|
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 |
Pzyked
Joined: 02 Apr 2017
Posts: 30
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Thu May 25, 2017 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mp20748 wrote: | | greg9518lc wrote: | 9518lc no enhancements apocolypto has been covered
[/img] |
Is this another example of sharpness, because there are some of the same problem ares that was pointed out previously, still present here.
Again, look at the darkness right above and around the eyes. That, as well as, the eye balls not being clear white, and the glossiness in the whites of the eyeballs, would indicate something is wrong. In close-up facial scenes the goal is to always capture the whites in the eyes if possible. Sometimes the eyes will show some slight red that would be there in the original, but they should never be very glossy. And sometimes there will be a slight amount of gloss, the whites in the eyes should still be more prevalent however.
Also and again, the shot is too dark, where as there is darkness on both side of the face, and that is usually the case when the darkness is also noticeable above and around the eyeballs, that really shouldn't be there especially on a calibrated setup.
Also, when there are bandwidth and source issues, the image will loose the natural hues like the finer pastels and the facial complexions. They always tilt towards pink or red for some reason, and are more common on Digital Technology. CRT having a more film like produced image, when done right allows for a ton of facial tones and a variance of finer shades in almost every color range. That is why Nature and Natural stuff looks so good on CRT, and is the main reason to go after the abundance of color range in High Bandwidth HD.
These of course are more critical viewing goals, that when posting shots some years back, you would get PM's from experts walking you through these visual experiences and what to look for.
My color probe is older and most likely would be out of range. But tonight I'll give it try to do a better color balance. And with me having my better Blu Ray back being directly connected to the projector. I'll pop in that Planet Earth2 in hopes to show those colors and ranges of colors that are on that disk, but these are colors beyond the Primaries, so don't be looking so much after reds popping off the screen. I don't use a RED C element, because I'm more into pastels and those finer colors that brings Pop and vibrancy to facial tones and natural elements. |
I see a lot of good pictures here. But also important to remember that pictures don't show how good your projector are.
To see what is correct, a screen cap must be the judge I think. Everything else is a guess.
My G90 time is over after redecorating my cinema, and went digital this year. But CRT always CRT.
mp20748 just ignore the trolls Greg9518/GREG1292 if they are the same person and Stridsvognen at AVForums, they are completely alone over there, and no one cares about them.
Easy to see that many of their pictures at AVForums is manipulated with some darbee effect that makes the picture some sharper, also maybe fixed in Photoshop. They have done that many times specially Stridsvognen. So their credibility is zero.
So just ignore them mp20748 and continue your thing.
Last edited by Pzyked on Fri May 26, 2017 2:04 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
racerxnet
Joined: 20 Jun 2007
Posts: 362
Location: Illinois
|
| Posted: Thu May 25, 2017 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| greg9518lc wrote: | | racerxnet wrote: | | greg9518lc wrote: | | racerxnet wrote: | Greg,
Just curious about the posting of the jungle kid pictures. You have on with Red push and another at the bottom here with a Green push. I thought that your PJ has been calibrated throughout the posting process? So what has caused one picture to look quite different? Were the prior pics not calibrated?
I do think your shots look really good though.
MAK |
Mak this not from my projector but a roughly Setup 9500 that was calibrated this morning.. Still need mecanical and electrical attention to get up to speed. |
Greg,
You can just say this shot is from Kurts projector. I don't think anyone will say any nasty words on the matter.
MAK |
Well Mak: I and MP uses kurts projectors to post shots from but I payed for mine. |
Is this a personal vendetta? Has ANYONE made a snide comment regarding who's projector is used for the shots.
MAK
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greg9518lc
Joined: 19 Apr 2016
Posts: 360
|
| Posted: Thu May 25, 2017 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
screen cap apokolypto
[img] [/img]
_________________
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: Thu May 25, 2017 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jbltecnicspro wrote: | | gregtv, what projector are you taking pictures of? |
Barco 909
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greg9518lc
Joined: 19 Apr 2016
Posts: 360
|
| Posted: Thu May 25, 2017 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
9500 1080p 72hz projector still needs a lot of work before it can resolve 1080p 72hz
screen cap on left
[img]
vs mp 9518 60hz
screencap on right
[/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: Thu May 25, 2017 10:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So now your sots looks just like the screencaps.. 
And of course, we're back to a stock setup..and so that you all will know, CRT technology has never looked like a screencap
before today
If you all haven't figured this out yet...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pzyked
Joined: 02 Apr 2017
Posts: 30
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Thu May 25, 2017 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
You are so right mp20748 like I said their credibility is zero.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
racerxnet
Joined: 20 Jun 2007
Posts: 362
Location: Illinois
|
| Posted: Thu May 25, 2017 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Greg comes over to this playground because they chased all the others off the other site. It must be pretty lonely. Nobody to play with and insulting to boot. I wonder why you bother to come over to this site Greg, when your vendetta is plain to see. I hope that some day you acquire a bit of humbleness.
MAK
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mp20748
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 5689
Location: Maryland
TV/Projector: 9500LC Ultra / Super 02 and 03 VIM
|
| Posted: Thu May 25, 2017 10:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| greg9518lc wrote: |
Well Mak: I and MP uses kurts projectors to post shots from but I payed for mine. |
There is an agreed upon deal on this projector I neither needed or wanted. Nor was it my idea to own. So I have it, but you would need to understand the agreement involved here, so stop posting on something that's neither your business or affects you in anyway.
When I step outside the agreement, then this could be a concern, but it should never be your concern.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cmjohnson
Joined: 03 Apr 2006
Posts: 5180
Location: Buried under G90s
|
| Posted: Fri May 26, 2017 12:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
If the day ever comes where there is no bickering in this topic, stand by with the crash cart because my poor old heart might not be able to take the shock!
Give it a rest, Greg. You're baiting for no good reason. Please stahp.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
racerxnet
Joined: 20 Jun 2007
Posts: 362
Location: Illinois
|
| Posted: Fri May 26, 2017 12:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cmjohnson wrote: | If the day ever comes where there is no bickering in this topic, stand by with the crash cart because my poor old heart might not be able to take the shock!
Give it a rest, Greg. You're baiting for no good reason. Please stahp. |
I'd just ban him and let him sulk back over to his little thread with 2 players.
MAK
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gjaky
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Posts: 2802
Location: Budapest, Hungary
|
| Posted: Fri May 26, 2017 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mp20748 wrote: | So now your sots looks just like the screencaps..
And of course, we're back to a stock setup..and so that you all will know, CRT technology has never looked like a screencap
before today
If you all haven't figured this out yet... |
Regardless whwther Greg's screenshot is photoshopped or not, Mike's shot definitely looks more off the screencap, which makes Mike's point on those "muted colours" questionable at best, IMHO.
Also anyone can take a look at the original pictures on page 114...
If the screenshot looks bad that's a problem, but if it looks too good is that also a problem? We should set a standard here then how good a screenshot can look like... 
_________________
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: Fri May 26, 2017 10:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gjaky wrote: | | Regardless whwther Greg's screenshot is photoshopped or not, Mike's shot definitely looks more off the screencap, which makes Mike's point on those "muted colours" questionable at best, IMHO |
Here's the problem here. There are shots that have been greatly enhanced, then there are shots that come from a setup that it's known that is not properly setup. Now knowing these two things, how would either of them be considered right?
Second; and let's add a little science here. The limitations on CRT technology literally prevents it from producing anything near an actual screencap...you would have to consider the bandwidth and the lenses involved before understanding this. And you would also have to take into account that CRT produces different and slightly more saturated colors. So to see a screencap match an actual CRT image, could only mean that the screencap is off. Because CRT at 1920X1080P has it's limits on producing an image that tight, and let's start at the lenses. I think CJ was the latest to keep bringing up about the limitations on our lenses...
You see, we really haven't got the right lenses made yet that will allow a PROJECTED CRT image to match a screencap, and when Diddern (the troll) used to bring this up, we skipped around it.
Also on this:
a screencap does not involve lenses in its final to your screen, that is not the case when you capture the same image and then send it from, your projected image on screen to your camera and it's TINY lens system and from there the many other various changes before it's then once more uploaded to the forum. So far, this within itself should be enough as to understand why a screencap does not/and cannot look like what is produced when you involve, projector (video chain, lenses, setup, calibration, screen size, screen material) and then the camera, which is a single chip in most cases, that uses a TINY little lens...and we do know already that a TINY lens is not capable of capturing the full resolution capabilities of 1920X1080 progressive lines projected through three each lenses that are NOT really that resolution capable.
So not all of us are being fooled here..
| Quote: | Also anyone can take a look at the original pictures on page 114...
If the screenshot looks bad that's a problem, but if it looks too good is that also a problem? We should set a standard here then how good a screenshot can look like... |
That standard does not need to be set, only to be understood. And that really goes back a lot of years on these forums to include this one right here even to this thread. In those years, there have been a many posted image, a many posted debate. For a lot of us, it's not worth constantly going back over this, so the best you'll see is a word or two on the subject. None of the experts until yesterday wanted to comment any further on this, and that's why this particular situation has bloomed and gotten out of control the way it has, with so many really thinking a CRT projector is really capable of doing Digital sharpness...see stuff like this should be already known and for a lot of us, it's not worth the debate. Because we already know the limitations of the technology and likewise understand it will never be able to out perform or match digital technology projected image in sharpness.
CRT has it's limitations, and we don't try to exceed them because we know why it's limited and it makes sense to us. So we except the technology with its weaknesses because we focus more on its strengths. So that is why Not One expert or of those in the real know on this has ever agreed with what has been on the table here about a Super Sharp CRT projector, especially one with stock neck boards. Oh and I can get several engineers that has convinced me over the years on this, that some things are just not possible, mainly dealing with the supporting technology that works with the neck boards and their design.
This all has really been discussed over the years, sorry some of you guys didn't make that party...
Last edited by mp20748 on Fri May 26, 2017 11:00 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cmjohnson
Joined: 03 Apr 2006
Posts: 5180
Location: Buried under G90s
|
| Posted: Fri May 26, 2017 10:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
FYI, I've assembled a "lens test fixture" consisting of a complete Marquee LC assembly with a glass window replacing where the CRT would be. This allows thru-the-lens evaluation of a complete HD-10 series lens with C element and glycol, so as to be able to use suth things as a glass USAF 1951 resolution test plate and a light source to truly evaluate lens performance.
Now I need to get the 1951 test plate and figure out a simple, easily reversible way to attach it to the window. I have some very light bodied clear silicone that might be used to tack it down at the corners.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gjaky
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Posts: 2802
Location: Budapest, Hungary
|
| Posted: Fri May 26, 2017 11:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mike, tiny lenses are easier to make, otherwise there wouldn't be modern digital cameras with resolution in excess of 30 MPixels.
The question still remained open that you criticized Greg's screenshot having poor color etc. Now as it turned out it is "too" close to the screencap makes your previous claim interesting. But generally judging screenshots altogether useless, including "getting the idea" how it looks...
_________________
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: Fri May 26, 2017 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gjaky wrote: | | Mike, tiny lenses are easier to make, otherwise there wouldn't be modern digital cameras with resolution in excess of 30 MPixels |
Theses debates came about years ago. The Point and Shoot cameras were not designed to capture screenshots, and the ones used to capture from screen has very large and special lenses on them
| Quote: | | The question still remained open that you criticized Greg's screenshot having poor color etc. Now as it turned out it is "too" close to the screencap makes your previous claim interesting. But generally judging screenshots altogether useless, including "getting the idea" how it looks... |
What you're really missing about that discussion is the muted colors are far different from the shot that was posted. Even the screen caps green is "equal" over the entire image, whereas in that shot, the green fades and weakens as is so easily seen. This is as many of us know are the results of image enhancements techniques. And is a very common problem to reproduce using Darby or any of the other sharpening tools.
These sharpening techniques can push the image beyond the limitation, but at the same time it affects so many other ares of the image as was seen and some were pointed out. This is not a discovery, and again you're able to test a stock neck board, then you should know first hand at the rise/fall you'll get, this is just not possible.
Also, why compare shots knowing the cameras involved are not equal?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gjaky
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Posts: 2802
Location: Budapest, Hungary
|
| Posted: Fri May 26, 2017 12:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think they are using high end DSLR cameras not cheap point and shoot...
Also when camera affects your pictures it is an excuse, if their picture shows something that is worth noting you directly address to their video chain.
Also as I saw on other forums the same screenshots contain real EXIF data, if that means anything.
_________________
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 |
|
|
kal
Forum Administrator
Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 18114
Location: Ottawa, Canada
TV/Projector: JVC DLA-NZ7
|
| Posted: Fri May 26, 2017 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mp20748 wrote: | | Theses debates came about years ago. The Point and Shoot cameras were not designed to capture screenshots, and the ones used to capture from screen has very large and special lenses on them |
That doesn't make any sense Mike. A camera doesn't care what you're taking a picture of. A camera simply captures light.
Every camera (even high end DSLRs) have limitations. It all depends on what you're after. DSLRs tend to have high end lenses available that capture a lot more light, allow for narrow focal length, etc. There's a reason why some of my lenses are a foot long and weigh many pounds. It's because they are specifically designed for certain features, unlike the lens in a small point and shoot or a 1/16" thick lens in a phone. I've spend 10x more on my DSLR lenses than the actual camera body (which just houses the sensor and shutter).
Taking good pics requires a good fundamental understanding of the basics photography how the triangle works (ISO vs f-stop vs shutter speed) plus how the development/workflow process works from start to end. Photographers who know what they're doing shoot in raw and apply a good workflow process on a setup (camera -> computer -> monitor -> possibly printer) that is calibrated from start to end so that they know what they're getting.
They also understand the fundamental limitations of cameras and lenses, such as how cameras tend to not have enough stops to show a true 0 -> 100 IRE (black to white) picture. They understand how when you shoot in JPG the camera is developing the image, applying it's own colour curve, sharpening, and so forth. They understand how it's impossible to do 'zero' sharpening with digital cameras. This is true of all digitals cameras.
Taking good screenshots has very little to do with "what camera you use". Sometimes someone who doesn't know what they're doing lucks out with a specific model camera and everyone clamours to buying that model because they think "that's the one you need for good screenshots". That's not the right approach. Yes, sometimes you'll luck out but you won't know why, won't be able to repeat. That's randomly taking shots in the dark.
Anyone wanting to take good screenshots should back up, and learn the fundamentals. Everything else is just guessing.
Kal
_________________
Support our site by using our affiliate links. We thank you!
My basement/HT/bar/brewery build 2.0
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mp20748
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 5689
Location: Maryland
TV/Projector: 9500LC Ultra / Super 02 and 03 VIM
|
| Posted: Fri May 26, 2017 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No Kal, the professional cameras used to "capture from screen" for DVD or Blu Ray production are not DSLR or Point and Shoot comsumer.
But I do agree, because of the limitations of the common camera and what happens in their processing, is why I've been saying "they can only be used for an idea of what's on the screen" and in no way should be used for anything reference or to determine what's on the screen itself.
There are way too many variables involved for the shots to be be considered anything but an "idea" of what's on the screen.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
racerxnet
Joined: 20 Jun 2007
Posts: 362
Location: Illinois
|
| Posted: Fri May 26, 2017 1:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Photographers who know what they're doing shoot in raw and apply a good workflow process on a setup (camera -> computer -> monitor -> possibly printer) that is calibrated from start to end so that they know what they're getting. |
This part is essential. The calibration to asses the outcome of any modifications to the chain. With a bad tube, poor focus, and a uncalibrated projector, there is no way of comparing a screen cap to the projected image. Mike, until you get the situation under control, your shots are going to continue to look poor in reference to the screen cap.
MAK
|
|
| 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
|
|
