| Author |
Message |
benareeno
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 1614
Location: ottawa, canada
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 12:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Specs are one thing....actual video performance seems to be another, I guess.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kal
Forum Administrator
Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 18114
Location: Ottawa, Canada
TV/Projector: JVC DLA-NZ7
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 12:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MikeEby wrote: | Ok...I read whole thing...Now I'm a little pissed. I don't like this statement.
* While the projectors marked with an asterisk are able to sync to a 1080p signal, the image will most likely be too soft or smeared to be usable. It is best to use 720p or 1080i on these projectors (especially true for those in the Entry-Level category). As mentioned previously, manufacturer specifications do not necessarily reflect real world resolving capability.
While I agree with Kal that screen shots should not be uses as judgement of true image qualtity I would hardly call this 1080p 72Hz screen shot from my XG "too soft or smeared to be usable". |
Would you prefer if I worded it as "the image may be too soft" instead of "the image will most likely be too soft"?
In the end YMMV.
As for the screenshot, well, c'mon now. That screenshot is absolutely meaningless in determining sharpness.
I put your photo in photoshop and cropped out the actual screen area. It's only 667 pixels wide! LESS THAN STANDARD DVD! How exactly is someone supposed to judge how sharp your projector is at resolving 1920x1080 HD when all you supply is a screenshot that's 667 pixels wide which, again, is less than standard DVD which is 720 pixels wide.
That picture might as well have been taken with a standard DVD playing at 480p and it would look the same in your screenshot!
Kal
_________________
Support our site by using our affiliate links. We thank you!
My basement/HT/bar/brewery build 2.0
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MikeEby
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 5237
Location: Osceola, Indiana
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 12:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Im not really pissed...Like I said early I think I have the best 8" ever made. I don't have the 1920 crop handy but here is 1024
Is running the forum really worth it? 
Mike
_________________
Doing HD since the last century!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MikeEby
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 5237
Location: Osceola, Indiana
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here is the 1920 crop... Yes it is softer. But the same shot with an SD-DVD or 1080i would look much softer.
Mike
_________________
Doing HD since the last century!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Angus_rg
Joined: 16 Dec 2007
Posts: 339
Location: A planet far, far away..... Baltimore, MD
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wow. I didn't mean to start a war, however I appreciate gobs of info everyone has left.
Dave, I don't have the experience with enough CRTs to say whether it is better/worse, however your explanation makes the changes very understandable. I was considering a 1292 at one point, but to hear that it has more noise then a G70 is probably more detrimental to me than a G70 not being able to focus quite as sharp. And that is before even considering color. Adding a little blurb explaining that 1080p is not the be all end all criteria may be a good idea.
On another note, back to Curt's comment about +/- 10%, I bet it is spot on. I have a feeling a better way to put it isn't "newbies", more or less would be to say it is 10%, but considering just about everyone here with a CRT is a videophile, a 1% is like the difference between DTS and Stereo to the average person.
Once again, thanks all.....
_________________
It's good to be the king.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MikeEby
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 5237
Location: Osceola, Indiana
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Naa its just good fun.. Poor Kal..he has done so much work giving us a place to play and this is the thanks he gets....Three cheers for Kal!
CRT!
CRT!
CRT!
Mike
_________________
Doing HD since the last century!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spanky Ham
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 5643
Location: Comedy Central
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 3:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
The MTF will be real low especially in the corners. As Scott said one time, 1080p can be resolved, but it is up to each person to determine if it is to soft for them.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil Smith
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 7717
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| draganm wrote: | | When was the last time you saw a G70 with even 10K on the clock, you won't because they get parted out before that point. |
I think I have over 14K on mine, and it still throws an awesome pic. I never would have thought that possible 6K ago. By now, I would have thought it would HAVE to be toast, but that's not the case.
So while at one time I would have agreed with you, I now know for a fact you're dead wrong.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil Smith
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 7717
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 2:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bruce 09 wrote: | | I don't want to offend you Dave but some of the HUGE differences you mention, sound a little like Gary with his exaggerations |
How could that NOT offend Dave, Bruce?  Dave is a very enthusiastic person by nature. That's totally different than being full of sh*t, which Dave certainly is not. Whether you agree with him or not, you have to admit Dave is knowledgeable on a variety of HT subjects. His opinions are usually based on sound facts.
I don't always agree with Dave, but I would never make the Gary comparison. That's just not right.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil Smith
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 7717
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kal wrote: | | The old list was mostly based on specs but specs only tell half of the story and the specs aren't always the most important thing when it comes to display a great HD image. |
And the specs are not always accurate. Probably most of the time not accurate. After all, they are a selling tool that the manufacturers claim, with no one to answer to about their accuracy.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil Smith
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 7717
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 2:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kal wrote: | | LC is worth the hype. I've seen a lot of AC and LC machines. It does make a difference. I have not seen the lack of sharpness in LC machines. I don't know who started that one but I think it's overblown. |
I never thought about the validity of that claim. Now that you mention it, I have to agree. I've never noticed anything to support that claim.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil Smith
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 7717
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | I could build a wicked-ass Flash piece with specs in the rollovers. Groups could be color-coded and all the data could load from an external XML file for easy editing. That might be a fun little project.
SC |
I think that would be awesome!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil Smith
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 7717
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MikeEby wrote: | | While I agree with Kal that screen shots should not be used as judgement of true image qualtity I would hardly call this 1080p 72Hz screen shot from my XG "too soft or smeared to be usable". |
Well it's really hard to tell from that pic, but judging from it, it doesn't look all that sharp to me. No offense.
Last edited by Phil Smith on Sat Mar 22, 2008 3:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil Smith
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 7717
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| benareeno wrote: | | Specs are one thing....actual video performance seems to be another, I guess. |
I think you guess right!  
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil Smith
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 7717
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MikeEby wrote: | | Im not really pissed...Like I said early I think I have the best 8" ever made. I don't have the 1920 crop handy but here is 1024 |
No fanboy in Mike! 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil Smith
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 7717
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 3:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dave and Kal seem to agree on most of this (frickin' Zenith fanboys stick together ). I agree with them too, the exception being Mike's 1209. I thought it looked good! Of coarse, it was heavily modded and color filtered, so it wasn't an accurate example of what a normal 1209 can do.
What I would change, judging from the experience I've had:
I would move the Barco 1200 farther down the list. I had a really minty one and was not impressed. If the Sony 1292 (has the same or nearly the same tubes) is a similar performer, it should also be moved down the list.
The 8500LC Ultra should be added to the list and ranked close to the G70, XG, and that Zenith with the long name.
The Barco 808 should be higher. I had a minty 808. It looked better in my opinion the than my minty 1200.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MikeEby
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 5237
Location: Osceola, Indiana
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Phil Smith wrote: | | MikeEby wrote: | | While I agree with Kal that screen shots should not be used as judgement of true image qualtity I would hardly call this 1080p 72Hz screen shot from my XG "too soft or smeared to be usable". |
Well it's really hard to tell from that pic, but judging from it, it doesn't all that sharp to me. No offense. |
No offense taken Phil, I agree. I don't know if the softness was in the camera focus is in the actual image. To my eyes I see more detail at 1080p at 1.5x width viewing distance, and it looks more film with progressive scan rate but it could just be me and I fully agree that screen shot should not be used as judgement of sharpness I said that earlier.
Mike
_________________
Doing HD since the last century!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Angus_rg
Joined: 16 Dec 2007
Posts: 339
Location: A planet far, far away..... Baltimore, MD
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Phil Smith wrote: | | ecrabb wrote: | I could build a wicked-ass Flash piece with specs in the rollovers. Groups could be color-coded and all the data could load from an external XML file for easy editing. That might be a fun little project.
SC |
I think that would be awesome! |
I like that to, but realistically, we are probably thinking way to much about what that list really is, and its an at a glance for those who lack knowledge with multiple CRTs(Me) and people who just want to keep up with the Jones.
What would probably be even better is if we could put together a little rate it by all the users who have experience with multiple PJs, where they rate it based on Picture, Noise, Color, etc. Then, you get an average of multiple users, get to see the different specs, and can focus on what is most important to you.
The real problem would be finding someone to do it. I'd be more then happy if my real life and my alter-ego crime fighting life style didn't take up so much of my time. As soon as I change my spark plugs on the Angus-Mobile, I'll be right on it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Curt Palme
CRT Tech
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 24396
Location: Langley, BC
TV/Projector: All of them!
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kal wrote: |
So I think Curt's logic a bit flawed too...
|
I can't argue that point. Women tell me that same statement on a daily basis.
We can all agree though, 32% of the posts here are simply based on penis/projector envy.
It is really hard to put a definitive list though. SOmeone suggesting a scale of 1-10 on various aspects of a projector might be onto something, but that would start a 46 page thread arguing the scale of each projector as well..
No question my mind changes on a weekly basis from a repair point of view. I get stuck on one board for a few hours, at the end of the day I never want to seea XXXXX machine again. Then I figure it out, and all is good in the world again.
Bottom line is, the final image I think is based more on the quality of hte setup/install/HT room more than anything else. My jaw dropped when I saw Cliff's setup tweaked by Ken. HAd I not seen that setup though (even with only one projector turned on), I would have never thought that the G90 was all that shithot. I'm sure if I got Ken in to tweak a 9500 Ultra in my own HT, I'd think that I'd be more or less at par with one of Cliff's units.
Remember also with the analogies I use when I sell, they are very GENERAL. Lots of people here tweak a heck of a lot more than I do, and someone like Dave frankly is far more tuned into the pros and cons of performance, whereas I can give you more of an insight of what breaks and what doesn't.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MikeEby
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 5237
Location: Osceola, Indiana
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok here is slightly better example. Besides Michelle Pfeiffer is way easier on the eyes the old wrinkly Tommy Lee Jones.
Also keep in mind your right on top of the image and most likey not viewing it at 1.5 screen widths.
Mike
_________________
Doing HD since the last century!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
