|
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 |
thewolfman
Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 1311
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I know.. I know. Yet we make belief it's better than what we're actually seeing. It's nice to look at though, no matter what.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Spanky Ham
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 5643
Location: Comedy Central
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 12:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't remember if Kal mentioned if he was using a gamma device or not. Without one, I believe William Phelps measured the on/off cr of a G90 at 8k to 1. With one, IIRC Darinp2 measured Steve Smith's G70 at around 700k to 1. That is not an apples to apples comparison though. It would be nice to get someone like Craig to give some numbers with and without gamma correction on a CRT. IIRC and maybe Curt remembers, but I think Craig said he is over 200k to 1 on his Lumagen enhanced CIR90.
The take home is that to get high on/off cr without crushing blacks then you will have to use gamma correction like GammaX or the built-in functionality of the Lumagen.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
overclkr
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 4227
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 1:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kal wrote: | I tried taking some screenshots a couple of weeks ago but they did not show anywhere near what I was seeing. This is normal as the camera does not have the same dynamic range and then there's your screen to worry about as well.
IMHO, other than for a few very specific aspects, screenshots are meaningless. They make as much sense as someone using a microphone to record what a certain set of speakers sound like so that people can play back the recording to hear what those speakers sound like. Everyone understands that's s completely illogical but with screenshots for some reason people don't get it. 
Kal |
LOL. Just admit it Kal. You take crappy screenshots
I've been trying to get good screenshots outside of the Kodak that served me so well over the years, and it has been extremely difficult with other cameras, hence why I post them so much less now (the Kodak has a bunch of dead pixels).
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MikeEby
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 5237
Location: Osceola, Indiana
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 2:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kal wrote: |
IMHO, other than for a few very specific aspects, screenshots are meaningless. They make as much sense as someone using a microphone to record what a certain set of speakers sound like so that people can play back the recording to hear what those speakers sound like. Everyone understands that's s completely illogical but with screenshots for some reason people don't get it.
Kal |
I've had a lot of fun taking screenshots too, but honestly I have to agree...How do you think these look? I'll tell you what the projector is later.
Mike
_________________
Doing HD since the last century!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Audiophile
Joined: 23 Jun 2012
Posts: 29
Location: Manassas, VA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 2:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sony VPH-1020?? 
Do I see a screen door in those images or is it just my LCD monitor?
_________________
JVC RS40U Screening Room
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thewolfman
Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 1311
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MikeEby wrote: | | kal wrote: |
IMHO, other than for a few very specific aspects, screenshots are meaningless. They make as much sense as someone using a microphone to record what a certain set of speakers sound like so that people can play back the recording to hear what those speakers sound like. Everyone understands that's s completely illogical but with screenshots for some reason people don't get it.
Kal |
I've had a lot of fun taking screenshots too, but honestly I have to agree...How do you think these look? I'll tell you what the projector is later.
Mike |
If you ask me, it looks digital, because of the pink smearing in both of their faces. Pink smearing is found under the eyes on both of 'em and a little on the nose off Sam Neil, that tells me it's digital and not your precious NEC XG1351. Slap me silly of want to sir, but I stand by that any LCD/DLP looks like that and even on a direct view set. I see it almost instantly when looking at Plasma TV set in a store because the pixels has got some kind odd "fuzz" going on around it. It's not as solid as a CRT would look like. My own direct view set is an old bulk CRT also so never gotten used to the plasma/LCD maybe that's why I pick up on fast (?) It's either an undiagnosed psoriasis or digital smearing going on. Anyway, that's my 2 cents evaluation, sir.
I'm probably wrong about this. Can't wait for the ruling though. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thewolfman wrote: | | If you ask me, it looks digital, because of the pink smearing in both of their faces. Pink smearing is found under the eyes on both of 'em and a little on the nose off Sam Neil, that tells me it's digital and not your precious NEC XG1351. |
Here is a perfect example of why screenshots are nearly as worthless as t*ts on a bull. If we ignore all the issues with lenses, sensor array, Bayer pattern noise reduction, white balance, and resampling, that 1200x800 JPG is about 64kB. Uncompressed, it's about 2500kB worth of data. So, to put it simply, the image you're reviewing to make judgments about the projector has had 97.5% of the original image data throw away. It's even worse than that. Some was thrown away when Mike took the picture and the camera saved the JPG. Then, he opened it and resampled and threw away data, then a bunch of data was thrown away when it was saved as a JPG the second time.
Making judgements based on this image is about like looking looking at a turd after its been flattened by a couple of car tires and then trying to determine not only what animal created the excrement, but the diet that let up to it. Not exactly reliable, if you get my drift.
| thewolfman wrote: | | Slap me silly of want to sir, but I stand by that any LCD/DLP looks like that and even on a direct view set. I see it almost instantly when looking at Plasma TV set in a store because the pixels has got some kind odd "fuzz" going on around it. It's not as solid as a CRT would look like. My own direct view set is an old bulk CRT also so never gotten used to the plasma/LCD maybe that's why I pick up on fast (?) It's either an undiagnosed psoriasis or digital smearing going on. Anyway, that's my 2 cents evaluation, sir. |
You know what? It's over-compressed source material that makes noise, color-shifts, and macro-blocking. Older, sh*tty digitals often did some of that themselves and made source artifacts even more noticeable, or added their own, while a good old CRT hid a lot of it that stuff. Now, a really good digital display or projector looks excellent with an excellent source, but is very revealing of all-too-common inferior sources.
So, those plasmas and other displays you see in stores are usually displaying an over-compressed satellite feed, or fed by an in-store distribution system that's often re-compressed, and worse, not only are the sets not calibrated, but they're usually set to "torch" mode to look good in a bright retail store. Again, not exactly the best conditions with which to make your judgements.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thewolfman
Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 1311
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | | thewolfman wrote: | | If you ask me, it looks digital, because of the pink smearing in both of their faces. Pink smearing is found under the eyes on both of 'em and a little on the nose off Sam Neil, that tells me it's digital and not your precious NEC XG1351. |
Here is a perfect example of why screenshots are nearly as worthless as t*ts on a bull. If we ignore all the issues with lenses, sensor array, Bayer pattern noise reduction, white balance, and resampling, that 1200x800 JPG is about 64kB. Uncompressed, it's about 2500kB worth of data. So, to put it simply, the image you're reviewing to make judgments about the projector has had 97.5% of the original image data throw away. It's even worse than that. Some was thrown away when Mike took the picture and the camera saved the JPG. Then, he opened it and resampled and threw away data, then a bunch of data was thrown away when it was saved as a JPG the second time.
Making judgements based on this image is about like looking looking at a turd after its been flattened by a couple of car tires and then trying to determine not only what animal created the excrement, but the diet that let up to it. Not exactly reliable, if you get my drift.
| thewolfman wrote: | | Slap me silly of want to sir, but I stand by that any LCD/DLP looks like that and even on a direct view set. I see it almost instantly when looking at Plasma TV set in a store because the pixels has got some kind odd "fuzz" going on around it. It's not as solid as a CRT would look like. My own direct view set is an old bulk CRT also so never gotten used to the plasma/LCD maybe that's why I pick up on fast (?) It's either an undiagnosed psoriasis or digital smearing going on. Anyway, that's my 2 cents evaluation, sir. |
You know what? It's over-compressed source material that makes noise, color-shifts, and macro-blocking. Older, sh*tty digitals often did some of that themselves and made source artifacts even more noticeable, or added their own, while a good old CRT hid a lot of it that stuff. Now, a really good digital display or projector looks excellent with an excellent source, but is very revealing of all-too-common inferior sources.
So, those plasmas and other displays you see in stores are usually displaying an over-compressed satellite feed, or fed by an in-store distribution system that's often re-compressed, and worse, not only are the sets not calibrated, but they're usually set to "torch" mode to look good in a bright retail store. Again, not exactly the best conditions with which to make your judgements.
SC |
I stand corrected. And your right about everything. One can't make judgment out of a photo and yet we see sites like www.projectorreviews.com who do it all the time. I know he from now and then make reservations from contrast real value out of a photo. But not all the time..
I didn't mean to sound sarcastic, it's my habit of writing.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Re-reading my post, it sounds a bit harsh. I wasn't attacking you or your analysis, but the general (and common) practice of looking at full-screen screenshots to ascertain anything meaningful.
Should have throw in a smiley or two. Sorry!
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, and to be fair, projectorreviews.com posts screen shots more as support to their written article. More important, the screenshots are generally taken under the same conditions, with the same camera, same settings, on the same screen, in start contrast to most "forum" screenshots. So, the projectorrevews.com shots have at least some value, in combination with the text.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thewolfman
Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 1311
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
It's all right, didn't think you were either. Harsh I mean.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thewolfman
Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 1311
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I did buy the Mitsubishi HC 3800 from his recommendation and article and had it sent back the next day. Jesus that thing lit up the room. My walls are close to being white and ceiling as well, but shutting down the windows with black material had no effect at all. My ceiling had a huge impact on the picture and probably had to be painted absolutely black to make any thing near CRT that I got now. Walls and ceiling are the same as before though. After that debacle I never trust pictures with contrast again. I look more for digital artifacts.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MikeEby
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 5237
Location: Osceola, Indiana
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 12:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| thewolfman wrote: |
If you ask me, it looks digital, because of the pink smearing in both of their faces. Pink smearing is found under the eyes on both of 'em and a little on the nose off Sam Neil, that tells me it's digital and not your precious NEC XG1351. Slap me silly of want to sir, but I stand by that any LCD/DLP looks like that and even on a direct view set. I see it almost instantly when looking at Plasma TV set in a store because the pixels has got some kind odd "fuzz" going on around it. It's not as solid as a CRT would look like. My own direct view set is an old bulk CRT also so never gotten used to the plasma/LCD maybe that's why I pick up on fast (?) It's either an undiagnosed psoriasis or digital smearing going on. Anyway, that's my 2 cents evaluation, sir.
I'm probably wrong about this. Can't wait for the ruling though. |
Good eye!
It's a cheapo $450 Acer 720p DLP. They were shot in raw so there was only one Jpeg compression.
Mike
_________________
Doing HD since the last century!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 12:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MikeEby wrote: | | They were shot in raw so there was only one Jpeg compression. |
OK, but that one JPG compression was a doozie. 2500kB to 65 kB is 38:1 compression. For reference, that's about a 50/100 on the JPG quality scale. If you open it in Photoshop and look at the individual color channels, you can see all the detail is completely gone from the original image. So much so, there's no way in hell anybody could tell what projector was making the projected image. In fact, I'd bet money that if you took a photo of the XG with the same frame on-screen, and ran it through the same resample/compress wringer, the two would be nearly indistinguishable.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MikeEby
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 5237
Location: Osceola, Indiana
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Same shot, less compression. Top is 166K...Bottom 66K. When I posted those I forgot the compression was set so high.
To be honest, these shot would show more detail then with my XG. The image on the XG looks smoother. Rainbow on the DLP makes it hard to watch for long periods of time.
Mike
_________________
Doing HD since the last century!
Last edited by MikeEby on Sat Feb 09, 2013 2:12 am; edited 2 times in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thewolfman
Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 1311
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
If you can post it as 500 kb as well.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MikeEby
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 5237
Location: Osceola, Indiana
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| thewolfman wrote: | | If you can post it as 500 kb as well. |
Sure...What the hell its only bandwidth.
500K, 166K & 66K
Mike
_________________
Doing HD since the last century!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thewolfman
Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 1311
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
It's getting harder to tell apart. Between 166 and 500 I can't even tell if there is any certain difference.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RVonse
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 3152
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2013 2:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
I got my dvi to hdmi converters today and one of the htpc's (the one with the geforce video card) works great. No problems with ringing
on that computer and it is a treat to see such a perfect clear desktop. I've never in my life seen windows projected better, its just stunningly crystal clear. Unfortunately the other Radean 9700 pro isn't working yet through hdmi for some reason so I still have to work through that problem. I also got my hdmi switcher like Kal suggested and it is working great using the first hdmi JVC port. I have hdvd on port 1, blu ray on port 2, and htpc's on ports 3 and 4.
I bought JVC's PK-EM1 3d emitter, a promethius 3d disc, and a pair of xpand x102 glasses. After working with Sony over the phone to get my blu ray firmware upgraded I at least got the disc to play but no luck getting the glasses to work. It turns out that I should have bought either the X103 or X104 glasses so I ordered that today. Without the glasses working I could still see a clear double picture so I am pretty sure the projector is probably working 3d. I can't wait to get the right glasses. Another thing I am sure I will need eventually is an extension cord for the rf emitter cause the stock cord is way too short IMO. The plug on the cord is called a 3pin mini-din and I don't think it is going to be easy to find.
After watching quite a few movies with my wife she hasn't really made any comments about whether it is better or worse than my old 9inch crt. But the next door neighbor sure has. He just bought skyfall and wants to come over to watch it in my theater. He has never asked to do that before. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Curt Palme
CRT Tech
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 24396
Location: Langley, BC
TV/Projector: All of them!
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2013 3:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
What, cause he's more comfortable with 100lbs dropping on his head compared to 240? Tell him that's the difference only between brain damage and death. Given the options, I'd take death!
|
|
| 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
|
|
