| Author |
Message |
cmjohnson
Joined: 03 Apr 2006
Posts: 5180
Location: Buried under G90s
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2016 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
It will be a different thread when we release a prototype document. It will be open for public commentary.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
hal
Joined: 28 Nov 2012
Posts: 100
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2016 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Greg,
CJ has sent me the "doc" this morning. I have talked to Curt already.
CJ is a semi-pro Photographer.. Both of us have Nikon camera's. Setting the minimal standards will push this hobby to the next level. Being able to send RAW images of our test patterns and set images >>we can even upload them to Dropbox and post links.
If we agree on the test standards, one can compare a machine to machine, brand to brand, Stock chassis to modded CRT's..
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cmjohnson
Joined: 03 Apr 2006
Posts: 5180
Location: Buried under G90s
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2016 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would not call myself a semi-pro photographer, just an enthusiastic amateur who is dramatically over-equipped for my skill level.
A gear queer, you could say.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greg9518lc
Joined: 19 Apr 2016
Posts: 360
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2016 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hal wrote: | Greg,
CJ has sent me the "doc" this morning. I have talked to Curt already.
CJ is a semi-pro Photographer.. Both of us have Nikon camera's. Setting the minimal standards will push this hobby to the next level. Being able to send RAW images of our test patterns and set images >>we can even upload them to Dropbox and post links.
If we agree on the test standards, one can compare a machine to machine, brand to brand, Stock chassis to modded CRT's.. |
Sounds like fun as it will be another way to enjoy this hobby.........
_________________
VDC 9518LC modded: I do not sell or promote mods only interested in the best PQ possible......
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greg9518lc
Joined: 19 Apr 2016
Posts: 360
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2016 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cmjohnson wrote: | I would not call myself a semi-pro photographer, just an enthusiastic amateur who is dramatically over-equipped for my skill level.
A gear queer, you could say. |
More like hound 
_________________
VDC 9518LC modded: I do not sell or promote mods only interested in the best PQ possible......
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greg9518lc
Joined: 19 Apr 2016
Posts: 360
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2016 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pentax and 35 mm prime 9518 lug machine
what ya think... CM pass the test?????????
I am sure full size file might be a little better........
Zoom in scanlines 1080p 72hz:D
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
_________________
VDC 9518LC modded: I do not sell or promote mods only interested in the best PQ possible......
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hal
Joined: 28 Nov 2012
Posts: 100
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greg9518lc
Joined: 19 Apr 2016
Posts: 360
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2016 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
pentax and 35mm[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
_________________
VDC 9518LC modded: I do not sell or promote mods only interested in the best PQ possible......
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greg9518lc
Joined: 19 Apr 2016
Posts: 360
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2016 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Had a D300 and the ccd sensor trumps cmos so thanks but no thanks and it is not about Mega Pixels.
We have proven this in my screenshot thread on AVF........
_________________
VDC 9518LC modded: I do not sell or promote mods only interested in the best PQ possible......
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hal
Joined: 28 Nov 2012
Posts: 100
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2016 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Upload the RAW image to Dropbox and post the link. Do you have a Calman Calibration disk? Images from that??
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mp20748
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 5689
Location: Maryland
TV/Projector: 9500LC Ultra / Super 02 and 03 VIM
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2016 12:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Still figuring this camera out. And have learnt that these neck boards do not work well with LCP tubes (look for the green bloom on the president's white face cloth).
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greg9518lc
Joined: 19 Apr 2016
Posts: 360
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2016 1:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| hal wrote: | | Upload the RAW image to Dropbox and post the link. Do you have a Calman Calibration disk? Images from that?? |
It's a jpeg file as for rules and such not let me know when
You have a protocol and I will try to follow and no I do not have a Colman diac
_________________
VDC 9518LC modded: I do not sell or promote mods only interested in the best PQ possible......
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cmjohnson
Joined: 03 Apr 2006
Posts: 5180
Location: Buried under G90s
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2016 3:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, it is about megapixels to some extent.
However, you need 2X pixel count (or more) when trying to show detail enhancements. It's not necessary for showing
greyscale tracking and other picture attributes that aren't about fine details.
4 megapixels covering the active image area itself is sufficient. But given that the native aspect ratio of the DSLR is roughly 4:3 and the aspect ratio of the picture will often be 16:9 or 2.35:1 or something else, sometimes, the camera will need to be more than 4 MP.
To fully capture the image you need a 2:1 pixel ratio ath the very least. If you're capturing an 800x600 image, the camera needs to capture that image with not less than 1600x1200 pixels to fully resolve it. And we can't lose detail with compression algorithms, so only lossless or non-compressed file types should be used.
That standard principle can't be compromised if the posted images are to have any chance of being considered above criticism as far as capturing the on-screen image.
If "good enough" is what you're thinking, this project to develop some measurement and evaluation standards is probably not for you.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greg9518lc
Joined: 19 Apr 2016
Posts: 360
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2016 1:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cmjohnson wrote: | Yes, it is about megapixels to some extent.
However, you need 2X pixel count (or more) when trying to show detail enhancements. It's not necessary for showing
greyscale tracking and other picture attributes that aren't about fine details.
4 megapixels covering the active image area itself is sufficient. But given that the native aspect ratio of the DSLR is roughly 4:3 and the aspect ratio of the picture will often be 16:9 or 2.35:1 or something else, sometimes, the camera will need to be more than 4 MP.
To fully capture the image you need a 2:1 pixel ratio ath the very least. If you're capturing an 800x600 image, the camera needs to capture that image with not less than 1600x1200 pixels to fully resolve it. And we can't lose detail with compression algorithms, so only lossless or non-compressed file types should be used.
That standard principle can't be compromised if the posted images are to have any chance of being considered above criticism as far as capturing the on-screen image.
If "good enough" is what you're thinking, this project to develop some measurement and evaluation standards is probably not for you. |
+
So a 10.2 mp camera is not enough? Then I am out as I will not give up the ccd sensor.
_________________
VDC 9518LC modded: I do not sell or promote mods only interested in the best PQ possible......
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cmjohnson
Joined: 03 Apr 2006
Posts: 5180
Location: Buried under G90s
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2016 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You can always just photograph a SECTION of the image, you know. In fact, for some purposes that woudl be best.
If you are comparing the detail of one projector vs. that of another with a different modded version neck card, then it would
be easier to see the difference on a zoomed in, high detail section of the image rather than post the entire image.
So...zoom in on the nose. Count nose hairs and blackheads. Something like that.
Your argument against a CCD sensor is irrelevant. I'm pretty sure the CMOS 36 MP sensor in my D810 has a very low noise floor, I get down to ISO 12800 before even running into multipliers.
At the picture levels that are of use for comparative purposes, you won't have to use high ISO settings anyway.
Nikon, Canon, and, yes, Pentax, all use CMOS sensors in their best and most expensive cameras.
The CMOS vs CCD sensor argument is mostly irrelevant these days. CMOS has already won.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mp20748
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 5689
Location: Maryland
TV/Projector: 9500LC Ultra / Super 02 and 03 VIM
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2016 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cmjohnson wrote: | You can always just photograph a SECTION of the image, you know. In fact, for some purposes that woudl be best.
If you are comparing the detail of one projector vs. that of another with a different modded version neck card, then it would
be easier to see the difference on a zoomed in, high detail section of the image rather than post the entire image.
So...zoom in on the nose. Count nose hairs and blackheads. Something like that.
Your argument against a CCD sensor is irrelevant. I'm pretty sure the CMOS 36 MP sensor in my D810 has a very low noise floor, I get down to ISO 12800 before even running into multipliers.
At the picture levels that are of use for comparative purposes, you won't have to use high ISO settings anyway.
Nikon, Canon, and, yes, Pentax, all use CMOS sensors in their best and most expensive cameras.
The CMOS vs CCD sensor argument is mostly irrelevant these days. CMOS has already won. |
CJ you do know this would only make sense if there is one camera being used at a location where both or all projects would be shot on the same screen. This takes us back to the 80's and 90's when they did the original shootouts in one large room where many projectors wire firing on the the same screen surface around the room.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greg9518lc
Joined: 19 Apr 2016
Posts: 360
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2016 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cmjohnson wrote: | You can always just photograph a SECTION of the image, you know. In fact, for some purposes that woudl be best.
If you are comparing the detail of one projector vs. that of another with a different modded version neck card, then it would
be easier to see the difference on a zoomed in, high detail section of the image rather than post the entire image.
So...zoom in on the nose. Count nose hairs and blackheads. Something like that.
Your argument against a CCD sensor is irrelevant. I'm pretty sure the CMOS 36 MP sensor in my D810 has a very low noise floor, I get down to ISO 12800 before even running into multipliers.
At the picture levels that are of use for comparative purposes, you won't have to use high ISO settings anyway.
Nikon, Canon, and, yes, Pentax, all use CMOS sensors in their best and most expensive cameras.
The CMOS vs CCD sensor argument is mostly irrelevant these days. CMOS has already won. |
CC'd is a better more realistic image and cmos is cheaper to make
and more energy efficient. The old vinyls vs cd is true here I have analog eyes. And Mp
Is right lots of variables going on here so how do you account for all of these?
_________________
VDC 9518LC modded: I do not sell or promote mods only interested in the best PQ possible......
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cmjohnson
Joined: 03 Apr 2006
Posts: 5180
Location: Buried under G90s
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2016 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"CCD is a better more realistic image"...says who, exactly, other than you?
Got anything to back that up from any reputable source?
The only thing I've heard is that, within the same generation, CCDs are less noisy.
I most seriously doubt that you could tell the difference between two photographs taken of the same thing under the same
conditions using cameras that are well matched to each other, but one has a CCD sensor and the other has a CMOS sensor,
made in the same time frame.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mp20748
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 5689
Location: Maryland
TV/Projector: 9500LC Ultra / Super 02 and 03 VIM
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2016 12:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Still. haven't touched the focus and convergence. Maybe this weekend.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mp20748
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 5689
Location: Maryland
TV/Projector: 9500LC Ultra / Super 02 and 03 VIM
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2016 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
My green bloom is coming from the glycol, so I decreased the gain to capture the following shots.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
