|
 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
redfox001
Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Posts: 2251
Location: The Netherlands
|
 Link Posted: Wed May 14, 2014 12:23 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Yesterday I saw some screenshots from the G90 stack from overclk and I have to say that they looked razor sharp. I believe overclk did do the MP mods. Hmmmmm something to think about.
I mean these:
From this thread
http://www.avsforum.com/t/900831/screenshot-war/2820
You also see some shots from a hd350 in that thread and I rest my case looking at these. They are dull!
This is what the add from overclk says: MP Modded Marquee switcher with MP Modded Moome HDMI card
Last edited by redfox001 on Wed May 14, 2014 12:45 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jbmeyer13
Joined: 03 Dec 2010
Posts: 1135
|
| Link Posted: Wed May 14, 2014 12:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ElTopo wrote: | More important after a good initial setup is color calibration.
Even if my Cine9 will not resolve 1080p on 1:1 the picture is still beautiful.
For a bandwidth test you could also play with some Resolutions between
720p and 1080p. With 720p you can see it's perfectly resolved.
So maybe 817p is the way for some. |
817p is for 2.40ar film material and with 90%+ of film content in this format its the resolution i use most. 1080p (1.78) is seldom used for film but is the default for television programming. The res you use is a function of the content's aspect ratio.
_________________
Projector: Modded 9501LC ULtra- MP VIM, Vold VNB, ETECH LVPS, Silver VIM Cables, HD10F's & a V1 case!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Link Posted: Wed May 14, 2014 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Francisco wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | Francisco wrote: | Well guys....when I watch a movie I don't notice the limited Bandwidth.
But I will await what Greg will bring on improvement on BW when he finished the modification on rgb amp's. Until then I just enjoy my simu grade lugs, hfq900's, and the silence of my seos 919 sp  |
Ok, so you dont want a crt you need to mod, what is it your douing with gregs stuff?
Ill say its easier to buy a G90 who have a decent performance, and just do a fan mod.
How much money have you used on your 909 and whats to come? |
Well have some modifications done by someone else is different then do a lot of DIY to a Marquee. And I was curious to see what could be improved as I wanted some improvements on picture noise and a better HDMI solution. BW wasn't a issue for me because for me the picture already was very 3dimensional with excellent depth, punch etc. I never have seen a modified 9500 and I bet it will beat the 909 but they didn't came across and the 919's did so that's why. And I love them especially the split pack because it's so silent. I did see the G90 with nearly new tubes and I have owned a G70 in the past. It's a really nice projector but PERSONALLY I prefer the Barco's 909, 1-because of the modulate build of the Barco. 2-Cine9 and Split packs can made more silent. 3-they don't come across that many in Europe as most simulators planetarium's etc. use Barco's
Then your last question...that's none of your business  But I don't mind, you know that Greg's modifications are around $1300,- see his website, and new tubes I would also bought for a marquee 9500 or G90. It's a hobby F*CK it that it cost money, what will you do with your money when you are dead in your coffin?
But I think since you are Hoarding high-end CRT's you should also buy a 909 or Cine9 modify it and make the ultimate comparison to see which projector will be the best. So keep up the good work mate!  |
Im working on it, but untill now there has been no 909 for sale for a decent price, and i dont think its worth the money they are sold for, i payed 500 Euro for my 9553LC Ultra with HD10E lenses 2004 built, and 800 hours on the tubes.
So for the price of the 909 i can have the ultimate marquee, with the best lenses, all the mods done, and dont need new belows for the late marquee.
Marquee 9553 700$
Moome card 350$
Red Celement 200$
MP mods 1000$ (not sure, ask MP )
Total 2250$
Sony G90 2500$
Shipping 650$
Tax/vat 1000$
Moome card 350$
Green C ele. 150$
Mods to come ????
Total 4650$
Ill expect the 909 to top those prices, and be the lowest quality of the 3, so somewhere it just dont add up.
Ill expect the marquee to be as sharp or sharper then the G90 and 909 even running LCP tubes, ill have around 300Mhz bandwidth, i have tested 200Mhz. Look my 1:1 Marquee shot 1080P 72hz
Regarding resolution, i find it very important to run pixel perfect, and 72hz is a must have.
about running 817P 72hz, its just don forfill my needs, ill guess about 30% of the movies i have here is 1.78:1
I have asked you 909 guys to post some 1:1 shots running different bandwidth, sticking to 1080P pixel perfect, not much help to get there, so i have to buy a 909 some day and do it myself.
I dont just look testpatterns, but i find it the only way to put some kind of usefull documentation into a debate like this, i know the difference in a movie picture, but you guys just wont see it on a screen shot.
If you like, try make a screen shot of this scene in The fifth element, i stole this picture from Mike Parker.
And tell me what differences you see from this one to your shots. And explain to me why bandwidth is not verrryy...!!!! Important to a CRT.
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
689.82 KB |
| Viewed: |
11744 Time(s) |
|
Last edited by stridsvognen on Wed May 14, 2014 3:45 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gjaky
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Posts: 2790
Location: Budapest, Hungary
|
| Link Posted: Wed May 14, 2014 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kurt, what do you expect from this shot? It's 1280 pixel wide, so it will tell nothing but shooting abilities and camera differences 
_________________
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 |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Link Posted: Wed May 14, 2014 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gjaky wrote: | | Kurt, what do you expect from this shot? It's 1280 pixel wide, so it will tell nothing but shooting abilities and camera differences |
Im sure you will notice if you make a shot like it, no matter your shooting abilities, and almost no matter what camera.
I had to minimize the image to upload it here.
So post your shot of that scene, and we can argue whats what.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spanky Ham
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 5643
Location: Comedy Central
|
| Link Posted: Wed May 14, 2014 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| redfox001 wrote: |
It is not just black because my HD350 had very deep black after I calibrated with an i1 pro. I played with every gamma curve I could find but never ever have I seen depth or anything that comes close to it. Also the light is just different, it is flat dull light that in my opinion is the difficult to grasp quality of this CRT light coming from radiation in the vacuum. There is more than meets the eye  |
You are comparing a five year old pj. It was good in its time, but has been surpassed by quite a bit. Also, you might need to use a different meter to get down low.
I am not discounting your experience with this pj. Personally, I would have loved if Haflich could have brought the newest JVC 4910 to the meet to do a comparison. It would have made a real good comparison between CRT and the newest JVCs. And with Whitcomb there, both would have been calibrated.
As for MP, I don't think you are going to get mods out of him any time soon. I think he is pretty much out of the game. He does work on Barcos, but I think all of them are 3 chip DLPs.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spanky Ham
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 5643
Location: Comedy Central
|
| Link Posted: Wed May 14, 2014 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CasetheCorvetteman wrote: | Id say with P19LUG tubes, HFQ900s and everything working with them on an XG would reach incredible heights... For one the convergence system is considerably better than the Barco, which although very easy to set up, isnt as fine in adjustment size nor the sheer amount of adjustment points and steps...
*XG has 201 steps on every alignment and convergence setting, Barco has 99 steps on some, and alot less on others..
*XG has almost 200 individual points to assist the huge amount of other adjustments, the Barco has 81 in fine mode, and about 1/3rd the amount of alignment settings ( which can mean the 1% different between flawless and almost perfect ).
*To top it off, the XG has the same adjustments available on all three colours completely independent of each other, the Barco only has coarse point and fine point for blue and red, which adds alot of time to convergence.
*The Barco has about 3 internal test patterns, the XG has loads, and theyre all very useful ( not every source device can output a useable test pattern to converge or do astig with ) |
One of the unfortunate things was NEC not carrying through with their planned successor 9" pj to the XGs. Doug Baisey said they were working on it, but changed their mind. It might have been the ultimate.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spanky Ham
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 5643
Location: Comedy Central
|
| Link Posted: Wed May 14, 2014 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Francisco wrote: |
Well have some modifications done by someone else is different then do a lot of DIY to a Marquee. And I was curious to see what could be improved as I wanted some improvements on picture noise and a better HDMI solution. BW wasn't a issue for me because for me the picture already was very 3dimensional with excellent depth, punch etc. I never have seen a modified 9500 and I bet it will beat the 909 but they didn't came across and the 919's did so that's why. And I love them especially the split pack because it's so silent. I did see the G90 with nearly new tubes and I have owned a G70 in the past. It's a really nice projector but PERSONALLY I prefer the Barco's 909, 1-because of the modulate build of the Barco. 2-Cine9 and Split packs can made more silent. 3-they don't come across that many in Europe as most simulators planetarium's etc. use Barco's
Then your last question...that's none of your business But I don't mind, you know that Greg's modifications are around $1300,- see his website, and new tubes I would also bought for a marquee 9500 or G90. It's a hobby F*CK it that it cost money, what will you do with your money when you are dead in your coffin?
But I think since you are Hoarding high-end CRT's you should also buy a 909 or Cine9 modify it and make the ultimate comparison to see which projector will be the best. So keep up the good work mate! |
Cost is important to other people to see how much they want or are willing to spend to get the same performance. I understand your desire to spend the money and that is great, but other people may not think a large amount of money for maybe a slight difference is worth it.
One great thing about the 909s is that Curt can now fix the controller board. The G90 will never have a fix for the YA board. I say this after watching Craig test one of my YAs that went bad. Incredibly deflating. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
redfox001
Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Posts: 2251
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Link Posted: Wed May 14, 2014 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
And still it is a bit blund but always when I see a Marquee screenshot it seems a bit noisy? Don't know might be the camera. But these G90 shots and also the 909 shots I have seen they are very smooth. Also I had a Marquee 8500 and it was a bit noisy but the experts say otherwise and I did not do a close compare. Only thing I do know I am blown away by the Cine Max and do'nt exactly know why. It has nowhere near perfect setup I did not even calibrate it yet.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
redfox001
Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Posts: 2251
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Link Posted: Wed May 14, 2014 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
But hey what am I talking confusing everybody. Don't pay attention to me I am just a nut job
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gjaky
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Posts: 2790
Location: Budapest, Hungary
|
| Link Posted: Wed May 14, 2014 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | | gjaky wrote: | | Kurt, what do you expect from this shot? It's 1280 pixel wide, so it will tell nothing but shooting abilities and camera differences |
Im sure you will notice if you make a shot like it, no matter your shooting abilities, and almost no matter what camera.
I had to minimize the image to upload it here.
So post your shot of that scene, and we can argue whats what. |
So, here you are, what can you tell about this?
(the colors are off, looks warmer in reality)
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
382.76 KB |
| Viewed: |
11693 Time(s) |
|
_________________
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 |
|
|
redfox001
Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Posts: 2251
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Link Posted: Wed May 14, 2014 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
In reality? I have never seen a flying taxi
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Link Posted: Wed May 14, 2014 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
gjaky..
That picture looks nice to me bandwidth wise, would be interesting to see that projector with a tighter focus, and a calibration.
Is it a AC machine, or a LC machine ? ill guess its a AC, the contrast looks a bit weak, but that might also be a calibration isue.?
The shot looks much more flat and lifeless then MPs shot, ill say it looks much like the G90, just looking it now, your shot could be from a G90 from where im looking.
Im just guessing here, and commenting about what i see in the picture, i trust you compared it to what you see on screen and it was a good match.
Lets hope someone with a 909 will post that scene to.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gjaky
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Posts: 2790
Location: Budapest, Hungary
|
| Link Posted: Wed May 14, 2014 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | gjaky..
That picture looks nice to me bandwidth wise, would be interesting to see that projector with a tighter focus, and a calibration.
Is it a AC machine, or a LC machine ? ill guess its a AC, the contrast looks a bit weak, but that might also be a calibration isue.?
The shot looks much more flat and lifeless then MPs shot, ill say it looks much like the G90, just looking it now, your shot could be from a G90 from where im looking.
Im just guessing here, and commenting about what i see in the picture, i trust you compared it to what you see on screen and it was a good match.
Lets hope someone with a 909 will post that scene to. |
The cold facts:
This is my NEC XGLC, this particular machine unfortunately has some serious bandwidth issues, it's rolling off with even 120MHz pixel clock signals, not even resolves the 1080i-96Hz, which was used in this shot, and the movie itself was a 4GB 720P BRrip. I bet this isn't what you expected
_________________
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 |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Link Posted: Wed May 14, 2014 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gjaky wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | gjaky..
That picture looks nice to me bandwidth wise, would be interesting to see that projector with a tighter focus, and a calibration.
Is it a AC machine, or a LC machine ? ill guess its a AC, the contrast looks a bit weak, but that might also be a calibration isue.?
The shot looks much more flat and lifeless then MPs shot, ill say it looks much like the G90, just looking it now, your shot could be from a G90 from where im looking.
Im just guessing here, and commenting about what i see in the picture, i trust you compared it to what you see on screen and it was a good match.
Lets hope someone with a 909 will post that scene to. |
The cold facts:
This is my NEC XGLC, this particular machine unfortunately has some serious bandwidth issues, it's rolling off with even 120MHz pixel clock signals, not even resolves the 1080i-96Hz, which was used in this shot, and the movie itself was a 4GB 720P BRrip. I bet this isn't what you expected |
That explains very well why it dont fight the bandwidth, then you need to do a shot with a 1080P 60hz resolution to as i requested.
Ill gues it then looks quite clear what the bandwidth do to that scene.. so exelent test. A low and a high bandwith shot of the same scene.
Whats the bandwidth / pixel clock on that shot.? 80Mhz.?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gjaky
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Posts: 2790
Location: Budapest, Hungary
|
| Link Posted: Wed May 14, 2014 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | | gjaky wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | gjaky..
That picture looks nice to me bandwidth wise, would be interesting to see that projector with a tighter focus, and a calibration.
Is it a AC machine, or a LC machine ? ill guess its a AC, the contrast looks a bit weak, but that might also be a calibration isue.?
The shot looks much more flat and lifeless then MPs shot, ill say it looks much like the G90, just looking it now, your shot could be from a G90 from where im looking.
Im just guessing here, and commenting about what i see in the picture, i trust you compared it to what you see on screen and it was a good match.
Lets hope someone with a 909 will post that scene to. |
The cold facts:
This is my NEC XGLC, this particular machine unfortunately has some serious bandwidth issues, it's rolling off with even 120MHz pixel clock signals, not even resolves the 1080i-96Hz, which was used in this shot, and the movie itself was a 4GB 720P BRrip. I bet this isn't what you expected |
That explains very well why it dont fight the bandwidth, then you need to do a shot with a 1080P 60hz resolution to as i requested.
Ill gues it then looks quite clear what the bandwidth do to that scene.. so exelent test. A low and a high bandwith shot of the same scene.
Whats the bandwidth / pixel clock on that shot.? 80Mhz.? |
It was projected in 1080i-96Hz, @127MHz pixel clock, it's just the source movie that was 720P
_________________
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 |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Link Posted: Wed May 14, 2014 8:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gjaky wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | gjaky wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | gjaky..
That picture looks nice to me bandwidth wise, would be interesting to see that projector with a tighter focus, and a calibration.
Is it a AC machine, or a LC machine ? ill guess its a AC, the contrast looks a bit weak, but that might also be a calibration isue.?
The shot looks much more flat and lifeless then MPs shot, ill say it looks much like the G90, just looking it now, your shot could be from a G90 from where im looking.
Im just guessing here, and commenting about what i see in the picture, i trust you compared it to what you see on screen and it was a good match.
Lets hope someone with a 909 will post that scene to. |
The cold facts:
This is my NEC XGLC, this particular machine unfortunately has some serious bandwidth issues, it's rolling off with even 120MHz pixel clock signals, not even resolves the 1080i-96Hz, which was used in this shot, and the movie itself was a 4GB 720P BRrip. I bet this isn't what you expected |
That explains very well why it dont fight the bandwidth, then you need to do a shot with a 1080P 60hz resolution to as i requested.
Ill gues it then looks quite clear what the bandwidth do to that scene.. so exelent test. A low and a high bandwith shot of the same scene.
Whats the bandwidth / pixel clock on that shot.? 80Mhz.? |
It was projected in 1080i-96Hz, @127MHz pixel clock, it's just the source movie that was 720P |
Try shoot 1080P 60hz.. 155-165Mhz, and try keep it pixel perfect, might show some more details, and more dept in the image, dependig how the bandwidth role off.
It will be a very good way to show the effect of bandwidth if you can push it over the edge.
Maybe together with the 1:1 pattern to see how that match.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gjaky
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Posts: 2790
Location: Budapest, Hungary
|
| Link Posted: Wed May 14, 2014 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | | gjaky wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | gjaky wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | gjaky..
That picture looks nice to me bandwidth wise, would be interesting to see that projector with a tighter focus, and a calibration.
Is it a AC machine, or a LC machine ? ill guess its a AC, the contrast looks a bit weak, but that might also be a calibration isue.?
The shot looks much more flat and lifeless then MPs shot, ill say it looks much like the G90, just looking it now, your shot could be from a G90 from where im looking.
Im just guessing here, and commenting about what i see in the picture, i trust you compared it to what you see on screen and it was a good match.
Lets hope someone with a 909 will post that scene to. |
The cold facts:
This is my NEC XGLC, this particular machine unfortunately has some serious bandwidth issues, it's rolling off with even 120MHz pixel clock signals, not even resolves the 1080i-96Hz, which was used in this shot, and the movie itself was a 4GB 720P BRrip. I bet this isn't what you expected |
That explains very well why it dont fight the bandwidth, then you need to do a shot with a 1080P 60hz resolution to as i requested.
Ill gues it then looks quite clear what the bandwidth do to that scene.. so exelent test. A low and a high bandwith shot of the same scene.
Whats the bandwidth / pixel clock on that shot.? 80Mhz.? |
It was projected in 1080i-96Hz, @127MHz pixel clock, it's just the source movie that was 720P |
Try shoot 1080P 60hz.. 155-165Mhz, and try keep it pixel perfect, might show some more details, and more dept in the image, dependig how the bandwidth role off.
It will be a very good way to show the effect of bandwidth if you can push it over the edge.
Maybe together with the 1:1 pattern to see how that match. |
Not soon by me...
I was just doing this to show there is so little to see in these small pictures, that even my setup looked comparable to the top machines, while my machine is definitely ill now and even the source material wasn't cutting edge.
_________________
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 |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Link Posted: Wed May 14, 2014 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gjaky wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | gjaky wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | gjaky wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | gjaky..
That picture looks nice to me bandwidth wise, would be interesting to see that projector with a tighter focus, and a calibration.
Is it a AC machine, or a LC machine ? ill guess its a AC, the contrast looks a bit weak, but that might also be a calibration isue.?
The shot looks much more flat and lifeless then MPs shot, ill say it looks much like the G90, just looking it now, your shot could be from a G90 from where im looking.
Im just guessing here, and commenting about what i see in the picture, i trust you compared it to what you see on screen and it was a good match.
Lets hope someone with a 909 will post that scene to. |
The cold facts:
This is my NEC XGLC, this particular machine unfortunately has some serious bandwidth issues, it's rolling off with even 120MHz pixel clock signals, not even resolves the 1080i-96Hz, which was used in this shot, and the movie itself was a 4GB 720P BRrip. I bet this isn't what you expected |
That explains very well why it dont fight the bandwidth, then you need to do a shot with a 1080P 60hz resolution to as i requested.
Ill gues it then looks quite clear what the bandwidth do to that scene.. so exelent test. A low and a high bandwith shot of the same scene.
Whats the bandwidth / pixel clock on that shot.? 80Mhz.? |
It was projected in 1080i-96Hz, @127MHz pixel clock, it's just the source movie that was 720P |
Try shoot 1080P 60hz.. 155-165Mhz, and try keep it pixel perfect, might show some more details, and more dept in the image, dependig how the bandwidth role off.
It will be a very good way to show the effect of bandwidth if you can push it over the edge.
Maybe together with the 1:1 pattern to see how that match. |
Not soon by me...
I was just doing this to show there is so little to see in these small pictures, that even my setup looked comparable to the top machines, while my machine is definitely ill now and even the source material wasn't cutting edge. |
I still think there is much to see if you post pics with the information like resolution and bandwidth, and specially if you post a low and a high bandwidth shot.
I have a 144 and a 155Mhz profile on the G90, and its clear to see the difference on that scene, your right its impossible to see everything in a shot like that, as we have limited information, but its a very good scene who display stuff a bit like the 1:1 pattern. It also displays very well why to use the test pattern, like no one knows what they are looking at in a scene like that.
Now you dont want to finish it, lets hope one of the Barco guys will finish it and make a low and a high bandwidth shot of that scene so everyone can see and understand whats the difference in resolving the signal good and bad.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CasetheCorvetteman
Joined: 09 Nov 2008
Posts: 6319
Location: Australia
|
| Link Posted: Thu May 15, 2014 3:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Spanky Ham wrote: | | CasetheCorvetteman wrote: | Id say with P19LUG tubes, HFQ900s and everything working with them on an XG would reach incredible heights... For one the convergence system is considerably better than the Barco, which although very easy to set up, isnt as fine in adjustment size nor the sheer amount of adjustment points and steps...
*XG has 201 steps on every alignment and convergence setting, Barco has 99 steps on some, and alot less on others..
*XG has almost 200 individual points to assist the huge amount of other adjustments, the Barco has 81 in fine mode, and about 1/3rd the amount of alignment settings ( which can mean the 1% different between flawless and almost perfect ).
*To top it off, the XG has the same adjustments available on all three colours completely independent of each other, the Barco only has coarse point and fine point for blue and red, which adds alot of time to convergence.
*The Barco has about 3 internal test patterns, the XG has loads, and theyre all very useful ( not every source device can output a useable test pattern to converge or do astig with ) |
One of the unfortunate things was NEC not carrying through with their planned successor 9" pj to the XGs. Doug Baisey said they were working on it, but changed their mind. It might have been the ultimate. |
Yes there is little question about it all really, im not saying it'd be a given, but i am saying the LC XG is top of the 8" rigs when talking bone stock out of the box.
_________________
Barco CineMAX, 120" OZ Theatre Majestic 16:9 screen, H/K AVR 7.1...
RUNCO DTV991 LC ( NEC XG 852 LC ) 100" 4:3 screen, H/K AVR 5.1...
|
|
| 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
|
|
Forum FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Photo Albums
Register
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
