080P, it needs about the same line frequency as 1080P-60Hz, but needs slightly lower bandwidth(-3dB) 155MHz instead of 180MHz, plus you get matching framerate.
1080i-96Hz: still good for movie but hard to read the small texts in windows, least (no) flicker, however I found one very annoying phenomenon with this resolution, when gently rising edges on the image with sharp contrast the scanlines easily become visible and make the edge look aliased and for me this kills the real resolution of the image, this depends on the movies of course. For example in "Towering inferno" the scanlines became visible in this way quite often, but in "Avatar" or in "Das Boot" only just a few times. I tried then the "Towering inferno" in 720P and 900P the edges looked much smoother in both case.
_________________
projectors in the past : NEC 6-9PG xtra, Electrohome Marquee 6-7500, NEC XG 1351 LC ( with super modified Electrohome VNB neckboard !!!)
current: VDC Marquee 9500LC
The MOD: VNB-DB, VIM-DB
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CasetheCorvetteman
Joined: 09 Nov 2008
Posts: 6326
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Has anyone ever tried 2048x1536?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gjaky
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Posts: 2802
Location: Budapest, Hungary
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Why would anyone do that?
Here Spanky Ham posted a screenshot of 1600*1200 with his BR909, I think that would be the only machine which could resolve 2048*1536 the most.
_________________
projectors in the past : NEC 6-9PG xtra, Electrohome Marquee 6-7500, NEC XG 1351 LC ( with super modified Electrohome VNB neckboard !!!)
current: VDC Marquee 9500LC
The MOD: VNB-DB, VIM-DB
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kal
Forum Administrator
Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 18114
Location: Ottawa, Canada
TV/Projector: JVC DLA-NZ7
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CasetheCorvetteman
Joined: 09 Nov 2008
Posts: 6326
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gjaky wrote: | Why would anyone do that?
Here Spanky Ham posted a screenshot of 1600*1200 with his BR909, I think that would be the only machine which could resolve 2048*1536 the most. |
Why not? Ive done it interlaced on my CRT monitor, was all quite readable and very smooth but the text was far too small.
Ive got 1600x1200 set in the XG, it resolves that far better than 1920x1080i, the text in Windows is crystal clear.
If i can do that with an 8", a 9" should do 2048x1536 with some degree of clarity.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gjaky
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Posts: 2802
Location: Budapest, Hungary
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 1:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CasetheCorvetteman wrote: | | gjaky wrote: | Why would anyone do that?
Here Spanky Ham posted a screenshot of 1600*1200 with his BR909, I think that would be the only machine which could resolve 2048*1536 the most. |
Why not? Ive done it interlaced on my CRT monitor, was all quite readable and very smooth but the text was far too small.
Ive got 1600x1200 set in the XG, it resolves that far better than 1920x1080i, the text in Windows is crystal clear.
If i can do that with an 8", a 9" should do 2048x1536 with some degree of clarity. |
I think at that high resolution the main problem is the bandwidth, it is sad but true that most of the professional 21" CRT monitors have better bandwidth capabilities than barco 909 or G90, however I think NEC XG's bandwith come at third place amongst CRTs. I don't have any idea what could I do with 2048*1536, even if my pj could fully resolve it.
_________________
projectors in the past : NEC 6-9PG xtra, Electrohome Marquee 6-7500, NEC XG 1351 LC ( with super modified Electrohome VNB neckboard !!!)
current: VDC Marquee 9500LC
The MOD: VNB-DB, VIM-DB
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fuchs
Joined: 27 Jun 2012
Posts: 153
Location: the NL
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 1:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gjaky wrote: | | I don't have any idea what could I do with 2048*1536, even if my pj could fully resolve it. |
Well, watch 1536p (or 1152p) movies, of course 
_________________
onkel fuchs' cheapskate cinema
NEC plain 9PG
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CxTurbo
Joined: 13 Oct 2008
Posts: 425
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: |
CxTurbo, why 720p/96? 720p@72 would only require 3/4 of the bandwidth and shouldn't really flicker any more. And you noticed flicker at 1080i/96? Man, you either have fast-refresh green, or you're extremely sensitive to flicker.
SC |
720P/96 is just something I tried and it worked out well. No real reason for it honestly.
1080i/96 had this flickering in whites. could have been the scan lines too but it drove me nuts. Actually now that I think of it. What I saw was more of and oscillation top to bottom left to right so it was probably the scan lines I was seeing in bright scenes. Sort of ignorant to proper terminology I guess. 
Regardless. If I can get the same results @72hrz putting less stress on the machine I am all for it.
James
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CasetheCorvetteman
Joined: 09 Nov 2008
Posts: 6326
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gjaky wrote: | | CasetheCorvetteman wrote: | | gjaky wrote: | Why would anyone do that?
Here Spanky Ham posted a screenshot of 1600*1200 with his BR909, I think that would be the only machine which could resolve 2048*1536 the most. |
Why not? Ive done it interlaced on my CRT monitor, was all quite readable and very smooth but the text was far too small.
Ive got 1600x1200 set in the XG, it resolves that far better than 1920x1080i, the text in Windows is crystal clear.
If i can do that with an 8", a 9" should do 2048x1536 with some degree of clarity. |
I think at that high resolution the main problem is the bandwidth, it is sad but true that most of the professional 21" CRT monitors have better bandwidth capabilities than barco 909 or G90, however I think NEC XG's bandwith come at third place amongst CRTs. I don't have any idea what could I do with 2048*1536, even if my pj could fully resolve it. |
Its a 17" monitor. I did read the bandwidth somewhere and i think it was very high, i cant remember though.
Your machine is 8", the OP's is 9".
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
km987654
Joined: 25 Jul 2007
Posts: 2874
Location: Australia
TV/Projector: Barco BG809s
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | Yes, image detail should be the same since bandwidth is the same. The only thing that is significantly different will be the vertical refresh interval. 1080p48 will probably flicker; I hated it. Whether people like/dislike it seems to depend on a number of factors, including screen size, light control, projector/phosphor, and more.
Personally, I always hated the noticeable spacial resolution loss to drop to 720p vs 1080i/p. I'd much rather go 1080i/96 than 720p at anything. Depends on your projector, though.
The best way to see what you like is load up a disc with fine detail and test patterns and just spend some watching it each way. Test patterns to first be objective to see what you're resolving, and then good material you're used to watching to see what you like.
CxTurbo, why 720p/96? 720p@72 would only require 3/4 of the bandwidth and shouldn't really flicker any more. And you noticed flicker at 1080i/96? Man, you either have fast-refresh green, or you're extremely sensitive to flicker.
SC |
Excellent information.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CasetheCorvetteman
Joined: 09 Nov 2008
Posts: 6326
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 3:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
KM, its friday afternoon mate, time to go home and have a cold beer 
Try them both out when youve finished the slab and see which you think is best.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AVphile
Joined: 02 Dec 2008
Posts: 334
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gjaky wrote: | | 900p-72Hz: still quite sharp, the flicker as above, it's the halfway between 720P and 1080P, it needs about the same line frequency as 1080P-60Hz, but needs slightly lower bandwidth(-3dB) 155MHz instead of 180MHz, plus you get matching framerate. |
I like 900p72 too. I don't think the stock projector can fully resolve 1080p even at 48Hz (Eisenman sells expensive mod kits for this).
I am unable to try interlaced modes (other than standard 1080i) with my video processor. 1080i looks much sharper than 720p on my set, but I have the "sharp" Sony tubes and upgraded lenses. With the stock lenses it was harder to see the differences.
I tried 1080p48 for a long time and enjoyed the resolution on stills but camera pans were not as smooth as 72Hz for some reason. There was too much judder. Flicker didn't bother me as I don't use it as a computer desktop.
If you have stock optics I would recommend 810p72 which is an easy 75% scaling of 1080p24 and fairly low on bandwidth (heat). I would definitely not go higher than 900p72. If I could I would also try 1080i96 as others have suggested.
_________________
AVStefan
Old setup: HDFury3 -> BG-808s -> HD-145
New setup: JVC D-ILA -> Stewart StudioTek 130 G4
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
km987654
Joined: 25 Jul 2007
Posts: 2874
Location: Australia
TV/Projector: Barco BG809s
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 2:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CasetheCorvetteman wrote: | KM, its friday afternoon mate, time to go home and have a cold beer
Try them both out when youve finished the slab and see which you think is best. |
Best advice yet 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
