|
 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mp20748
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 5681
Location: Maryland
TV/Projector: 9500LC Ultra / Super 02 and 03 VIM
|
 Link Posted: Tue May 02, 2017 11:05 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| jbmeyer13 wrote: |
No peaking on my boards; can't speak for anyone elses. |
any of my previous 02 Vims with the later mini board, would require peaking. Things got significantly different about 7 months ago to what I'm even doing now.
| Quote: | | First off, you've never posted any such evidence of a SMPTE with your current mods (with all 3 guns on) so you've never proven any of your recent claims publicly. This is in reference to your response to Greg's request for you to post visual proof |
You think me having mixed tubes and a glycol problem would be reason enough to not post shots of all three tubes showing SMPTE?? Surely the tube condition would not make for a proper posting.
| Quote: | | As you have pointed out to me so many times before the SMPTE is not the end all be all and that's why we need to view real world content in addition to looking at test patterns. As you state below, there could be a host of other problems that the SMPTE doesn't address |
Why the SMPTE has been the holy grail for performance by some, and seems to be the rule when others want to determine where things are. But It can only determine very little when it comes to actual image quality. It is without a doubt a good basic reference for proper bandwidth, but it can never address the many other elements of the video signal chain that should also be addressed for best image.
having a working test unit and the addition of the test jig was all I really needed to take things to a different level, and you'll also need a few other items of test gear and enough experience running down noise to develop your own techniques.
| Quote: | | You are unable to view non-test pattern content at 195mhz so you have to rely on feedback from your testers (which I have been for a long time) |
I don't need to have an 200mhz source to evaluate the video chain. Only if looking at how it plays with the scan rate. Be mindful that I'm able to increase and decrease my bandwidth window at will, and my generator is really all I need for this.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jbmeyer13
Joined: 03 Dec 2010
Posts: 1135
|
| Link Posted: Tue May 02, 2017 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | any of my previous 02 Vims with the later mini board, would require peaking. Things got significantly different about 7 months ago to what I'm even doing now. |
There's no peaking on the VIM anymore; it was removed last fall at the time when the other issues were addressed e.g. traces, component legs, termination resistors and miniboard ground pin.
| Quote: | | You think me having mixed tubes and a glycol problem would be reason enough to not post shots of all three tubes showing SMPTE?? Surely the tube condition would not make for a proper posting. |
Completely understand but then you could always have Wolfman or another customer with the latest mods post such a shot.
| Quote: | Why the SMPTE has been the holy grail for performance by some, and seems to be the rule when others want to determine where things are. But It can only determine very little when it comes to actual image quality. It is without a doubt a good basic reference for proper bandwidth, but it can never address the many other elements of the video signal chain that should also be addressed for best image.
having a working test unit and the addition of the test jig was all I really needed to take things to a different level, and you'll also need a few other items of test gear and enough experience running down noise to develop your own techniques.
|
Agree.
| Quote: |
I don't need to have an 200mhz source to evaluate the video chain. Only if looking at how it plays with the scan rate. Be mindful that I'm able to increase and decrease my bandwidth window at will, and my generator is really all I need for this |
A generator displays static images which are helpful for many things but do not cover it all. Having full understanding requires viewing of dynamic real world material. Just like calibration; something can measure as being technically correct but then not be 100% optimal during critical viewing. I disagree that a generator is sufficient by itself.
_________________
Projector: Modded 9501LC ULtra- MP VIM, Vold VNB, ETECH LVPS, Silver VIM Cables, HD10F's & a V1 case!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mp20748
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 5681
Location: Maryland
TV/Projector: 9500LC Ultra / Super 02 and 03 VIM
|
| Link Posted: Tue May 02, 2017 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jbmeyer13 wrote: |
There's no peaking on the VIM anymore; it was removed last fall at the time when the other issues were addressed e.g. traces, component legs, termination resistors and miniboard ground pin |
Interesting, but much like what VDC also had to do (peaking) because of the AD835. And I do have a shot you sent me, indicating and showing the SMPTE not being fully resolved. The question was your 03 worked fine, but the 02 had that problem.
| Quote: | | Completely understand but then you could always have Wolfman or another customer with the latest mods post such a shot |
Post a shot why?
What is it that you guys keep bringing this up. Why are you questioning this. If someone with the latest has told you guys something otherwise, it would be because they did not get the Moome done. And no, you cannot do the moome properly without both proper procedure and test gear.
| Quote: | | A generator displays static images which are helpful for many things but do not cover it all. Having full understanding requires viewing of dynamic real world material. Just like calibration; something can measure as being technically correct but then not be 100% optimal during critical viewing. I disagree that a generator is sufficient by itself. |
I don't know where you get this from, but much like why this version of the boards do not enhance the ringing on the left of the screen, they also are not affected by the change in scan rate. And regardless of your theory on the rate and calibration. There's a huge world out there far beyond that, and it involved the generator. Why you think Craig has purchased so many of them? and he also uses and works with the processor!
Have you noticed that my later screenshots no longer show that radical ringing that I've had a problem with for years?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jbmeyer13
Joined: 03 Dec 2010
Posts: 1135
|
| Link Posted: Tue May 02, 2017 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Interesting, but much like what VDC also had to do (peaking) because of the AD835. And I do have a shot you sent me, indicating and showing the SMPTE not being fully resolved. The question was your 03 worked fine, but the 02 had that problem. |
The 02 had issues at one point which were subsequently resolved.
| Quote: | Post a shot why?
What is it that you guys keep bringing this up. Why are you questioning this. If someone with the latest has told you guys something otherwise, it would be because they did not get the Moome done. And no, you cannot do the moome properly without both proper procedure and test gear. |
Well you took issue with my comment about your modded boards displaying a reference image at 300mhz. While its remarkable that the green channel held together at that BW it's not as if all 3 color tracked flat from 0-300mhz on the SMPTE/ecrabb pattern. You have never posted a 300mhz ecrabb SMPTE with all 3 colors on and all of the screen shots of film material that you have posted are of sub 165mhz BW. I love your VIM and wouldn't trade it for anything but flat 300mhz is (unless you prove otherwise) pie in the sky.
| Quote: |
I don't know where you get this from, but much like why this version of the boards do not enhance the ringing on the left of the screen, they also are not affected by the change in scan rate. And regardless of your theory on the rate and calibration. There's a huge world out there far beyond that, and it involved the generator. Why you think Craig has purchased so many of them? and he also uses and works with the processor! |
The correct way of stating this is there's a huge world out there beyond the generator 
| Quote: | | Have you noticed that my later screenshots no longer show that radical ringing that I've had a problem with for years? |
I still see raster ringing in your shots but they aren't nearly as bad as before. Only way to fully cure that issue is by adjusting the porch timings with a VP (assuming short retrace).
_________________
Projector: Modded 9501LC ULtra- MP VIM, Vold VNB, ETECH LVPS, Silver VIM Cables, HD10F's & a V1 case!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mp20748
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 5681
Location: Maryland
TV/Projector: 9500LC Ultra / Super 02 and 03 VIM
|
| Link Posted: Tue May 02, 2017 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jbmeyer13 wrote: |
The 02 had issues at one point which were subsequently resolved |
Yeah, and I have the shot showing what things looked like after Kurt left your house.
| Quote: | | Well you took issue with my comment about your modded boards displaying a reference image at 300mhz. While its remarkable that the green channel held together at that BW it's not as if all 3 color tracked flat from 0-300mhz on the SMPTE/ecrabb pattern |
why don't you simple show what you're talking about since this is important to you. It's senseless to me and ain't worth me wasting time on. Anything 300mhz from me is more then two or three years ago, and you and Greg has had an idea I would bite on to this and waste time proven nothing...why regardless when this was done, it is totally irrelevant to anything I'm doing today.
It's like sending Ford Motor Company a letter letting them know they have never posted the Horse power test for their model T. To you think Ford would build another model T just so that they can prove to you something that's totally irrelevant today?
| Quote: | | You have never posted a 300mhz ecrabb SMPTE with all 3 colors on and all of the screen shots of film material that you have posted are of sub 165mhz BW |
Move on guys, it's not going to happen. Not sure what I posted back then, and with that being so long ago, I'll not even give it a thought.
| Quote: | I love your VIM and wouldn't trade it for anything but flat 300mhz is (unless you prove otherwise) pie in the sky.
|
I agree, and nor would there be a need for flat 300mhz using a previously modified board with the AD835 as gain amp. So it is what it is. And since there's no need to go beyond 200mhz, why is this a discussion?
| Quote: | | The correct way of stating this is there's a huge world out there beyond the generator |
Yes and I agree. But hopefully you guys will stop celebrating every video discovery and making an issue where there's no need. Every tech and engineer both use various and many means to get to where they are going. Experience teaches a lot on this. And that's why you don't see the experts posting on this and challenging anyone on the right way to do things, when they know there are many ways to get to the same point.
| Quote: | | I still see raster ringing in your shots but they aren't nearly as bad as before |
Yes.. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mp20748
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 5681
Location: Maryland
TV/Projector: 9500LC Ultra / Super 02 and 03 VIM
|
| Link Posted: Tue May 02, 2017 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh forgot, that 02 VIM is great, and my later 02 is leaps better with my later 03 being even better in every regard. But you'll never get good finer detail out of that 02, and that's regardless of what the SMPTE pattern shows.
And when the next time Craig is in this area, I'll have him stop by and that should clear up a lot.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jbmeyer13
Joined: 03 Dec 2010
Posts: 1135
|
| Link Posted: Tue May 02, 2017 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Quote: | I love your VIM and wouldn't trade it for anything but flat 300mhz is (unless you prove otherwise) pie in the sky.
|
I agree, and nor would there be a need for flat 300mhz using a previously modified board with the AD835 as gain amp. So it is what it is. And since there's no need to go beyond 200mhz, why is this a discussion? |
This came up because it was in relation to 4K content or as CJ says something above 1080p but below 4K. I simply stated that the boards were not capable of a reference caliber image at 300mhz. As you aptly said; it was 2+ yrs ago and knowing the details of that test I felt it was tangible to clarify this for the discussion at hand.
You apparently took offense to this, then stated that you had boards which could do 300mhz and accused me of posting wrongful information. It took off from there...
You just nailed it on the head- you are not working on anything right now to go beyond 200mhz as there is no need.
You know my position on your love triangle with Kurt and Greg so you shouldn't view my posts as antagonizing bait.
_________________
Projector: Modded 9501LC ULtra- MP VIM, Vold VNB, ETECH LVPS, Silver VIM Cables, HD10F's & a V1 case!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cmjohnson
Joined: 03 Apr 2006
Posts: 5180
Location: Buried under G90s
|
| Link Posted: Wed May 03, 2017 3:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Actually, to put things into perspective, Curt's projector specs summary page lists the Barco 909 as being capable of displaying (displaying, not resolving) 3200x2560. If this were at a 72 Hz refresh rate, and allowing 20 percent overhead for non-displayed picture information, then that would require a paltry 708 MHz of clean video bandwidth. Or a measlly 598 MHz bandwidth if we were to drop the frame rate to only 60 Hz.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gregstv
Joined: 27 Aug 2007
Posts: 628
Location: Australia
|
| Link Posted: Wed May 03, 2017 4:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cmjohnson wrote: | | Actually, to put things into perspective, Curt's projector specs summary page lists the Barco 909 as being capable of displaying (displaying, not resolving) 3200x2560. If this were at a 72 Hz refresh rate, and allowing 20 percent overhead for non-displayed picture information, then that would require a paltry 708 MHz of clean video bandwidth. Or a measlly 598 MHz bandwidth if we were to drop the frame rate to only 60 Hz. |
Peace of cake for the Barco, Didn't you know the hybrid output has over 1Ghz of bandwidth.
NOT.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cmjohnson
Joined: 03 Apr 2006
Posts: 5180
Location: Buried under G90s
|
| Link Posted: Wed May 03, 2017 10:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Actually they advertise 180 MHz of bandwidth but actual testing done by some forum member(s) here showed that they didn't even come close, with the result being that their neck cards were good for something around 85 MHz of flat bandwidth if I'm not misremembering it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nidi
Joined: 17 Aug 2008
Posts: 303
Location: Switzerland
|
| Link Posted: Thu May 04, 2017 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jbmeyer13 wrote: | | Quote: | | Quote: | I love your VIM and wouldn't trade it for anything but flat 300mhz is (unless you prove otherwise) pie in the sky.
|
I agree, and nor would there be a need for flat 300mhz using a previously modified board with the AD835 as gain amp. So it is what it is. And since there's no need to go beyond 200mhz, why is this a discussion? |
This came up because it was in relation to 4K content or as CJ says something above 1080p but below 4K. I simply stated that the boards were not capable of a reference caliber image at 300mhz. As you aptly said; it was 2+ yrs ago and knowing the details of that test I felt it was tangible to clarify this for the discussion at hand.
You apparently took offense to this, then stated that you had boards which could do 300mhz and accused me of posting wrongful information. It took off from there...
You just nailed it on the head- you are not working on anything right now to go beyond 200mhz as there is no need.
You know my position on your love triangle with Kurt and Greg so you shouldn't view my posts as antagonizing bait. |
I do remember that Mike Parker once said that his mods would be close to 300 MHz.
It would be very interesting in how much bandwidth Mike's latest mods really would do.
I do have the latest mod from him but can't test it on my projector as it needs a major setup.
Michael
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cmjohnson
Joined: 03 Apr 2006
Posts: 5180
Location: Buried under G90s
|
| Link Posted: Thu May 04, 2017 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Also consider that an increase in video bandwidth can only help to improve MTF
near the limits of resolution.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
redfox001
Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Posts: 2251
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Link Posted: Thu May 04, 2017 8:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cmjohnson wrote: | | Actually they advertise 180 MHz of bandwidth but actual testing done by some forum member(s) here showed that they didn't even come close, with the result being that their neck cards were good for something around 85 MHz of flat bandwidth if I'm not misremembering it. |
I was one of the people in those discussions and I have changed my opinion on this. In fact I agree with Gjaky quoted below. Not to polarise but to give some complementary information 
I want to leave it with this quote from Gjaky where the technology is these days. Just for giving some information on both sides.
[quote source="/post/9888/thread" author="@gjaky" timestamp="1489134535"]
Of course the Barco end stage can also be tested, but still a lot of modifications would be needed to disable the ABL function as that is certainly not very well implemented and surely holding back some horse power. I saw that a 909 with well implemented mods on its stock board configuration can resolve 1080P 60Hz very well, I aim 1080P 72Hz or beyond.
As I said I am willing to test the 909 neckboard performance as I have the equipment to evaluate it quite faithfully, designing the measurement setup: getting all the supply voltages and support signals together on the bench which makes it painful.
[/quote]
_________________
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: Thu May 04, 2017 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| redfox001 wrote: | | cmjohnson wrote: | | Actually they advertise 180 MHz of bandwidth but actual testing done by some forum member(s) here showed that they didn't even come close, with the result being that their neck cards were good for something around 85 MHz of flat bandwidth if I'm not misremembering it. |
I was one of the people in those discussions and I have changed my opinion on this. In fact I agree with Gjaky quoted below. Not to polarise but to give some complementary information
I want to leave it with this quote from Gjaky where the technology is these days. Just for giving some information on both sides.
[quote source="/post/9888/thread" author="@gjaky" timestamp="1489134535"]
Of course the Barco end stage can also be tested, but still a lot of modifications would be needed to disable the ABL function as that is certainly not very well implemented and surely holding back some horse power. I saw that a 909 with well implemented mods on its stock board configuration can resolve 1080P 60Hz very well, I aim 1080P 72Hz or beyond.
As I said I am willing to test the 909 neckboard performance as I have the equipment to evaluate it quite faithfully, designing the measurement setup: getting all the supply voltages and support signals together on the bench which makes it painful.
|
[/quote]
See if you can get Gjaky to help you remove (or bypass) the Voltage Limiter IC on the neck boards. It is the biggest bandwidth bottleneck. I forgot what the part number is, but do know it's either an OPA698 or the Harris version of that same circuit.
The Voltage Limiter IC is used to adjust both White (top) peak point and black (bottom) peak point of the video signal. Not needed for today's HT signals.
The single final power module on the neck boards, was a special design that was made specifically for the Barco 909 neck boards.
Both myself and Scott at VDC had tested one of these neck boards
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
redfox001
Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Posts: 2251
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Link Posted: Thu May 04, 2017 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Seems Gjaky is trying to use the Marquee neckboards on the Barco 909
Would be interesting to see where it goes these days. Both projectors are great Barco and Marquee. Both have pro's and cons
_________________
701s->runco933->8500ultra->hd1->hd350->vw100->cinemax+919sp+3x919+9500mp->cinemax+919sp(modded)+kuro600a
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greg9518lc
Joined: 19 Apr 2016
Posts: 360
|
| Link Posted: Tue May 09, 2017 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I do remember that Mike Parker once said that his mods would be close to 300 MHz.
It would be very interesting in how much bandwidth Mike's latest mods really would do.
I do have the latest mod from him but can't test it on my projector as it needs a major setup.
Michael[/quote]
With you being over in Europe you could have Kurt test them in a full blown correct
setup in a mint low hour projector and can get FTL and bandwidth measurements
as well as color calibration data this would tell us a lot about bandwidth and 4k
possiblities.and how mods track vs stock boards.
_________________
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: 5681
Location: Maryland
TV/Projector: 9500LC Ultra / Super 02 and 03 VIM
|
| Link Posted: Tue May 09, 2017 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| greg9518lc wrote: | I do remember that Mike Parker once said that his mods would be close to 300 MHz.
It would be very interesting in how much bandwidth Mike's latest mods really would do.
I do have the latest mod from him but can't test it on my projector as it needs a major setup.
Michael |
Man, you guys are persistent. yes at some point, I have stated that my mods could do up to 300mhz. I've even stated and posted the SMPTE showing that they could exceed 300mhz.
And I know why you keep bringing this up, and that is to show a board set that's NOT doing that bandwidth. Two problems with this. One is as much as you guys are out to bash what I do, who would believe you if you posted the test knowing you're also trying to promote other boards? And the second response to this would be that, it has been awhile that I have made such statement. And if you're following what I've even posted in the past two weeks you would find this (read what has been posted previous on this page concerning several times):
| jbmeyer13 wrote: | | Quote: | I love your VIM and wouldn't trade it for anything but flat 300mhz is (unless you prove otherwise) pie in the sky.
|
I agree, and nor would there be a need for flat 300mhz using a previously modified board with the AD835 as gain amp. So it is what it is. And since there's no need to go beyond 200mhz, why is this a discussion? |
Also, you do not have a later version of my boards. No way!
The 300mhz version if you're aware of my posting on this, was for commercial use only. It's pure dumb if you really understand why a 300hhz version should not be used for HD.
.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nidi
Joined: 17 Aug 2008
Posts: 303
Location: Switzerland
|
| Link Posted: Wed May 10, 2017 10:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="mp20748"] | greg9518lc wrote: | I do remember that Mike Parker once said that his mods would be close to 300 MHz.
It would be very interesting in how much bandwidth Mike's latest mods really would do.
I do have the latest mod from him but can't test it on my projector as it needs a major setup.
Michael
Man, you guys are persistent. yes at some point, I have stated that my mods could do up to 300mhz. I've even stated and posted the SMPTE showing that they could exceed 300mhz.
And I know why you keep bringing this up, and that is to show a board set that's NOT doing that bandwidth. Two problems with this. One is as much as you guys are out to bash what I do, who would believe you if you posted the test knowing you're also trying to promote other boards? And the second response to this would be that, it has been awhile that I have made such statement. And if you're following what I've even posted in the past two weeks you would find this (read what has been posted previous on this page concerning several times):l |
so you're statements were wrong at that earlier time.
I bought one of your mods on the close to 300 MHz statement.
so you're telling me that it won't do that?
I will find out in a couple of weeks myself. and I'll post the results and observations for sure, either here or on the
other 'forum' I just discovered with the better screenshots.
seems to me your mods aren't even needed when comparing screenshots over there, they seem to be from projectors
without any mods done to them at all , and really old burnt tubes and they look amazing.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mp20748
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 5681
Location: Maryland
TV/Projector: 9500LC Ultra / Super 02 and 03 VIM
|
| Link Posted: Wed May 10, 2017 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nidi wrote: |
so you're statements were wrong at that earlier time.
I bought one of your mods on the close to 300 MHz statement.
so you're telling me that it won't do that? |
You're saying I sold you a set of boards claiming 300mhz?? So now I'm understanding why my defamers have been posting that, and I knew where it was coming from. So now you come out to prove that I've promised you boards that would do 300mhz and you're going to test them to see if that is true. Hmm, not sure why I would make that mistake, when I know for sure those boards would not do that bandwidth. Could I have said may or could?
I haven't tested for 300mhz in years
| Quote: | I will find out in a couple of weeks myself. and I'll post the results and observations for sure, either here or on the
other 'forum' I just discovered with the better screenshots |
You've joined that bandwagon to expose my work as not living up to what I've been claiming. Better still, to join them as the only complaint that my boards can not be better than stock. In fact, you sent me a stock set of neck boards to modify. So I guess from those boards you would know first hand what difference you noticed after putting the modified boards in your projector.
But first let me state some facts concerning this. The original set you sent me, they were never installed, but I had made some changes and gave you an upgrade difference. Do I need to post here what you sent me was the results after you swapped out the stock board for the modified Boards?
I find it really strange that after you noticed an incredible difference, you're now going back to 'believing' the boards made no significant improvement at all. Really strange based on what you yourself reported, have you forgot?
You're sending your boards to the same people who have been on a mission to prove stock boards are better. Do you have any idea how ridiculous this is going to sound once it is known that you sent my boards to my haters to be evaluated.. 
| Quote: | | seems to me your mods aren't even needed when comparing screenshots over there, they seem to be from projectors without any mods done to them at all , and really old burnt tubes and they look amazing. |
You're missing something here, so let me make something clear. The comparison shots that's being posted on the Anti-Mike Parker forum, are shots that I post randomly, not my best but shots I post because I use the forum to look at my shots. They intern copy those shots and post them next to shots that may look better..and keep in mind, I've been making it clear, my projector is neither calibrated or setup properly. So what kind of person would make comparison shots knowing this? So you see why myself and others will not post a persons shot, first without their permission, second knowing the shots are not comparison rated. Seems to be a terrible thing to do to someone knowing what is and has been posted about their shots... yet you somehow bought into the idea that the posted shots would have also come from a matching and also calibrated setup.
Oh and concerning the stock neck boards actually being better??
This is a simple one. let's take a trip back about the past 15 years. Have you ever heard any say before this, that stock boards were better performers than not only my modified boards, but anyone's modified boards over those years?
I really want you to answer this for me, because other than those few who are trying to promote other boards over mine, you may be the only person to say the stock boards are better than modified (anybody).
One other thing, and I want you to take this from someone who know and understand these boards. And that can be confirmed by several engineers, to include Electrohome and VDC. You are questioning me against a many year known fact on the forums, to someone who claims to know nothing about the technical aspects of the circuits. Or could it be because the person pushing the stock boards, are not able to make changes themselves. So stock it is!
By my posting on the condition of my setup, it makes it so that NO ONE should be able to honestly post a comparison shot and it be believed as being FAIR. Would you agree with this. Or did you not know the condition of the shots you've been convinced on?
Do you also know that these same people have posted about using Darby. And that some of those shots some believed to be from a digital projector.
But before I even involve you in proving based on the two manufacturers engineers that has confirmed that I had improved on the stock boards. I would just like to be honest with you as I have been and simply tell you another truth, and that is:
There are 5 problems with the stock boards, that I have not made known but the engineers I mentioned are very aware of them. So you're saying that these same stock boards do not have these problems? And you're also saying based on very false statements that they are better, when you already know for a fact, because this is not the first time you have gotten board from me and have seen the significant difference.
Go right ahead and be used to prove that stock board are better. But if the test has not been fairly and properly done, no truth could be related to the testing. I on the other hand have many that can support the difference.
Stock boards being better. Let me see if I understand what they have been saying about this. You'll need to get about 12 boards, and from them find three that are better out of the 12. If you talk to any engineer on this mod principle, they would laugh. Mainly because if you need 12 boards and out of them there could be a possible 3 that's really good. From a technical perspective, that proves that the stock boards have a problem. So don't fix the problem, find the better boards. And if you know what I know, you would also laugh at this because the three good boards will also have the same problems as the other 8 one day. I just so happen to be in the problem solving business..
Let me know if you'll need to talk to the any of the experts on this nonsense.
Last edited by mp20748 on Thu May 11, 2017 12:13 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mp20748
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 5681
Location: Maryland
TV/Projector: 9500LC Ultra / Super 02 and 03 VIM
|
| Link Posted: Wed May 10, 2017 11:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was looking for where I could have said they would do 300mhz. Couldn't find that but did find this from you:
| Quote: | and yes Mike, the picture IS S U P E R S H A R P!!!
even though my convergence is sh*t right now |
Oh, and I've been mentioning this, but seems like some people won't accept it:
LUG's are a different tube that would require a slightly different drive design in order to get them where they should be. Unlike with a few others, this is not my opinion, this is a technical fact. It is and has been also proven simply because an LUG tube used in a stock Marquee is always softer. That is fact, and is also supported in the right documentation and known by those who understand the difference in the tubes.
Now, my boards will properly drive an LUG tube, and that can be easily proven on how well they bring out background detail. And based on your observation from going from a stock set to my modified boards, you also seem to agree..
Dang, I forgot to mention...
can you point me to anyone who claims to really know and understand the technology, that would use a screenshots as point of serious reference?
Or that would support your presentation on this nonsense below:
"when comparing screenshots over there, they seem to be from projectors without any mods done to them at all , and really old burnt tubes and they look amazing"
Ive said this so many times; Screenshots can ONLY be used as an IDEA of what the image could look like. And from a technical and factual point, they can never be used for comparisons, mainly because you'll be using different cameras, camera skills, setup/calibration and environment. And since this is nearly impossibly to do, that would explain why there could never be used in a fair comparison.
|
|
| 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
