|
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 |
Nashou66
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Posts: 16171
Location: West Seneca NY
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 3:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jbmeyer13 wrote: | | Nashou66 wrote: | You don't have to buy a Barco, but do you have frankenyokes?
That is all you'll need and then your done ! 
Nashou |
That's for sure; big improvement in overall focus  |
Yep, it real does help. Just a pain to wire them up, especially if you got them back wards the first time.
its been so long since I tried the one on the Thomas tube I forgot how I wired it up, the wires got pulled out from mine.
Nashou
_________________
Don't blame your underwear for your crooked ass~ unknown Greek philosopher
"Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15." --- President Reagan
One Smart Dog!!!
Marquee High Performance Bellows now shipping!!
Marquee Modifications and Performance Enhancement
Marquee C-element and Bellow removal
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jbmeyer13
Joined: 03 Dec 2010
Posts: 1135
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 3:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: |
The Marquee have a decent bandwidth, and peaking can be addet so its not very vissible on the test pattern or movie content, but its not the same result as true bandwidth.. Nothing competes with that from where i stand.
|
The point Nash is making is that BW is not enough (he has more than he knows what to do with it) and that peaking in some capacity is needed to fine tune your set up if perfect 1:1 is the goal.
With that in mind it's likely that you won't be able to achieve perfect 1:1 across multiple resolutions.
_________________
Projector: Modded 9501LC ULtra- MP VIM, Vold VNB, ETECH LVPS, Silver VIM Cables, HD10F's & a V1 case!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jbmeyer13 wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: |
The Marquee have a decent bandwidth, and peaking can be addet so its not very vissible on the test pattern or movie content, but its not the same result as true bandwidth.. Nothing competes with that from where i stand.
|
The point Nash is making is that BW is not enough (he has more than he knows what to do with it) and that peaking in some capacity is needed to fine tune your set up if perfect 1:1 is the goal.
With that in mind it's likely that you won't be able to achieve perfect 1:1 across multiple resolutions. |
Thats why i say that there is no souch thing as to much bandwidth, and whatever resolution you run you will benefit from higher bandwidth.. look at it as rise and fall time.. it has to be as low as possible.. prefered non existing. it will define how fast you can turn a pixel on and off no matter what resolution.
Peaking will just help kicking the start of the signal, it will not help it to come down again, like a real bandwidth do.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
redfox001
Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Posts: 2257
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I can't say much yet but if the color difference between vertical and horizontal stays the same even with better focus I think my Cine Max with internal HDMI did not brake the laws. But although I see somewhat the same color difference the picture seems to my eyes just as sharp as digital used to be. Perhaps better optics compared with cheep digital?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VideoGrabber
Joined: 09 Apr 2006
Posts: 933
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I flipped this around, so I could start off on a positive note. 
| stridsvognen wrote: | ...whatever resolution you run you will benefit from higher bandwidth.. look at it as rise and fall time.. it has to be as low as possible.. prefered non existing. it will define how fast you can turn a pixel on and off no matter what resolution.
Peaking will just help kicking the start of the signal, it will not help it to come down again, like a real bandwidth do. |
This is 100% correct.
| stridsvognen wrote: |
Thats why i say that there is no souch thing as to much bandwidth... |
OK, if not taken literally.
However, even on the upside, there's a point of diminishing returns, where for a given class of source material (e.g., 1920x1080x72), extra bandwidth buys you little or nothing. Yet on the downside, pushing BW out beyond that point does nothing except allow for additional noise to enter and negatively impact the picture.
So it is certainly possible, in a practical sense, to have "too much" bandwidth.
_________________
- Tim
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| VideoGrabber wrote: | I flipped this around, so I could start off on a positive note.
| stridsvognen wrote: | ...whatever resolution you run you will benefit from higher bandwidth.. look at it as rise and fall time.. it has to be as low as possible.. prefered non existing. it will define how fast you can turn a pixel on and off no matter what resolution.
Peaking will just help kicking the start of the signal, it will not help it to come down again, like a real bandwidth do. |
This is 100% correct.
| stridsvognen wrote: |
Thats why i say that there is no souch thing as to much bandwidth... |
OK, if not taken literally.
However, even on the upside, there's a point of diminishing returns, where for a given class of source material (e.g., 1920x1080x72), extra bandwidth buys you little or nothing. Yet on the downside, pushing BW out beyond that point does nothing except allow for additional noise to enter and negatively impact the picture.
So it is certainly possible, in a practical sense, to have "too much" bandwidth. |
Sure you can not take it to literally, there is no truth without modifications, but im not sure i agree that a 1080P 72 hz wont benefit from headroom, but as you point out its also takes a lot of controle with incomming noise.
At least thats what i see when i have been testing Mike Parkers boards.
Im hoping to test his 300Mhz capable boards, and ill see what that will do for the image, with different kind of tubes, and if possible im going to see if i can find a frame quadrupler so i can give 1080P 96hz a try.
1080P 72hz is for me just a must have bandwidth, there is no return after i have seen what a 200Mhz capable CRT machine with good noise controle and sharpness and 10fl on screen look like. And no 817P 72hz is not a option to me like i have many 1.78:1 movies, and i thing the 817P cropping stresses the geometry of the projector to much.
60hz flickers, try look into the tubes on a crt running 60 hz, you will see it clearly, when running 72hz i no longer can detect flicker, and the smooothness of those movements and the light on screen gets sooo sweet when running 72hz.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VideoGrabber
Joined: 09 Apr 2006
Posts: 933
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for digging these pics back up.
| CasetheCorvetteman wrote: | | Colour is off in the second pic cause i had not calibrated that after redoing setup of both inputs which is why the colour temps vary as they do, |
I just load them into IrfanView, and kill the chroma with 'convert to grayscale'.
| Quote: | but it can clearly be seen how much better my 5x RG6 coax leads are over the MOOME V3,
|
Yes, I agree that's a pretty significant difference. Do you recall how long your RG6 run was? A bit surprising, if one considers the extremely positive comments on the Moome EXT-V3 here. Based on those pics, that PC card + RG6 will not only provide a sharper picture, but also substantially greater image contrast.
Expect some folks to ask if you didn't get confused and swap the shots. 
_________________
- Tim
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jbmeyer13
Joined: 03 Dec 2010
Posts: 1135
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | And no 817P 72hz is not a option to me like i have many 1.78:1 movies, and i thing the 817P cropping stresses the geometry of the projector to much.
|
What are you basing this assumption on?
_________________
Projector: Modded 9501LC ULtra- MP VIM, Vold VNB, ETECH LVPS, Silver VIM Cables, HD10F's & a V1 case!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jbmeyer13 wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | And no 817P 72hz is not a option to me like i have many 1.78:1 movies, and i thing the 817P cropping stresses the geometry of the projector to much.
|
What are you basing this assumption on? |
The testing i did, and that i cant live with a 817P resolution when running full screen 16:9 movies, and i buy those 1.78:1 formats as often i can like they make for a much more impressive image.
And why should i live with a cropped 1:78:1 image when i have the bandwidth to do a very good 1080P 72 hz.? and a different profile for each format is just a mess to setup.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VideoGrabber
Joined: 09 Apr 2006
Posts: 933
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | | Sure you can not take it to literally, there is no truth without modifications, |
Well, I didn't want to just come out and say your statement was wrong, because you were on the right track. But taken literally, it was wrong.
| Quote: | | but im not sure i agree that a 1080P 72 hz wont benefit from headroom, |
Not sure you'd agree with who? I certainly never claimed it wouldn't benefit from 'headroom'. I'm not talking about going from 200 to 300 MHz. I'm referring to comments I've read in the past about 2 GHz, and 5 GHz.
| Quote: | ...but as you point out its also takes a lot of controle with incomming noise.
At least that's what i see when i have been testing Mike Parkers boards. |
Mike is a wizard at tracking down, and stamping out noise, which clouds an image and robs it of it's impact.
| Quote: | | Im hoping to test his 300Mhz capable boards, and ill see what that will do for the image, with different kind of tubes, |
Sounds good.
| Quote: | | ...and if possible im going to see if i can find a frame quadrupler so i can give 1080P 96hz a try. |
There's not much point to that. The net result is bound to be worse. Why? Because obtaining optimal performance from a CRT PJ always depends on achieving a balance. An increase in one area, will cost you in another. You want to make sure that you only increase those things that need to be increased, to minimize the negatives elsewhere.
| Quote: | | when running 72hz i no longer can detect flicker |
Then there's no reason to run your refresh any higher than that. Increasing it from 60 to 72 gave you a significant benefit, so it was worth doing. But going beyond, and bumping it to 96 Hz (a 33% increase) is only going to cost you sharpness. It's an inevitable consequence of the physics behind the display technology. By refreshing faster (temporal resolution), you steal linear resolution on the horizontal axis. And the only way to maintain the same detail you previously had, would be to increase your system BW by the same 33% (say, from 300 MHz to 400 MHz). Unless you already had a lot of headroom at 72 Hz, 96 Hz will only look softer. It has to.
| Quote: | | 1080P 72hz is for me just a must have bandwidth, there is no return after i have seen what a 200Mhz capable CRT machine with good noise controle and sharpness and 10fl on screen look like. |
I agree that if you can attain that, the results will be very impressive. That's the culmination of the CRT art, using existing HD content.
| Quote: | | And no 817P 72hz is not a option to me like i have many 1.78:1 movies, and i thing the 817P cropping stresses the geometry of the projector to much. |
I won't argue (or agree) that there may be some stress on the geometry, but with less than the best of the best CRTs, going to 817p (for scope films) is going to yield real benefits in both detail and contrast. It frees up 32% of the BW and makes it available on the horizontal axis. Of course, no one said you had to use it for non-scope films.
| Quote: | | ...when running 72hz i no longer can detect flicker, and the smooothness of those movements and the light on screen gets sooo sweet when running 72hz. |
So what are you anticipating 96 Hz to do for you? More is not always better. Sometimes, less is better.  Yes, I know that's a shocking revelation.
_________________
- Tim
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VideoGrabber
Joined: 09 Apr 2006
Posts: 933
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | | ...i cant live with a 817P resolution when running full screen 16:9 movies, and i buy those 1.78:1 formats as often i can like they make for a much more impressive image. |
Nobody has said you had to. 
| Quote: | | And why should i live with a cropped 1:78:1 image when i have the bandwidth to do a very good 1080P 72 hz.? and a different profile for each format is just a mess to setup. |
Ah, we arrive at the crux of the matter. You're just too lazy to take advantage of the unique flexibility that a CRT offers.
There's nothing wrong with that! But you state it as if it's an option so outlandish that no one would even consider it. I can assure you that's not the case. As just one counter-example, I've set up every CRT I owned with custom settings for each major format. I know I'm not the only one who has felt it was worth the effort to take the time to make the PJ look it's best in every configuration.
_________________
- Tim
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| VideoGrabber wrote: |
So what are you anticipating 96 Hz to do for you? More is not always better. Sometimes, less is better. Yes, I know that's a shocking revelation. |
Its not so shocking, but to find the limit you need to pass it, and take a step back, so im not just going to speculate whats best, ill test it.
I also doubt 96hz will push for something better, but when elevating the bandwidth from 200Mhz to 300Mhz, i think it will be stupid not to try see the result of 96hz if there is something that will do the quadrupling without hurting the signal.
Im a practical man like to do things, confirm if it works or not.
I dont know what CRt you are running and how, maybe you like to share some of your tests.?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jbmeyer13
Joined: 03 Dec 2010
Posts: 1135
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | | jbmeyer13 wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | And no 817P 72hz is not a option to me like i have many 1.78:1 movies, and i thing the 817P cropping stresses the geometry of the projector to much.
|
What are you basing this assumption on? |
The testing i did, and that i cant live with a 817P resolution when running full screen 16:9 movies, and i buy those 1.78:1 formats as often i can like they make for a much more impressive image.
And why should i live with a cropped 1:78:1 image when i have the bandwidth to do a very good 1080P 72 hz.? and a different profile for each format is just a mess to setup. |
I understand not wanting to setup additional memories. 90% of film based material is 2.35/2.40AR (1920 x 817P) so in my mind optimizing a set up for that format is ideal; but to each his own.
Please explain how you tested and determined that 817P "stresses geometry". This is not something you would be able to visually discern in a subjective context and since I'm always game for reducing the stress load on the electronics I'm trying to legitimately understand how you arrived at this objective conclusion.
For someone who is "bandwidth obsessed" I'm surprised you are not running an 817P/72 memory seeing as how it uses less BW than 1080/72 and we all know you can never have enough BW
_________________
Projector: Modded 9501LC ULtra- MP VIM, Vold VNB, ETECH LVPS, Silver VIM Cables, HD10F's & a V1 case!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| VideoGrabber wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | ...i cant live with a 817P resolution when running full screen 16:9 movies, and i buy those 1.78:1 formats as often i can like they make for a much more impressive image. |
Nobody has said you had to.
| Quote: | | And why should i live with a cropped 1:78:1 image when i have the bandwidth to do a very good 1080P 72 hz.? and a different profile for each format is just a mess to setup. |
Ah, we arrive at the crux of the matter. You're just too lazy to take advantage of the unique flexibility that a CRT offers.
There's nothing wrong with that! But you state it as if it's an option so outlandish that no one would even consider it. I can assure you that's not the case. As just one counter-example, I've set up every CRT I owned with custom settings for each major format. I know I'm not the only one who has felt it was worth the effort to take the time to make the PJ look it's best in every configuration. |
Maybe im lazy, im sure, maybe you know best, so thanks for sharing, i was the idiot who mada all sorts of resolutions and framerates for different formats, different scalings.. Scalers players and so on.. I think i have done my fair share of different format setups with CRT alredy, i just did not find any real benefits making special formats to each resolution after i had Mike Parkers boards instaled, and bandwidth was no longer the big isue.
I made 480P 120hz 480P 180hz 576P 100hz 576P 150hz and so on up to 1080P 72hz, well even a short test 817P 96hz
With diferent processors, and bla bla bla.. So im not sure i totaly agree about the lazy part..
I much prefer to hear about your testing and experience over your coments about my personality.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VideoGrabber
Joined: 09 Apr 2006
Posts: 933
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | ...and i buy those 1.78:1 formats as often i can like they make for a much more impressive image.
|
Only if your screen is a CIW setup. That's not a universal truth, you know.
_________________
- Tim
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jbmeyer13 wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | jbmeyer13 wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | And no 817P 72hz is not a option to me like i have many 1.78:1 movies, and i thing the 817P cropping stresses the geometry of the projector to much.
|
What are you basing this assumption on? |
The testing i did, and that i cant live with a 817P resolution when running full screen 16:9 movies, and i buy those 1.78:1 formats as often i can like they make for a much more impressive image.
And why should i live with a cropped 1:78:1 image when i have the bandwidth to do a very good 1080P 72 hz.? and a different profile for each format is just a mess to setup. |
I understand not wanting to setup additional memories. 90% of film based material is 2.35/2.40AR (1920 x 817P) so in my mind optimizing a set up for that format is ideal; but to each his own.
Please explain how you tested and determined that 817P "stresses geometry". This is not something you would be able to visually discern in a subjective context and since I'm always game for reducing the stress load on the electronics I'm trying to legitimately understand how you arrived at this objective conclusion.
For someone who is "bandwidth obsessed" I'm surprised you are not running an 817P/72 memory seeing as how it uses less BW than 1080/72 and we all know you can never have enough BW |
Stress in the way i had problems to get a perfect geometry with 0 banding when pushing the vertical size all down to fit the 817P output.
Nothing more than that, and not saying you should not do, i just say i dont like it, and with the bandwidth i had, i made tests with 60hz vs 72 hz, and sure 60hz is sharper, but it was not much, + all the benefits of the 72hz made it a nice trade in.
There is always give and take.. no matter what, i still have to experience a 100% win win situation.
So when i tell about my testing and my result, its based on my preferences, and what i prefer over something else.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jbmeyer13
Joined: 03 Dec 2010
Posts: 1135
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| VideoGrabber wrote: |
There's nothing wrong with that! But you state it as if it's an option so outlandish that no one would even consider it. I can assure you that's not the case. As just one counter-example, I've set up every CRT I owned with custom settings for each major format. I know I'm not the only one who has felt it was worth the effort to take the time to make the PJ look it's best in every configuration. |
I have also set up memories for multiple formats. For 2.35/2.40AR content I found 817P/72 to be sharper than 1080p/60 with the obvious reduction of flicker. I'd love to do a 1080p/72 vs. 817p/72 comparison but I'm not currently using a radiance XS+. I would naturally assume that 817P/72 will provide a cleaner image and hope to do a comparison in the near future.
_________________
Projector: Modded 9501LC ULtra- MP VIM, Vold VNB, ETECH LVPS, Silver VIM Cables, HD10F's & a V1 case!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| VideoGrabber wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | ...and i buy those 1.78:1 formats as often i can like they make for a much more impressive image.
|
Only if your screen is a CIW setup. That's not a universal truth, you know. |
Try read my posts as the way i prefer it, and dont read it like a universal truth, your free to like whatever you like and prefer whatever you like, but i also think i have my rights to prefer some stuff.. Just like i prefer dark chocolade, that dont mean you have to agree..
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jbmeyer13 wrote: | | VideoGrabber wrote: |
There's nothing wrong with that! But you state it as if it's an option so outlandish that no one would even consider it. I can assure you that's not the case. As just one counter-example, I've set up every CRT I owned with custom settings for each major format. I know I'm not the only one who has felt it was worth the effort to take the time to make the PJ look it's best in every configuration. |
I have also set up memories for multiple formats. For 2.35/2.40AR content I found 817P/72 to be sharper than 1080p/60 with the obvious reduction of flicker. I'd love to do a 1080p/72 vs. 817p/72 comparison but I'm not currently using a radiance XS+. I would naturally assume that 817P/72 will provide a cleaner image and hope to do a comparison in the near future. |
I better put this right.. In my opinion the Radiance makes a cleaner image than the HDQ, and you need to get MP to mod the moome card, trow away the gamma crap, and make it handle those hight bandwidth.
there is no way of comparing a standard Marquee to a top tuned one.. i thought u had seen that
So that makes for a hole new game.
So the experience and testings we have done, is not the same, and will therefor for sure not make the same results.
Im 100% sure that your setup is made to perform its best with the hardware available. The same i try to do here, its just differnt hardware.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jbmeyer13
Joined: 03 Dec 2010
Posts: 1135
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | | jbmeyer13 wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | jbmeyer13 wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | And no 817P 72hz is not a option to me like i have many 1.78:1 movies, and i thing the 817P cropping stresses the geometry of the projector to much.
|
What are you basing this assumption on? |
The testing i did, and that i cant live with a 817P resolution when running full screen 16:9 movies, and i buy those 1.78:1 formats as often i can like they make for a much more impressive image.
And why should i live with a cropped 1:78:1 image when i have the bandwidth to do a very good 1080P 72 hz.? and a different profile for each format is just a mess to setup. |
I understand not wanting to setup additional memories. 90% of film based material is 2.35/2.40AR (1920 x 817P) so in my mind optimizing a set up for that format is ideal; but to each his own.
Please explain how you tested and determined that 817P "stresses geometry". This is not something you would be able to visually discern in a subjective context and since I'm always game for reducing the stress load on the electronics I'm trying to legitimately understand how you arrived at this objective conclusion.
For someone who is "bandwidth obsessed" I'm surprised you are not running an 817P/72 memory seeing as how it uses less BW than 1080/72 and we all know you can never have enough BW |
Stress in the way i had problems to get a perfect geometry with 0 banding when pushing the vertical size all down to fit the 817P output.
Nothing more than that, and not saying you should not do, i just say i dont like it, and with the bandwidth i had, i made tests with 60hz vs 72 hz, and sure 60hz is sharper, but it was not much, + all the benefits of the 72hz made it a nice trade in.
There is always give and take.. no matter what, i still have to experience a 100% win win situation.
So when i tell about my testing and my result, its based on my preferences, and what i prefer over something else. |
I initially had to swap out the resistor with a larger value on the VDM to get more adjustment of the vertical size. I found it to be more difficult to achieve perfect geometry but did arrive at such an example with no banding. It was a PITA though and took a lot of tinkering.
_________________
Projector: Modded 9501LC ULtra- MP VIM, Vold VNB, ETECH LVPS, Silver VIM Cables, HD10F's & a V1 case!
|
|
| 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
|
|
