|
|
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
CasetheCorvetteman
Joined: 09 Nov 2008 Posts: 6319 Location: Australia
|
Link Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
redfox001 wrote: | Oh man you are backstabbing me all the time Curt read what you wrote on the repair forum as we happened to be talking at that moment, all slandering lies to make him think bad about me. In private in my face it is Good morning and friendliness but than i read an old thread where you are burning me again and again. I helped you with lots of stuff and send you pictures but a simple thank you? No way. Have a nice life. |
To your face you get the same as any other place. I think youre a bit unhinged and make no secret of that. I havent back stabbed you at any point, i think youre a clown at the best of times, and again, make no secret of that either.
As for helping me, youre kidding me arent ya?? With what did you help me?? Ive not taken any of your somewhat questionable advice that i can ever recall.
I dont care what anyone read on the other forum. I said what i said because i believe it to be true and correct, and hey, i aint the only one, the others just prefer to remain nameless and let it continue.
You must be a bit thick if you really thought id expect no one to know what i said. Ofcourse they know, i said it on a public forum using my own name...
_________________ 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 |
|
|
redfox001
Joined: 16 Mar 2009 Posts: 2251 Location: The Netherlands
|
Link Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 10:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ok that is your opinion. Please use quotes from things I realy said somewhere if you are critisising me. I am also still waiting for proof that your Max does 150MHz
Now please on topic again.
_________________ 701s->runco933->8500ultra->hd1->hd350->vw100->cinemax+919sp+3x919+9500mp->cinemax+919sp(modded)+kuro600a
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
redfox001
Joined: 16 Mar 2009 Posts: 2251 Location: The Netherlands
|
Link Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
removed
_________________ 701s->runco933->8500ultra->hd1->hd350->vw100->cinemax+919sp+3x919+9500mp->cinemax+919sp(modded)+kuro600a
Last edited by redfox001 on Sun Jan 17, 2016 10:47 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
redfox001
Joined: 16 Mar 2009 Posts: 2251 Location: The Netherlands
|
Link Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2015 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Is it possible for a moderator to move the off topic part to the off topic forum?
_________________ 701s->runco933->8500ultra->hd1->hd350->vw100->cinemax+919sp+3x919+9500mp->cinemax+919sp(modded)+kuro600a
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
kal Forum Administrator
Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 17860 Location: Ottawa, Canada
TV/Projector: JVC DLA-NZ7
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
ElTopo
Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1608
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
lydmann
Joined: 12 Aug 2006 Posts: 56 Location: Norway
|
Link Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2015 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i have seen 4k downscaled to 1080p on my hevylie modded barco with greg eisemann mod. And it is amacing! And now madvr support HDR, (high dynamic range). it is stunning. no digital pj can compete with the density in the picture like the crt has. so i will still go for crt.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
ElTopo
Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1608
|
Link Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 7:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
That is what i wanna hear !
What have you seen ?
- more image punch
- less video noise
ElTopo
_________________ Barco Cine 9 the one and only
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
redfox001
Joined: 16 Mar 2009 Posts: 2251 Location: The Netherlands
|
Link Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2016 10:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
It seems the new 4k is 2k at most because the processing is done at 2k.
http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/ultra-hd-not-always-4k/
Quote: |
Here’s the dirty secret about the industry’s move to 4k or higher displays: The majority of modern movies are either photographed digitally at 2k resolution or have a 2k Digital Intermediate. While it’s true that some movies are indeed starting to be photographed with 4k cameras (and movies shot on film may get scanned at 4k resolution), most of them still get downgraded to 2k for the post-production workflow. The higher pixel resolution of 4k requires a big increase in bandwidth resources that most post houses can’t handle. And, ultimately, most viewers can’t tell the difference between 2k and 4k anyway.
|
Now I looked it up and 2k is 2048 × 1080.
We can resolve that!
_________________ 701s->runco933->8500ultra->hd1->hd350->vw100->cinemax+919sp+3x919+9500mp->cinemax+919sp(modded)+kuro600a
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
redfox001
Joined: 16 Mar 2009 Posts: 2251 Location: The Netherlands
|
Link Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2016 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
lydmann wrote: |
i have seen 4k downscaled to 1080p on my hevylie modded barco with greg eisemann mod. And it is amacing! And now madvr support HDR, (high dynamic range). it is stunning. no digital pj can compete with the density in the picture like the crt has. so i will still go for crt. |
It is indeed a good idea to het the HDR of the 4k movies.
I wonder if the 10 bit from a 4k player will go into the moome with no problems?
_________________ 701s->runco933->8500ultra->hd1->hd350->vw100->cinemax+919sp+3x919+9500mp->cinemax+919sp(modded)+kuro600a
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
mp20748
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 5681 Location: Maryland
TV/Projector: 9500LC Ultra / Super 02 and 03 VIM
|
Link Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2016 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting read on this for sure.
Here is what we were told at Barco Tech training in California about three years ago when they were talking about their very large 2K cinema projectors:
Copied from the previous link:
Quote: | Ultra HD Is About More Than 4k
If most of the films getting released on 4k Ultra HD Blu-ray are really 2k movies, what’s the point of Ultra HD at all? Honestly, the increase in pixel resolution from 1920×1080 to 3840×2160 is the least interesting thing about Ultra HD. At the screen sizes available in almost all home theaters, 1080p already hits a sweet spot for delivering richly detailed images with no visible pixel structure. Our human eyes are not capable of resolving much of the additional detail 4k may offer, except on perhaps the largest of projection screens. That extra resolution is more beneficial on a huge 50-foot cinema screen, but for the needs of home theater, it’s basically irreleva |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006 Posts: 15909 Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
Link Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2016 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wow, I couldn't possibly disagree with that any more, Mike.
In my old room, I sat about 10 feet from an 8-foot wide 1.78 screen. Even with my JVC RS45 (which has an excellent fill rate), I could easily see pixel structure if I looked at small, fine details like a space ship or planet in the distance, or end credits. Anything small and high-contrast made pixels extremely obvious.
The situation would have been exacerbated much worse when I went to a 10-foot wide scope screen as I had planned. If I hadn't sold my house, I was going to a scope screen, and the only way I could have done it would have been with either a JVC with eshift3 or a an actual UHD projector.
The information from Barco isn't just misleading, it's simply factually inaccurate. it sounds as though the individual who wrote it has no deep understanding of the subject matter at all. Whether the eye can resolve pixels or the additional resolution isn't just about the size of the screen; it's the size of the screen *combined* with the viewing distance. It's the viewing angle, not the screen size. It doesn't matter whether it's a 10-foot wide screen viewed from 10 feet, or a 60-foot wide screen viewed from 60 feet. 1080p isn't adequate for either. With CRT, 1080p is great even at large viewing angles due to the masking effect of a lower MTF. But with a super-sharp digital, 1080p is noticeably inferior to UHD or 4K at the typical immersive viewing angles many enthusiasts enjoy.
Cheers,
SC
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
redfox001
Joined: 16 Mar 2009 Posts: 2251 Location: The Netherlands
|
Link Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2016 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
A number of years ago some IMAX engineers - and I don't think IMAX ever let these guys out of their lab again -- did this wonderfully elegant experiment at the Large Film Format Seminar at Universal Studios Imax theatre. They showed this film they made that began with 2 rows of 2 squares: black white, white black, as if you had 4 pixels on the screen. Then they started to double and double and double the squares. Before they got to 4K the screen was gray. Do you know what the means? There was no longer any difference between black and white, which is what allows you to see sharpness. It's the contrast that we see, not the actual information. Technically, the MTF (Modulation Transfer Function) was zero at 4K!
Let's just pretend for a moment that IMAX truly is 4K. You watch IMAX at between one and one and a half picture heights from the screen. But in order to get to appreciate 4K on a regular movie screen, you would have to sit much closer than normal. In other words, when you go to a movie theater, and most of the modern theaters with stadium seating are designed so that the middle of the theater is 2 ½ to 3 picture heights from the screen, for most of us who watch movies, that's pretty where we want to be sitting. Maybe just a little bit closer from some of us who do this for a living, because we're maybe looking for artifacts or issues. If you sit much closer than 2 ½ picture heights, that's what you're seeing, artifacts, not movies!
So if you had true 4K resolution in your local theater, everybody would have to sitting in the first 6 rows. Otherwise they wouldn't see any extra detail. Their eyes wouldn't LET them see it. You know this intuitively from passing by these beautiful new monitors at trade shows. You find yourself getting absolutely as close as possible to see the detail, and to see if there are any visible artifacts. At normal viewing distances, you can't.
So the whole 2K 4K thing is a little bit of a red herring.
|
https://library.creativecow.net/galt_john/John_Galt_2K_4K_Truth_About_Pixels/1
_________________ 701s->runco933->8500ultra->hd1->hd350->vw100->cinemax+919sp+3x919+9500mp->cinemax+919sp(modded)+kuro600a
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
cmjohnson
Joined: 03 Apr 2006 Posts: 5180 Location: Buried under G90s
|
Link Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2016 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not going to jump into the question (maybe argument) about whether or not the eye (and brain) can resolve more than 1080p in a typical home theatre environment, but I will note that if you think you're seeing pixel structures, I suggest you look directly into the lenses of your CRT projector while the movie is running and you will often see compression artifacts (blocking, etc) clearly visible, most especially in the blue channel, some in the red, and least in the green.
If, due to compression limitations, we're not even coming close to seeing full resolution HD, then there's obviously considerable room for improvement in regular HD viewing.
It's certain that the highest model CRT projectors are capable of considerably better than 1080p. The Cine 9 is factory rated for 3200x2560.
3840x2160 is the native resolution of full 4K.
So the Cine 9 is capable of 83.333 percent of the H resolution and MORE than 100 percent of the V resolution of 4K, and when you count the need to squeeze the raster vertically to the 1.78 aspect ratio of native 4K, then you might start losing a bit of vertical definition. In theory, that'd be 1797 lines when squeezed, and attempting to get more would start leading to scan line merging.
Bandwidth-wise, it's really close, with the Cine 9's resolution working out to 8.2 megapixels per frame, and 4K taking up 8.3 megapixels per frame.
So, apparently the Cine 9 has the raw bandwidth capacity to handle full HD. And it has the scan rate capacity.
The numbers are there. They add up.
The Cine 9 is a 4K (theoretically) capable CRT projector. It may not fully resolve 4K but technically it can do it.
What else might do it?
A modded 9500LC with LUG tubes MIGHT come close, with the right mods to the video chain. (What's Mike's state of the art VIM and neck card mod package delivering now, anyway?)
Lenses...I think I've previously established that the highest grade lenses are 4K capable or close to it. Let's do the math.
We have an assumed 4 inches of vertical CRT phosphor area to work with. Or, let's just call it 100 millimeters instead. (25.4 millimeters per inch.)
The HD10GT17 is rated to resolve 12 line PAIRS per millimeter. Multiply by 100, and you have 2400 line resolution capacity out of a GT17.
For 4K we need to resolve 2160 lines.
We've got it.
Even the regular HD10 is rated for 10 line PAIRS per millimeter, giving you 2000 lines out of a 10cm height raster, which is pretty close to the 2160 we need. It's within 10 percent.
And then there are the "special" lenses that are even sharper with higher resolution ratings.
The numbers say 4K is within grasping distance for the best 9" machines. If they have the video bandwidth.
And let's not forget, even if we can't quite make all of 4K, would you be happy with 4K downscaled to say, 3K or 2.5K? Sure, I think you would.
For full 4K uncompressed video, you'd need 497 MHz video bandwidth, NOT counting overhead for the retrace period, assuming a 60 Hz refresh rate.
Realistically speaking, we can handle a certain amount of compression and not notice it much. Let's assume 50 percent, which I think is a reasonable number.
We're now looking at a bandwidth reuirement of 250 MHz plus overhead.
That's also within reach for the best projectors, with modded video chains as needed.
The truth is that while the potential market is very small, the best 9" CRT projectors should be able to approach, if not actually achieve, a well resolved 4K picture.
So...Mr. Moome, we need UHD HDMI input cards. Please begin the development process right away. I wish to reserve my place in line for the Marquee version card.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
mp20748
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 5681 Location: Maryland
TV/Projector: 9500LC Ultra / Super 02 and 03 VIM
|
Link Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2016 2:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
cmjohnson wrote: | A modded 9500LC with LUG tubes MIGHT come close, with the right mods to the video chain. (What's Mike's state of the art VIM and neck card mod package delivering now, anyway?) |
Interesting discussion on 4K. My very latest version of my mods are 250mhz capable and that can now even happen using a modified 02 VIM. A lot was accomplished in the past year with the mods, especially concerning bandwidth improvement.
What I have in my Marquee is a set of the older Electrohome neck boards and an 02 VIM. Both modified of course. That video chain is 250mhz. Last year we were able to get up to 350mhz performance out of the same set of boards, and still can, but keep them at or near 250mhz for now.
The discussion on 4K we have been looking at, and what we've come up with is we're still not able to reach the required and effective bandwidth rate of necessary for 4K, though we can get close. Plus, I'm not sure the Marquee can do the 4K scan rate.
Now what we are excited about concerning 4K, is it being down-rezed to 1080P. Because right now most of the production houses are still using 2K, and because of the cost to upgrade, it will be awhile before true 4K source be the norm. And where there is 4K source material, it is being down-rezed to 2K. Which is also what most of the cinema projectors are. So full 2K is what we're looking forward to, because it is going to look fantastic on CRT when down-rezed from 4K.
One thing to understand from the display industry and how they determined the screen size of what size screen to use, it was determined using resolution as the determiner. Meaning the size of the screen had a lot to do with the resolution being used. ANd for the size screens we're using 1080P should be fine.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
cmjohnson
Joined: 03 Apr 2006 Posts: 5180 Location: Buried under G90s
|
Link Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2016 3:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
As I read the HDMI 2.0 specification, the max bandwidth carried on HDMI 2.0 is 297 MHz. So, 300 MHz video bandwidth is the point at which we have enough for 4K as of the 2.0 specification.
That is within reach. For the entire video chain.
I also note that the spec is for 24 FPS video. To get 30 FPS I must assume 3:2 pulldown and repeated frames if you choose to go with a higher frame rate.
Of course we do know that 30 FPS (progressive scan) is flicker city on a CRT projector. So that has to be dealt with. I don't claim to know enough about how this affects bandwidth requirements to comment on it.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
gjaky
Joined: 05 Jun 2010 Posts: 2790 Location: Budapest, Hungary
|
Link Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2016 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
One should explain to me why to mix the bandwidth and pixel clock terms, they are not the same!
Do you have a CD player? The sampling rate there is 44.1kHz, yet the maximal output freqency is 22.05kHz -everybody knows, no one complains about it.
Same with the video: at 297MHz pixel clock (sampling rate) your maximal signal output is a 148,5 MHz sine, so if you can resolve that please don't claim it as 300MHz bandwidth.
_________________ 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: 5681 Location: Maryland
TV/Projector: 9500LC Ultra / Super 02 and 03 VIM
|
Link Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2016 9:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
gjaky wrote: | One should explain to me why to mix the bandwidth and pixel clock terms, they are not the same!
Do you have a CD player? The sampling rate there is 44.1kHz, yet the maximal output freqency is 22.05kHz -everybody knows, no one complains about it.
Same with the video: at 297MHz pixel clock (sampling rate) your maximal signal output is a 148,5 MHz sine, so if you can resolve that please don't claim it as 300MHz bandwidth. |
Or course this has been a much talked about standard, but even your figures are highly in dispute in comparison to some of the others. Where you use "sinewave" as the ruler, that is not always what the industry uses, so let's use your rule for:
1600X1200 /60hz
and you simply post what that bandwidth rating and from there we'll post how we arrived at our figures that you clearly dispute based on your comments
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
redfox001
Joined: 16 Mar 2009 Posts: 2251 Location: The Netherlands
|
Link Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2016 9:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just devide by 2 to get the bandwidth that you see in the datasheets of the opamps etc. It takes 2 samples to make a sine. Nyquist sampling theorema
_________________ 701s->runco933->8500ultra->hd1->hd350->vw100->cinemax+919sp+3x919+9500mp->cinemax+919sp(modded)+kuro600a
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
redfox001
Joined: 16 Mar 2009 Posts: 2251 Location: The Netherlands
|
Link Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2016 10:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
The modified neckboard of the marquee that is still a discussion worth. I compared modified neckboards to standard neckboards and surprise the standard neckboards where better and some where a lot better. So I am using standard neckboards in my video chain selected from 9. Strange it is that modifying took the bandwidth down but I have read someone else taking the opamp from the neckboards trying something soldering it back and never getting the performance back. I can not find that thread but some may know. Is it even possible to replace two allready over speced parts with higher bandwidth parts and getting a significant better bandwidth? Very strange, very strange.
_________________ 701s->runco933->8500ultra->hd1->hd350->vw100->cinemax+919sp+3x919+9500mp->cinemax+919sp(modded)+kuro600a
|
|
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
|
|