|
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 |
mp20748
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 5689
Location: Maryland
TV/Projector: 9500LC Ultra / Super 02 and 03 VIM
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2016 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm back and waiting on shots that show background detail. The same Troy shots I posted that show the entire scene would be perfect. Or post any shots that would show a transparent full image and use your best Blu-Ray player to help with this.
I'll stay with my lowly cheap Blu-Ray player, while you'll get to enjoy a recently calibrated setup that also has all three CRT's being LUG's. I'd rather you have the edge, because that would allow me to show what my setup is capable of, and the virtues of the changes that I've made on the video chain. Hopefully, my setup would show its capability especially giving the advantage you have.. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
gjaky
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Posts: 2802
Location: Budapest, Hungary
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2016 7:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mp20748 wrote: | | But I'll let you continue to post your shots, because for some reason it's very important for you to sell your mods by degrading mine. Something no other competiture has ever done on the forums, and why AVS kicks people off when they do it. If a comparison is done, its should be done by a third party. But again, in this case, it's really DUMB to even think it's possible, when almost everything is diffeent on both ends. |
| mp20748 wrote: | | Look man, the thread is there for anyone to post shots. That has been the case for a many year now. |
Interestingly there was not even a word about mods in the last shots, so I'm not sure why did you bring this up?
| mp20748 wrote: | | Just try to sell your mods without slandering and degrading someone else using tricks. Because anything other than a technical means of evaluation, is a trick. |
If your screenshots have so much technical mean, then what is a trick? For me technical mean of evaluation would require some measuring equipment involved, like oscilloscope, spectrum analyzer or network analyzer. I never saw you (nor Greg Eisemann) showing actual measurement results of any mods.
| mp20748 wrote: | | I'm back and waiting on shots that show background detail. The same Troy shots I posted that show the entire scene would be perfect. Or post any shots that would show a transparent full image and use your best Blu-Ray player to help with this. |
It has been pointed out many times already that a digital camera has far less dynamic range than even a cheap digital projector, so I'm not sure what dou you expect here with screenshots. I have to repeat myself, using results from measuring instruments would offer a far better base for argument.
_________________
projectors in the past : NEC 6-9PG xtra, Electrohome Marquee 6-7500, NEC XG 1351 LC ( with super modified Electrohome VNB neckboard !!!)
current: VDC Marquee 9500LC
The MOD: VNB-DB, VIM-DB
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mp20748
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 5689
Location: Maryland
TV/Projector: 9500LC Ultra / Super 02 and 03 VIM
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2016 9:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gjaky wrote: | | mp20748 wrote: | | But I'll let you continue to post your shots, because for some reason it's very important for you to sell your mods by degrading mine. Something no other competiture has ever done on the forums, and why AVS kicks people off when they do it. If a comparison is done, its should be done by a third party. But again, in this case, it's really DUMB to even think it's possible, when almost everything is diffeent on both ends. |
| mp20748 wrote: | | Look man, the thread is there for anyone to post shots. That has been the case for a many year now. |
Interestingly there was not even a word about mods in the last shots, so I'm not sure why did you bring this up? |
What the hell are you talking about, or do I have to link you to the plethora of threads and post where your cohorts have been attacking me and my mods. How can you not be aware of the MANY threads that Curt has deleted on this. And to think that my mention of mods here is an isolated event, that has zero connection with the ongoing attacks on me, that if not for Curt and Kal taking an action against it, there would be 20 threads by now mentioning me or my mods.
So i'm posting as I've always done for years, my shots. And for the many times that I have posted that screenshots for comparison is just plain STUPID, and I'm still being challenged.. . Go over to that other forum (AVF) and take a photo memory capture of the many post there either challenging me or bashing me and what I've been doing. I'm sure you are aware of this because you're also involved to some degree. So do us both a favor and stop your BS post as if you are in the dark on what has been going on, and I'm out to attack someone when its already known, I ONLY go after Spammers and its well known Im the one that's been under attack.
And press in your mind that I said this above: "it's really DUMB to even think it's possible, when almost everything is diffeent on both ends"
| Quote: | | If your screenshots have so much technical mean, then what is a trick? For me technical mean of evaluation would require some measuring equipment involved, like oscilloscope, spectrum analyzer or network analyzer. I never saw you (nor Greg Eisemann) showing actual measurement results of any mods.[/b] |
My point exactly, and if you stop pretending you don't know what's going on, you would find this to be my argument against using screenshots for comparison purposes and that has been the case for years. Not sure what Greg does, or why you believe I should be posting scope measurements (that I have also done so many times over the years). So for the same intent, if there is not a reason for comparison, why post scope pictures?
| Quote: | | It has been pointed out many times already that a digital camera has far less dynamic range than even a cheap digital projector, so I'm not sure what dou you expect here with screenshots. I have to repeat myself, using results from measuring instruments would offer a far better base for argument. |
What fricking planet have you been on. Who on this forum has been pointing this out more than I have..
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gjaky
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Posts: 2802
Location: Budapest, Hungary
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2016 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Don't get me wrong I am aware that you are under stress by some members, but what I said is true, that is:
In the last few post there was no bashing, yet you bring the "old" things up just as well, why?
I have newer seen any of your mods in my hands, only from pictures those are posted here (that anyone else can also see). And I never asked/encouraged anyone to form opinion whether on my work or other's (including yours). Also I never said anything bad of your work, so please don't get me into this.
| mp20748 wrote: |
| Quote: | | If your screenshots have so much technical mean, then what is a trick? For me technical mean of evaluation would require some measuring equipment involved, like oscilloscope, spectrum analyzer or network analyzer. I never saw you (nor Greg Eisemann) showing actual measurement results of any mods.[/b] |
My point exactly, and if you stop pretending you don't know what's going on, you would find this to be my argument against using screenshots for comparison purposes and that has been the case for years. Not sure what Greg does, or why you believe I should be posting scope measurements (that I have also done so many times over the years). So for the same intent, if there is not a reason for comparison, why post scope pictures?
|
No it's not, how this is connected to the technical mean of evaluation?
Once you say the need of technical base of evaluation and now you ask why would need a scope shot posted, and in the meantime you made your point as well... Otherwise scope shots can clearly tell "before" and "after" situations.
| mp20748 wrote: |
What fricking planet have you been on. Who on this forum has been pointing this out more than I have.. |
Then why do you ask for more screenshots to see the whole background detail? Or do we have different defintion of the dynamic range?
_________________
projectors in the past : NEC 6-9PG xtra, Electrohome Marquee 6-7500, NEC XG 1351 LC ( with super modified Electrohome VNB neckboard !!!)
current: VDC Marquee 9500LC
The MOD: VNB-DB, VIM-DB
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mp20748
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 5689
Location: Maryland
TV/Projector: 9500LC Ultra / Super 02 and 03 VIM
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2016 10:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
The screenshots from my perspective can only be a representation of what's on the screen. And because of the many things that would restrict them from being an accurate representation, they should only be used as an 'idea' element. The can never be considered as a technical means of evaluation. A true screenshot would need to involve both source being the same and the screen being the same. There is no way to do that via a forum.
My purpose for asking about shots that can show the backgrounds is for the same purpose of getting a representation of what is in the image only.
With screenshots, a good background reference could be a good means of telling if the setup is capable to any performance marker. Unlike up-close foreground shots. They can only reveal or show subjective sharpness, and as we know foreground sharpness requires almost no bandwidth challenge. But being able to make out anything in the backgrounds using screenshots says a lot about the setup and video chain.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greg9518lc
Joined: 19 Apr 2016
Posts: 360
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2016 3:51 pm Post subject: screenshot |
|
|
Tree is not in focus in this shot and there are lots of shadows under the tree.
[img] [/img]
_________________
VDC 9518LC modded: I do not sell or promote mods only interested in the best PQ possible......
Last edited by greg9518lc on Sat Nov 05, 2016 3:59 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greg9518lc
Joined: 19 Apr 2016
Posts: 360
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2016 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fuji S3 Pro/ kit lens. I like this shot and the camera sensor show's the low level detail in the image
and is able to pull out what is on screen. And not blow it out.
[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: Sun Nov 06, 2016 1:32 pm Post subject: Stock marquee |
|
|
Found this on the net Standard moome card, 02vim, neckboards, LCP tubes. HD10L lenses..terrible calibration and convergence.
1080P72hz 195Mhz.
[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: Tue Nov 08, 2016 4:44 am Post subject: hello |
|
|
Fuji kit lens
_________________
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: Tue Nov 08, 2016 4:47 am Post subject: samsara |
|
|
Fuji kit lens and my projector is all figured out with I am in there screen experience and this is the end of the line
for crt. It might get a smidge better but at this point I could care less  But feel free to post a better shot.
_________________
VDC 9518LC modded: I do not sell or promote mods only interested in the best PQ possible......
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mp20748
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 5689
Location: Maryland
TV/Projector: 9500LC Ultra / Super 02 and 03 VIM
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
The ability to Resolve --- This will get better after I replace the Green CRT
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greg9518lc
Joined: 19 Apr 2016
Posts: 360
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2016 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It has been proven the LCP and Lug resolve the same when properly setup. Lug has less grain close up to the screen but at a normal viewing distance is not noticed.
_________________
VDC 9518LC modded: I do not sell or promote mods only interested in the best PQ possible......
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gregstv
Joined: 27 Aug 2007
Posts: 628
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2016 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| greg9518lc wrote: | | It has been proven the LCP and Lug resolve the same when properly setup. Lug has less grain close up to the screen but at a normal viewing distance is not noticed. |
Can you please add a link to these comparison test? It would be an interesting read.
Thanks
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greg9518lc
Joined: 19 Apr 2016
Posts: 360
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2016 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gregstv wrote: | | greg9518lc wrote: | | It has been proven the LCP and Lug resolve the same when properly setup. Lug has less grain close up to the screen but at a normal viewing distance is not noticed. |
Can you please add a link to these comparison test? It would be an interesting read.
Thanks |
Link not permitted so I pmd you. Actually the LCP is somewhat sharper than the lug but that is dependent on stig,
flare magnets,neck boards and lenses. So the whole video chain must work as one. Enough of this time to post some
more screenshots
_________________
VDC 9518LC modded: I do not sell or promote mods only interested in the best PQ possible......
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gregstv
Joined: 27 Aug 2007
Posts: 628
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2016 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No PM received as yet. Did it send OK?
Why are links not allowed? I see links posted all the time.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greg9518lc
Joined: 19 Apr 2016
Posts: 360
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2016 12:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gregstv wrote: | No PM received as yet. Did it send OK?
Why are links not allowed? I see links posted all the time. |
Pmd you again
_________________
VDC 9518LC modded: I do not sell or promote mods only interested in the best PQ possible......
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gregstv
Joined: 27 Aug 2007
Posts: 628
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2016 6:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
got it, thanks
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mp20748
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 5689
Location: Maryland
TV/Projector: 9500LC Ultra / Super 02 and 03 VIM
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2016 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| greg9518lc wrote: | | It has been proven the LCP and Lug resolve the same when properly setup... |
This doesn't make sense. Considering the same manufacturer designed several different CRT projector tubes that we are familiar with. And they (Panasonic) themselves CLAIM that two (LUG/LQF) out of those three CRT's are higher resolution than their initial standard resolution tube (LCP).
The higher version of these tubes are supported by a US pattent. The design is different because the tubes have both a smaller gun aperture and the ability to maintain that beam size with higher gains. Something that wasn't possible before these two tubes became available.
Not sure what the test was to confirm this, but I can say the science involved here would also prove that the standard resolution tube (LCP - Panasonics first 9') that was introduced in the Marquee in the early 90's could not possibly have the same resolve power as the two later version CRT tubes that could rightfully be considered High Resolution because of design diferences.
This has come up a lot over the years, based on some test that proves they have the same resolve power. In the past I would have stayed away from the debate because I had very little experience with one of the high resolution tubes in my own setup and testing, especacially to be able to say that I was able to properly drive the tube. And that is why I've only really commented on the LUG this year only, after having an LUG setup for nearly a year. And it was not that long ago, that I myself could confirm that the LUG is a different tube concerning resolution power. I've even mentioned within the past month, that I would give the LUG a two or more times better resolve power.
But of course being able to confirm this could be very subjective or even opinionated, and basing things on the ability to resolve the higher scan rates, in this case has little to do with resolve power. Which has more to do with the ability to maintain that smaller pixel pixel during higher drive levels. This is where the difference is important.
It took me 3 months to be able to figure out the LUG to a point that I could get it to exceed an LCP. Because basically with anything standard for neck boards on any of the manufacturers that used these tubes, they all perform basically the same. they were prefered for the 909 and G90 because they maintained that smaller pixel resolve at higher gains. But because of the smaller beam spot, they were rough on phospher wear.
So, the LCP is best for general high light output, but it fails at high output while maintaing small spot size. To achieve both high light output and smaller spot size, the LUG or LQF are needed. But tube phosphor wear would be less than half of that with LUG's and LQF's.
Now, to understand the virtues of the higher resolution tube over the standard LCP. That would require much more than standard test patterns, because a smaller spot sized beam at higher drive levels produces better detail in everything the tubes projects.
Look at the shots (below) and look very closely at each of the three primary colors. When the tube is properly tuned to the video chain and driven properly, each of the three colors would reveal how well the tube resolves the bandwidth... Check carefully anything with RED.. flawless in each of the shots, Then Green, bleeding and not able to make it out clearly. Blue, Flawless.
And as some know, the green is an LCP (red/blue-LUG). When using standard test patterns they are all equal in everything. But with the right test pattern and what to look for, you see the green falls apart in those shots. At first, I blamed it all on the glycol, but even after changing the glycol, the green was still failing. If I change out those special neck boards and put in a set of my other neck boards, they all three look about equal with a slight bloom on green.
If the tubes could actually resolve the same. Panasonic would be guilty of not only charging more but selling something that's not better than their standard in resolve power. But aside form that, it would be hard to dispute the technical differences as producing the same results, when in no way does an LCP maintain it's spot size in comparsion to an LUG. the gun/spot size alone blows this away
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greg9518lc
Joined: 19 Apr 2016
Posts: 360
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2016 5:41 pm Post subject: 3 times sharper are lugs????? |
|
|
LCP machine,1997 gt17 lens,72hz at 195mhz images found off the web.[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
_________________
VDC 9518LC modded: I do not sell or promote mods only interested in the best PQ possible......
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mp20748
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 5689
Location: Maryland
TV/Projector: 9500LC Ultra / Super 02 and 03 VIM
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2016 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Back to properly resolving... I mentioned colors in my post about as it relates to proper resolving of a signal. Colors are one of the best indicators, while some think sharpness. Sharpness is very subjective because you can boost sharpness beyond proper resolve. But the color test can not be tricked. This is also why I've been posting some screenshots, simply to look at colors.
For instance native in my third shot, his skin complexion is mostly reddish. that is a perfect color for this test and that is why I post that shot. he presents the best opportunity to show how well the projector is resolving colors. Because HD is pungent with colors.
Also, note in that same shot how the green sort-of floats off of the object that is on. That shots shows that a lot with green, and it's also showing that the Green LCP is not doing so well there. mainly because the neck boards are not tuned for the LCP, but still it would have a problem producing the Red the way the Red LUG is doing.
Muted colors is always an indicator of an inability to properly resolve colors. Strange, I'm sure most thought the sharpness would be the best determiner. Nope!
|
|
| 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
|
|
