|
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 |
Andreas21
Joined: 02 Oct 2013
Posts: 582
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2015 9:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| HogPilot wrote: | | mp20748 wrote: | | HogPilot wrote: | | mp20748 wrote: | | HogPilot wrote: |
Given that this discussion has centered on video fidelity, it's worthless for that purpose. Accurate calibration - i.e. not by memory/eye alone - is central to the whole debate of comparing displays in the first place (caveat: I still hold that screen shots are an almost worthless endeavor for that purpose, outside of a handful of very specific items). Despite it being completely irrelevant to this discussion, you continue to bring it up. It's proven to be nothing more than an obfuscatory subject. Let's move on to more relevant, productive topics |
Oh so you see it as me being the one to want to prove the video fidelity through the use of screenshots. I agree it would be worthless for that purpose and have been saying that over and over, yet it is I who copied a shot of mine from the Screenshots thread and posted it here for comparison..lol |
I'm simply using your words. You have stated within the last several pages - to include this post I'm quoting - that things such as "black," "deep black," (care to explain how the former differentiates from the latter, or even just provide a definition of both?), and "flesh tones" can all be assessed using screen shots. This is wholly incorrect. None of these things can be assessed via screen shots, for reasons already explained here time and time again.
| mp20748 wrote: | | I as you also mention, based my part on only one ("handful of very specific items") object for discussion, that was agreed on. Did I also comment on anything other than that? |
Not one item that you claim to be assessable via screen shot can be done, outside of calibrating every single display and capture unit in the chain to incredibly tight tolerances. Even then, it's highly likely that the end result will be someone looking at these things on an LCD computer monitor with no better than 1000:1 real world on/off CR and abhorrent black levels. To say that one can judge "blacks" and "deep blacks" (again, a differentiation/definition of both might help everyone else's confusion on what these terms mean within the context of this conversation) on such a low contrast display directly opposes the idea that high CR is critical to attaining high image fidelity.
| mp20748 wrote: | | And how many times would I have to say "you cannot use screenshots for comparison purposes" and "we are using cheap point and shoot cameras" and "screenshots cannot be used as a quantitative means of evaluation" |
You keep saying that, and then you go and talk about judging things that can't be judged via screenshots, so I highly doubt you're doing more than repeating a mantra. See my previous paragraph for how contradictory your statements have been.
| mp20748 wrote: | | So having fun with the guys result in me saying something I've never said other than "black' "deep black "and "Flesh tones" you think maybe I've been doing them long enough to know about these three things? |
This is a classic "appeal to authority" logical fallacy. You're attempting to dodge legitimate criticisms by simply citing that you've been doing this for a while. One can just as easily do things wrong for a long time as they can do them correctly. The length of time for which you've been doing things incorrectly, misapplying knowledge, or utilizing falsities doesn't magically make them less wrong.
| mp20748 wrote: | | And any discussions on calibration and equipment, I'll not get into and think it's an entirely useless discussion, when even you yourself talked about the merits of screenshots. Why even bother to bring up proper calibration on on the subject, when we're talking about the use of cheap point and shoot cameras. Plus, I made it clear, my PJ was NOT calibrated!! |
You dove into the calibration conversation several pages back - by attempting to correct another forum member with your ideas about what does and does not qualify as calibration, nonetheless. Now you're bailing on the discussion when your knowledge of it and how it applies to the topic are being questioned? There would be no need to bail if you had a sufficient working knowledge on the subject.
And exactly how does one compare "flesh tones" between two different projectors in person - let alone via screen shots - when one of the two projectors isn't even calibrated? This is so nonsensical that it boggles the mind.
| mp20748 wrote: | | It's not my field of expertise, and has never been. |
On that, everyone here can agree. Of course, "field of expertise" is a bridge or two too far - I think most would agree that your knowledge of video calibration on any level is tenuous, at best. |
Hey Hog, here's my answer to all of this:
It ain't worth my time. |
What a disappointingly defensive non-answer!
To summarize your continually contradictory double-speak:
1. This isn't worth your time, except for the 60-odd pages and many weeks you've been feverishly responding in this thread.
2. Screen shots are worthless, except for comparing one person's shot of an uncalibrated CRT to another person's shot of a calibrated X500 to look at black, deep black, and flesh tones - in other words, some of the most useless things to compare in screen shots. And we still have no clue what the hell the definitions or differences between "black" and "deep black" are.
3. Proper calibration - which is essential to comparing displays - has to be to a known standard, unless it's by eye using one's memory, and then you consider the brain's known grossly inaccurate and easily influenced memories to be an acceptable "standard." Which is exactly the opposite of calibration.
4. Diddern and Andreas21 are rude and disrespectful, yet aside from calling out well-known faults in CRT, some of the ridiculous methodologies thrown out here, and some of the ridiculous posters here, the only name-calling has been almost exclusively from you and Kurt, and it has been quite vitriolic.
5. You've avoided every single request by me and others for clarifying information on some of these positions above - in fact, you seem to desparately bring up any tangential subject to avoid discussing pertinent information that you know would weaken your already flimsy, waffling position.
You seem to be able to make up your mind on almost nothing here, and are rather hell-bent on saying anything in the moment in a futile attempt to win some argument. An argument, mind you, that cannot be won.
As some here have already said (some repeatedly), there is no single "best" display; they all have their strengths and weaknesses. Having the former pointed out shouldn't blindly turn one into a fanboy, and having the latter pointed out shouldn't make one feel the need to be defensive and attack others. Correcting FUD and old information is certainly one thing; blindly and vociferously railing for one display technology over another in an absolute sense to defend a personal choice just mucks up otherwise useful threads.
Oh, and I'll point out - also as others have - the title and initial post of this thread involved pitting a CRT vs. a 4K digital PJ, with a heavy dose of hyperbole and still unsubstantiated claims blindly in favor of the former. Perhaps if you don't like reading such comparisons, you should stay out of a thread whose entire premise is such a comparison, or at least correcting how stupid it is. |
+100
What always happens when you confront MP and stridsvognen with a well known fact about a fault or weakness about CRT they just ignore it and to me that is one of the defenitions of Fanboyism.
_________________
http://www.minhembio.com/21Andreas
Last edited by Andreas21 on Sat Mar 21, 2015 9:38 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Diddern
Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2015 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
early in the morning 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diddern
Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2015 9:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| HogPilot wrote: | | mp20748 wrote: | | HogPilot wrote: | | mp20748 wrote: | | HogPilot wrote: |
Given that this discussion has centered on video fidelity, it's worthless for that purpose. Accurate calibration - i.e. not by memory/eye alone - is central to the whole debate of comparing displays in the first place (caveat: I still hold that screen shots are an almost worthless endeavor for that purpose, outside of a handful of very specific items). Despite it being completely irrelevant to this discussion, you continue to bring it up. It's proven to be nothing more than an obfuscatory subject. Let's move on to more relevant, productive topics |
Oh so you see it as me being the one to want to prove the video fidelity through the use of screenshots. I agree it would be worthless for that purpose and have been saying that over and over, yet it is I who copied a shot of mine from the Screenshots thread and posted it here for comparison..lol |
I'm simply using your words. You have stated within the last several pages - to include this post I'm quoting - that things such as "black," "deep black," (care to explain how the former differentiates from the latter, or even just provide a definition of both?), and "flesh tones" can all be assessed using screen shots. This is wholly incorrect. None of these things can be assessed via screen shots, for reasons already explained here time and time again.
| mp20748 wrote: | | I as you also mention, based my part on only one ("handful of very specific items") object for discussion, that was agreed on. Did I also comment on anything other than that? |
Not one item that you claim to be assessable via screen shot can be done, outside of calibrating every single display and capture unit in the chain to incredibly tight tolerances. Even then, it's highly likely that the end result will be someone looking at these things on an LCD computer monitor with no better than 1000:1 real world on/off CR and abhorrent black levels. To say that one can judge "blacks" and "deep blacks" (again, a differentiation/definition of both might help everyone else's confusion on what these terms mean within the context of this conversation) on such a low contrast display directly opposes the idea that high CR is critical to attaining high image fidelity.
| mp20748 wrote: | | And how many times would I have to say "you cannot use screenshots for comparison purposes" and "we are using cheap point and shoot cameras" and "screenshots cannot be used as a quantitative means of evaluation" |
You keep saying that, and then you go and talk about judging things that can't be judged via screenshots, so I highly doubt you're doing more than repeating a mantra. See my previous paragraph for how contradictory your statements have been.
| mp20748 wrote: | | So having fun with the guys result in me saying something I've never said other than "black' "deep black "and "Flesh tones" you think maybe I've been doing them long enough to know about these three things? |
This is a classic "appeal to authority" logical fallacy. You're attempting to dodge legitimate criticisms by simply citing that you've been doing this for a while. One can just as easily do things wrong for a long time as they can do them correctly. The length of time for which you've been doing things incorrectly, misapplying knowledge, or utilizing falsities doesn't magically make them less wrong.
| mp20748 wrote: | | And any discussions on calibration and equipment, I'll not get into and think it's an entirely useless discussion, when even you yourself talked about the merits of screenshots. Why even bother to bring up proper calibration on on the subject, when we're talking about the use of cheap point and shoot cameras. Plus, I made it clear, my PJ was NOT calibrated!! |
You dove into the calibration conversation several pages back - by attempting to correct another forum member with your ideas about what does and does not qualify as calibration, nonetheless. Now you're bailing on the discussion when your knowledge of it and how it applies to the topic are being questioned? There would be no need to bail if you had a sufficient working knowledge on the subject.
And exactly how does one compare "flesh tones" between two different projectors in person - let alone via screen shots - when one of the two projectors isn't even calibrated? This is so nonsensical that it boggles the mind.
| mp20748 wrote: | | It's not my field of expertise, and has never been. |
On that, everyone here can agree. Of course, "field of expertise" is a bridge or two too far - I think most would agree that your knowledge of video calibration on any level is tenuous, at best. |
Hey Hog, here's my answer to all of this:
It ain't worth my time. |
What a disappointingly defensive non-answer!
To summarize your continually contradictory double-speak:
1. This isn't worth your time, except for the 60-odd pages and many weeks you've been feverishly responding in this thread.
2. Screen shots are worthless, except for comparing one person's shot of an uncalibrated CRT to another person's shot of a calibrated X500 to look at black, deep black, and flesh tones - in other words, some of the most useless things to compare in screen shots. And we still have no clue what the hell the definitions or differences between "black" and "deep black" are.
3. Proper calibration - which is essential to comparing displays - has to be to a known standard, unless it's by eye using one's memory, and then you consider the brain's known grossly inaccurate and easily influenced memories to be an acceptable "standard." Which is exactly the opposite of calibration.
4. Diddern and Andreas21 are rude and disrespectful, yet aside from calling out well-known faults in CRT, some of the ridiculous methodologies thrown out here, and some of the ridiculous posters here, the only name-calling has been almost exclusively from you and Kurt, and it has been quite vitriolic.
5. You've avoided every single request by me and others for clarifying information on some of these positions above - in fact, you seem to desparately bring up any tangential subject to avoid discussing pertinent information that you know would weaken your already flimsy, waffling position.
You seem to be able to make up your mind on almost nothing here, and are rather hell-bent on saying anything in the moment in a futile attempt to win some argument. An argument, mind you, that cannot be won.
As some here have already said (some repeatedly), there is no single "best" display; they all have their strengths and weaknesses. Having the former pointed out shouldn't blindly turn one into a fanboy, and having the latter pointed out shouldn't make one feel the need to be defensive and attack others. Correcting FUD and old information is certainly one thing; blindly and vociferously railing for one display technology over another in an absolute sense to defend a personal choice just mucks up otherwise useful threads.
Oh, and I'll point out - also as others have - the title and initial post of this thread involved pitting a CRT vs. a 4K digital PJ, with a heavy dose of hyperbole and still unsubstantiated claims blindly in favor of the former. Perhaps if you don't like reading such comparisons, you should stay out of a thread whose entire premise is such a comparison, or at least correcting how stupid it is. |
+100 wrote in my sleep here this morning hehe
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
redfox001
Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Posts: 2257
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2015 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
_________________
701s->runco933->8500ultra->cinemax->9500mp->919 splitpack + cinemax
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diddern
Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2015 11:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| redfox001 wrote: | |
+1
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diddern
Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mp20748
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 5689
Location: Maryland
TV/Projector: 9500LC Ultra / Super 02 and 03 VIM
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HogPilot wrote: |
1. This isn't worth your time, except for the 60-odd pages and many weeks you've been feverishly responding in this thread |
It was nothing more than a waste of time, I'll admit. But was never taking seriously, because in the history of Digital Trolls, these two guys, and been the best at it. They don't show up presenting a new technology the way it used to be done back in the day (AVS). They come in and immediately let us ALL know how stupid we are, and that CRT is old, worthless, dead, not worth owning, and is presently being owned by idiots. I must admit, it's always been hard for me to pass up those kind of insults. Especially when they involve what I do.
Again, this is the dumbest, most idiotic thread being perpetuated in the history of the forums. So to answer your question, it's been a joke to me.
.
| Quote: |
2. Screen shots are worthless, except for comparing one person's shot of an uncalibrated CRT to another person's shot of a calibrated X500 to look at black, deep black, and flesh tones - in other words, some of the most useless things to compare in screen shots. And we still have no clue what the hell the definitions or differences between "black" and "deep black" are. |
How many times do I have to tell you, that I posted shots in the screenshot thread. It was Diddern that copied one of my shots, down-sized it and posted it for comparison in this thread (go check it out). I only asked him to not modify my images if he was going to do that. And showed him how to do it without downsizing it. After reposting it myself and he saw it, he agreed that downsizing affected the image. It was not me that started or posted the comparison. Why would I do that when I've been saying all along how stupid it is. And that you cannot do a fair comparison using the cheap point and shoot cameras.
So get that part right please and finally. And since they mentioned the ridiculously great black level of the X500, I presented the challenge of deep blacks -- bait and trap -- it worked.
| Quote: |
3. Proper calibration - which is essential to comparing displays - has to be to a known standard, unless it's by eye using one's memory, and then you consider the brain's known grossly inaccurate and easily influenced memories to be an acceptable "standard." Which is exactly the opposite of calibration. |
This is a longer one than I have time for right now, but you can't base your being right on this on what you know from the books you've read. And because of what you don't know, it's not worth having a discussion with you on this.
| Quote: |
4. Diddern and Andreas21 are rude and disrespectful, yet aside from calling out well-known faults in CRT, some of the ridiculous methodologies thrown out here, and some of the ridiculous posters here, the only name-calling has been almost exclusively from you and Kurt, and it has been quite vitriolic |
I don't know who kept calling them the very bad names or saying really bad things about them. But I am guilty of calling them both idiots. Because who else would invade a CRT Community telling everyone there they are morons for staying with CRT?
| Quote: |
5. You've avoided every single request by me and others for clarifying information on some of these positions above - in fact, you seem to desparately bring up any tangential subject to avoid discussing pertinent information that you know would weaken your already flimsy, waffling position |
I've avoided your request, because they were neither important to me or worth wasting time to answer. What part of me seeing the thread as being a joke you don't understand. It's a really really stupid thread. one that's not worth much thought for clarification, because "it's a JOKE to me!!! Well, and since I don't feel I need to prove myself on anything concerning this thread, I didn't and wont.
| Quote: |
You seem to be able to make up your mind on almost nothing here, and are rather hell-bent on saying anything in the moment in a futile attempt to win some argument. An argument, mind you, that cannot be won |
Oh yeah. I think it has more to do with how we dealt with these kind of Trolls over on AVS back in the day. Alan used to let the attack go on, because he knew the natives would not lay down (like they do here) and let the trolls win. And again, I care less about which is better or how much better one is over the other. we are way beyond that. My participation has been no more than participating in a circus for the fun of it. You have no idea how much laughter has been going on behind the scenes. And with a little birdie informing me that you also own a JVC. The smoke in the air has become much more clearer to me now. And if it's also an X500 thingy...
| Quote: |
As some here have already said (some repeatedly), there is no single "best" display; they all have their strengths and weaknesses. Having the former pointed out shouldn't blindly turn one into a fanboy, and having the latter pointed out shouldn't make one feel the need to be defensive and attack others. Correcting FUD and old information is certainly one thing; blindly and vociferously railing for one display technology over another in an absolute sense to defend a personal choice just mucks up otherwise useful threads |
We agree here and this has been my point all along. With that, why are we even having this discussion. Was this topic and discussion started in the Digital Sub forum here, and I invaded telling everyone there that CRT is better, and they are morons for going digital? No, I never left the CRT community, where in times past, we all felt comfortable being able to talk and speak freely without our threads being invaded with someone saying we need to know the truth. I take it you believe so little about the usefulness of CRT's that you agree that that the compassion of this community is irrelevant. And therefore we should be very open to anyone showing up and and demanding we obey their wishes for us.
| Quote: | | Oh, and I'll point out - also as others have - the title and initial post of this thread involved pitting a CRT vs. a 4K digital PJ, with a heavy dose of hyperbole and still unsubstantiated claims blindly in favor of the former. Perhaps if you don't like reading such comparisons, you should stay out of a thread whose entire premise is such a comparison, or at least correcting how stupid it is. |
Well then, why didn't you or someone else ask the invaders to take the NEW topic to new thread, or in the Digital forum as Curt had mentioned a few days ago when he warn Diddern?
You seem to have joined these two guys in an attempt to further turn the CRT Community into a Be open for changes community, and that we should also give up our voice and opinion and listen to anyone who want to inform us about the Digital technology. That my friend will never happen for me, because I see these invasions as insults to a proprietary Community of CRT Hobbyist and lovers. And I won't waste my time going back and forth with you on your opinion on why I should see things otherwise. I see no offense in me defending the culture of a community I love and hang out in.
So in the future, the confusion can be avoided if the invaders could be informed that they need to take their recommendations to the right forum (Digital).
Also, and I'm going to let you win this one because I'm not going to keep going back and forth with you, when I really don't give a damn which is better and what new feature they have now put on model XXX. The blacks have gotten betten, blah blah blah blah. because the best way to loose me from this community is for me to see it further degrade into us having live with what these Trolls have been allowed to do so far. And I saw where they started another thread on the subject (thanks to you).
Now, keep it straight. Diddern removed one of my images from the screenshots thread. I did not do or initiate the comparison. I don't do image comparison grabbing others shots and posting them in comparison. Like I keep saying, that would be a very stupid thing to do...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diddern
Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diddern
Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2015 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LET CRT BE CRT AND DIGIAL BE DIGITAL, AND DO NOT TRY TO SAY THAT A DIGITAL IS BETTER THAN A CRT IN ANY WAY ANYMORE ITS CRAP TO SAY. AND EVERYBODDY KNOWS IT.
END OF STORY FOR THIS THREED Eisemann-Theater Simulation Grade Tubes better than VW1000ES, WANT TO KEEP MODDING FINE USE THE RIGHT THRED AND BE GROWNUPS.
https://www.curtpalme.com/forum_archived/viewtopic.php@t=34871.html
More correct 
Last edited by Diddern on Sun Mar 22, 2015 5:26 pm; edited 3 times in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Curt Palme
CRT Tech
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 24396
Location: Langley, BC
TV/Projector: All of them!
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2015 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Frankly Diddern, I've had enough of you. You're gone, as soon as a mod with power can delete you.
Kal, Analog, Crabb, feel free to delete Diddern. He serves absolutely no purpose here or on any other thread he's added to. A troll to the max.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diddern
Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2015 2:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Curt Palme wrote: | Frankly Diddern, I've had enough of you. You're gone, as soon as a mod with power can delete you.
Kal, Analog, Crabb, feel free to delete Diddern. He serves absolutely no purpose here or on any other thread he's added to. A troll to the max. |
You understand that I mean thread Curt. Even I understand that.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andreas21
Joined: 02 Oct 2013
Posts: 582
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2015 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mp20748 wrote: |
How many times do I have to tell you, that I posted shots in the screenshot thread. It was Diddern that copied one of my shots, down-sized it and posted it for comparison in this thread (go check it out). I only asked him to not modify my images if he was going to do that. And showed him how to do it without downsizing it. After reposting it myself and he saw it, he agreed that downsizing affected the image. It was not me that started or posted the comparison. Why would I do that when I've been saying all along how stupid it is. And that you cannot do a fair comparison using the cheap point and shoot cameras.
So get that part right please and finally. And since they mentioned the ridiculously great black level of the X500, I presented the challenge of deep blacks -- bait and trap -- it worked.
|
It was you who started with posting screenshots in this tread and commented on the blacks of the JVC , I only showed you how you can manipulate black in a screenshot. You have always said in this tread you can use screenshots to compare different projectors, I have always said they are worthless.
And you have said it many times after this that you can compare black ,deepblack, fleshtones etc from screenshots.
I think you are trying to row a boat that is so far in land that you can not see the sea. 
_________________
http://www.minhembio.com/21Andreas
Last edited by Andreas21 on Sat Mar 21, 2015 2:55 pm; edited 2 times in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diddern
Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2015 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Last edited by Diddern on Sun Mar 22, 2015 7:45 am; edited 2 times in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andreas21
Joined: 02 Oct 2013
Posts: 582
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2015 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Diddern wrote: | LET CRT BE CRT AND DIGIAL BE DIGITAL, AND DO NOT TRY TO SAY THAT A DIGITAL IS BETTER THAN A CRT IN ANY WAY ANYMORE ITS CRAP TO SAY. AND EVERYBODDY KNOWS IT.
END OF STORY FOR THIS FORUM, WANT TO KEEP MODDING FINE USE THE RIGHT FORUM THRED AND BE GROWNUPS.
https://www.curtpalme.com/forum_archived/viewtopic.php@t=34871.html |
I think you mean tread here not forum.
If you guys delete Diddern it is because his english is not perfect that is wrong. everytime he uses the word forum in his post he means tread, I am 100% sure of that.
_________________
http://www.minhembio.com/21Andreas
Last edited by Andreas21 on Sat Mar 21, 2015 3:30 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diddern
Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2015 3:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Andreas21 wrote: | | Diddern wrote: | LET CRT BE CRT AND DIGIAL BE DIGITAL, AND DO NOT TRY TO SAY THAT A DIGITAL IS BETTER THAN A CRT IN ANY WAY ANYMORE ITS CRAP TO SAY. AND EVERYBODDY KNOWS IT.
END OF STORY FOR THIS FORUM, WANT TO KEEP MODDING FINE USE THE RIGHT FORUM THRED AND BE GROWNUPS.
https://www.curtpalme.com/forum_archived/viewtopic.php@t=34871.html |
I think you mean tread here not forum.
If you guys delete Diddern it is because his english is not perfect and that is wrong. everytime he uses the word forum in his post he means tread, i am 100% sure of that. |
Ofcorse only the thred.
And not the best English I know. Hehe
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diddern
Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2015 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Curt Palme wrote: | Frankly Diddern, I've had enough of you. You're gone, as soon as a mod with power can delete you.
Kal, Analog, Crabb, feel free to delete Diddern. He serves absolutely no purpose here or on any other thread he's added to. A troll to the max. |
MP understood what I meant.
No intention of affending your forum in any way.
See what he wrote on this forum in another thread.
mp20748 wrote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Diddern wrote >>
Here is the final conclusion from me after seeing mods done to CRT.
To mod an old CRT is worth it if you are a enthusiast, and if it not cost more than you can handle. Because it is money that you never get back is selling today.
The improvements are visible on noise in picture, and get some better visual image. But very little compared to a well adjusted original. Also best result from a 9"
There are many factors that does not get better, so it stops there.
This is a topic for mods, so free to step up and say what you mean and prove other things. Also after mod on Maquee 9500LC that I have not checked.
The Barco 909 has better gamma form the fabric, and have much better digital adjustments than any Marquee.
<< Quote
This is more appropriate and friendly.
-----------------------------------
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HogPilot
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 2383
TV/Projector: Vizio P702ui-B3, Pioneer Elite Pro-151FD & 111FD
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2015 9:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mp20748 wrote: | | They come in and immediately let us ALL know how stupid we are, and that CRT is old, worthless, dead, not worth owning, and is presently being owned by idiots. I must admit, it's always been hard for me to pass up those kind of insults. Especially when they involve what I do. |
Ah, now we cut down to the core of your rantings here. Your feelings have been hurt, so you can say whatever you want/need - facts be damned - to make yourself feel better. So apparently as long as your default position is that CRT is the best display technology ever, it's acceptable to be a total ass to others and spread misinformation in a forum which I had thought prided itself on being a resource for home theater and CRT enthusiasts. Apparently asserting the superiority of CRT at any cost trumps all. Got it.
Newsflash: display tech choice isn't a zero sum game. Your choice doesn't have to be at the expense of others' choices. Yet even guys like ecrabb and kal have noted a strong anti-digital sentiment here, and I see it all the time. Of course it's not all CRT owners, but there is definitely an acceptance of bashing digital projectors using old arguments from 2003 to attempt to prop up CRT. I don't know why that's necessary...if you enjoy the picture your CRT throws, it should be based on CRT's merits and an acceptance of its shortcomings, not because you took some JVC owner to task and told him that your 909 is better than his X500. That kind of discussion is a woefully petulant way to go about a hobby that should be about enjoying great movies and music on big screens and sound stages that few people get to have in their homes.
This isn't a CRT-only forum (note the digital sub-forum which CRT owners post in all the time), and you certainly don't help your argument to that end when you're whining about the presence of people discussing digital projection in a thread whose premise is to pit CRT vs digital. If you don't like the comparison, don't come to a thread whose sole purpose is to compare. Well, that and to sell new products using ridiculous claims and snake-oil.
On to calibration - my intent wasn't to debate you or engage in discussion, but rather to correct you. Calibration is based on almost 100 years of understanding of the human visual system - an understanding which gave direct rise to CRT and made it what it is today. It's basic fact that the human sensory system and memory is incredibly relative, and a horrible absolute measuring tool. Thus it is also basic fact that one needs some sort of instrument - whether it be a certified probe (and even then, all probes are NOT created equal), or reference cards with a certified D65 light source to properly calibrate a display. So no, your calibration by eye/memory nonsense is exactly that - the pipe dream of newbies who don't want to (or have) the time and resources to learn about calibration and invest in the gear to do it properly. The fact that someone like you has tried to purposely state otherwise simply to try to "win" a self-serving argument is shameful. This should be a place where new enthusiasts can come and get good information, not get fed a bunch of garbage by someone who is trying to shore up a bruised ego.
And yeah, you're the worlds greatest detective: you had to receive a super-secret special PM to learn something that is literally listed under my user name in every post I make. That level of perception is right in line with most everything else you've contributed in this thread, so I shouldn't be surprised.
_________________
| 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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diddern
Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2015 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| HogPilot wrote: | | mp20748 wrote: | | They come in and immediately let us ALL know how stupid we are, and that CRT is old, worthless, dead, not worth owning, and is presently being owned by idiots. I must admit, it's always been hard for me to pass up those kind of insults. Especially when they involve what I do. |
Ah, now we cut down to the core of your rantings here. Your feelings have been hurt, so you can say whatever you want/need - facts be damned - to make yourself feel better. So apparently as long as your default position is that CRT is the best display technology ever, it's acceptable to be a total ass to others and spread misinformation in a forum which I had thought prided itself on being a resource for home theater and CRT enthusiasts. Apparently asserting the superiority of CRT at any cost trumps all. Got it.
Newsflash: display tech choice isn't a zero sum game. Your choice doesn't have to be at the expense of others' choices. Yet even guys like ecrabb and kal have noted a strong anti-digital sentiment here, and I see it all the time. Of course it's not all CRT owners, but there is definitely an acceptance of bashing digital projectors using old arguments from 2003 to attempt to prop up CRT. I don't know why that's necessary...if you enjoy the picture your CRT throws, it should be based on CRT's merits and an acceptance of its shortcomings, not because you took some JVC owner to task and told him that your 909 is better than his X500. That kind of discussion is a woefully petulant way to go about a hobby that should be about enjoying great movies and music on big screens and sound stages that few people get to have in their homes.
This isn't a CRT-only forum (note the digital sub-forum which CRT owners post in all the time), and you certainly don't help your argument to that end when you're whining about the presence of people discussing digital projection in a thread whose premise is to pit CRT vs digital. If you don't like the comparison, don't come to a thread whose sole purpose is to compare. Well, that and to sell new products using ridiculous claims and snake-oil.
On to calibration - my intent wasn't to debate you or engage in discussion, but rather to correct you. Calibration is based on almost 100 years of understanding of the human visual system - an understanding which gave direct rise to CRT and made it what it is today. It's basic fact that the human sensory system and memory is incredibly relative, and a horrible absolute measuring tool. Thus it is also basic fact that one needs some sort of instrument - whether it be a certified probe (and even then, all probes are NOT created equal), or reference cards with a certified D65 light source to properly calibrate a display. So no, your calibration by eye/memory nonsense is exactly that - the pipe dream of newbies who don't want to (or have) the time and resources to learn about calibration and invest in the gear to do it properly. The fact that someone like you has tried to purposely state otherwise simply to try to "win" a self-serving argument is shameful. This should be a place where new enthusiasts can come and get good information, not get fed a bunch of garbage by someone who is trying to shore up a bruised ego.
And yeah, you're the worlds greatest detective: you had to receive a super-secret special PM to learn something that is literally listed under my user name in every post I make. That level of perception is right in line with most everything else you've contributed in this thread, so I shouldn't be surprised.
|
Wery well written +100
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andreas21
Joined: 02 Oct 2013
Posts: 582
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2015 11:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| HogPilot wrote: | | mp20748 wrote: | | They come in and immediately let us ALL know how stupid we are, and that CRT is old, worthless, dead, not worth owning, and is presently being owned by idiots. I must admit, it's always been hard for me to pass up those kind of insults. Especially when they involve what I do. |
Ah, now we cut down to the core of your rantings here. Your feelings have been hurt, so you can say whatever you want/need - facts be damned - to make yourself feel better. So apparently as long as your default position is that CRT is the best display technology ever, it's acceptable to be a total ass to others and spread misinformation in a forum which I had thought prided itself on being a resource for home theater and CRT enthusiasts. Apparently asserting the superiority of CRT at any cost trumps all. Got it.
Newsflash: display tech choice isn't a zero sum game. Your choice doesn't have to be at the expense of others' choices. Yet even guys like ecrabb and kal have noted a strong anti-digital sentiment here, and I see it all the time. Of course it's not all CRT owners, but there is definitely an acceptance of bashing digital projectors using old arguments from 2003 to attempt to prop up CRT. I don't know why that's necessary...if you enjoy the picture your CRT throws, it should be based on CRT's merits and an acceptance of its shortcomings, not because you took some JVC owner to task and told him that your 909 is better than his X500. That kind of discussion is a woefully petulant way to go about a hobby that should be about enjoying great movies and music on big screens and sound stages that few people get to have in their homes.
This isn't a CRT-only forum (note the digital sub-forum which CRT owners post in all the time), and you certainly don't help your argument to that end when you're whining about the presence of people discussing digital projection in a thread whose premise is to pit CRT vs digital. If you don't like the comparison, don't come to a thread whose sole purpose is to compare. Well, that and to sell new products using ridiculous claims and snake-oil.
On to calibration - my intent wasn't to debate you or engage in discussion, but rather to correct you. Calibration is based on almost 100 years of understanding of the human visual system - an understanding which gave direct rise to CRT and made it what it is today. It's basic fact that the human sensory system and memory is incredibly relative, and a horrible absolute measuring tool. Thus it is also basic fact that one needs some sort of instrument - whether it be a certified probe (and even then, all probes are NOT created equal), or reference cards with a certified D65 light source to properly calibrate a display. So no, your calibration by eye/memory nonsense is exactly that - the pipe dream of newbies who don't want to (or have) the time and resources to learn about calibration and invest in the gear to do it properly. The fact that someone like you has tried to purposely state otherwise simply to try to "win" a self-serving argument is shameful. This should be a place where new enthusiasts can come and get good information, not get fed a bunch of garbage by someone who is trying to shore up a bruised ego.
And yeah, you're the worlds greatest detective: you had to receive a super-secret special PM to learn something that is literally listed under my user name in every post I make. That level of perception is right in line with most everything else you've contributed in this thread, so I shouldn't be surprised.
|
+1
There is a lot of truth in in this post.
_________________
http://www.minhembio.com/21Andreas
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mp20748
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 5689
Location: Maryland
TV/Projector: 9500LC Ultra / Super 02 and 03 VIM
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2015 11:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| HogPilot wrote: |
Ah, now we cut down to the core of your rantings here. Your feelings have been hurt, so you can say whatever you want/need - facts be damned - to make yourself feel better. So apparently as long as your default position is that CRT is the best display technology ever, it's acceptable to be a total ass to others and spread misinformation in a forum which I had thought prided itself on being a resource for home theater and CRT enthusiasts. Apparently asserting the superiority of CRT at any cost trumps all. Got it. |
My “feelings hurt” why?? again, this thread to me has been a joke, and I mean totally. And why do you guys keep insisting that someone has claimed CRT is superior. Where is that sir? When the two clowns were the ones who came in demanding that we look at the TRUTH of CRT, and that it is DEAD, etc. No one has chimed in claiming CRT to be “superior” it's just that we did not accept or agree with what was being imposed on us about the technology. We did not go over into the Digital Sub-Forum claiming anything, and to me would be a terrible thing for anybody to do. Yet, it was supposed to have been so easily accepted by the CRT community here.. I read back over the thread, and mainly what I've been seeing is after we were invaded and hit with the news that the objects of our passion for HT and hobby should be buried in a grave because it is DEAD and USELESS and that digital technology was better in every regard except fade to black. We responded that we either don't care, or responded by saying they both have the plus and minus factor going for them.
| Quote: | | Newsflash: display tech choice isn't a zero sum game. Your choice doesn't have to be at the expense of others' choices. Yet even guys like ecrabb and kal have noted a strong anti-digital sentiment here, and I see it all the time. Of course it's not all CRT owners, but there is definitely an acceptance of bashing digital projectors using old arguments from 2003 to attempt to prop up CRT. I don't know why that's necessary... |
Wow...there is an anti-digital sentiment here in the CRT forum. When did this all happen, and why?
Hey, but shouldn't we in the CRT forum be more concerned about the anti-CRT sentiment that seems to want to take over the CRT forum.
| Quote: | | if you enjoy the picture your CRT throws, it should be based on CRT's merits and an acceptance of its shortcomings, not because you took some JVC owner to task and told him that your 909 is better than his X500. That kind of discussion is a woefully petulant way to go about a hobby that should be about enjoying great movies and music on big screens and sound stages that few people get to have in their homes |
Let me look at this one carefully if I may....you say if we enjoy CRT on it's merits, and also except it's shortcomings, then we should not be attacking some JVC owner to point out that our 909 is better than his X500.... and by doing that, it would be a woefully petulant way to go about a HOBBY that should be about enjoying great movies and music on big screens and sound stages that few people get to have in their homes............. So with that indictment, who did that here in this community?
| Quote: | | This isn't a CRT-only forum (note the digital sub-forum which CRT owners post in all the time), and you certainly don't help your argument to that end when you're whining about the presence of people discussing digital projection in a thread whose premise is to pit CRT vs digital. If you don't like the comparison, don't come to a thread whose sole purpose is to compare |
You should address that to Curt. I recall him telling Diddern that this was the CRT forum, and something about the digital forum, in maybe Diddern would be better situated in the digital forum. I just want to say that I agree with Curt, and that seems to be the overall sentiment here as well with many others in THIS Community
And while we're at it. About this thread you mention “CRT vs digital / If you you don't like the comparisons. Don't come to the thread”
The thread is 120 pages long. It has had almost 50,000 views and 2398 post (at writing). Can you point out to me one valid comparison in that thread, or even one reason to even start the thread, when there seems that a comparison was never done....and why it's the dumbest thread in Forum history (any forum). It simply goes on and on, first starting out as being no more than an advertisement for either tube sales or mods. And it then starts going all over the place. But some sense was interjected by someone here:
“Generally speaking, when one makes a claim that defies the current state of things, it is in their best interest to provide supporting evidence. The lack of evidence alone isn't automatically damming, but if the claim is true, evidence should be readily obtainable; indeed, one should want to provide as much evidence as possible if they want anyone else to accept their claim. The longer the party making the claim avoids or deflects providing evidence, the more likely it is that they are blowing smoke. It certainly didn't help that the OP's claims were incredibly vague and subjective”
And you would think at this point, the thread would die off... nope, it continues into the land of pointlessness for well over 100 more pages. With into 100 pages of pointlessness, and opinions until you know who shows up and takes things over the top.. then it goes on to total meaninglessness
| Quote: | | Well, that and to sell new products using ridiculous claims and snake-oil |
I'm guilty. But the ridiculous claims and snake oil I disagree with. Everything that I've claimed can and has been proven and verified. It is not only a verified scientific fact, but has been proven to have taking the technology to a level that has never been before achieved. I even went further I sent some of my work to VDC and got confirmation there a few months ago (documented).
| Quote: | | On to calibration - my intent wasn't to debate you or engage in discussion, but rather to correct you. Calibration is based on almost 100 years of understanding of the human visual system - an understanding which gave direct rise to CRT and made it what it is today. It's basic fact that the human sensory system and memory is incredibly relative, and a horrible absolute measuring tool. Thus it is also basic fact that one needs some sort of instrument - whether it be a certified probe (and even then, all probes are NOT created equal), or reference cards with a certified D65 light source to properly calibrate a display. So no, your calibration by eye/memory nonsense is exactly that - the pipe dream of newbies who don't want to (or have) the time and resources to learn about calibration and invest in the gear to do it properly. The fact that someone like you has tried to purposely state otherwise simply to try to "win" a self-serving argument is shameful. This should be a place where new enthusiasts can come and get good information, not get fed a bunch of garbage by someone who is trying to shore up a bruised ego |
I tried to warn you to stay away from this, because your knowledge of calibration that you most likely acquired from a Borders Book store, will never give you true insight into a much larger industry out there. And before you paint with a wide brush and from an Know-it-all perspective, it would only make sense to be wise and use your eyes/ears more than your mouth. Don't forget, there was once a guy who thought the world was flat.
No, you are in no way correcting me on anything. I made it clear that I use another tool in my calibration, and that I also own a probe as well as my comparator. I also used to own a meter.
So what I said was “also” meaning I also used eyeball calibration. And since this is not in your basic manuals, it is as I've pointed out to you before an “accepted” means to calibrate a projector. Is it an accurate means, no, and that goes without saying, because it cannot produce the quantitative data necessary for “proper” calibration. So I also I used the term “get by” and if you further disagree with the eye being an excepted form of calibration, your argument would have to be with the many projector manufacturers that used the eye method in their manuals for calibration and to what a many expert also agrees with. And there are quite a few calibrators that I've spoken with say after they have used their expensive meters to render a calibration, that the gray scale was still off. That's when the meter MUST be supported by eye!
There's a very large and professional industry out there, that requires that a meter or probe be used. There are also standards set in place that this industry uses (nist), and they require complete documentation of the final results. But the proper procedure set forth, require that you document before and after. So again that proper use of the word calibrate means nothing if it is not followed by the means, methods and results in writing form. So to help you out further here, the requirement is that you measure first and document. Then measure after you finish and document. On the very bottom of the Work order, you have to write in your results. This has to be documented and verified by the customer (in some cases), as well, day/date, tools used, etc. Every expert I've come across has also acknowledge the importance of also being able to use the eye to properly finish a setup at times. And believe it or not, when you can't get proper readings with a meter, you can put at the bottom of the Work Order - By eye - or calibration supported by eye.
And since you know everything and are so well informed to correct others, can you tell me why some reports must include: warm up (and time on) time and Temperature, and why temperature devices were needed by the tech?
I gave up being or calling myself a calibrator after I got rid of my meter about 12 years ago. I use only a probe and my comparator today and for the most part do only commercial setups. And so that you'll know, most of the best calibrators I've come across also mentioned to me that at times they have to tweak also by eye after the meter results. That's because almost anyone with real world experience, know that the meter is not always accurate. And when you reach that point, that's when you've separated the men from the boys in the industry. Because NO meter can read accuracy in every environment. So the meter then becomes the tool to get you closes to where you need to go, and from there you'll have to depend on the trained eye. I know that's hard for you to wrap your mind around, so I'll go even further and ask you this:
If you had to calibrate three display screens that were all right next to each other and match the colors straight across, is it true that you believe that your meter alone on each of them would yield the same exact and perfect color matching across all three when finished?
Last edited by mp20748 on Mon Mar 23, 2015 1:27 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| 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
|
|
