|
As this forum is rarely used anymore, we've locked it. Feel free to browse and read. Questions? Please reach out to us directly. Cheers! |
|
 |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Stonefool
Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 253
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 11:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark_A_W wrote: | | Obviously I know nothing about NECs, and neither does Russ, who help me tweak it (9 hours on astig, with a camera and a laser....he's a bit obsessive). |
The logic of the argument is actually faulty. First I didn't critize your knowledge or experience. Secondly I can only draw conclussion, right or wrong, based on the input data, so if the input is meagre the output follows.
And it doesn't matter how "obsessive" you or your CRT-wizard is, not even as a logical argument (correct by association, like), misstakes gets made, and usually it renders down to a tiny little f*ck-up ... usually, I beleive, because of stress from too high expectations. (Best thing to do is apparently to tell the wizard you can pay for three days full work, and then leave. Hmm ...  )
But, lets say your XG is at fault, pure crap even, that doesn't make your PG eXtra better then your type of XG, because it shouldn't be if your XG is fully functional and healthy through and through. Actually you should be able to run a 1080p video-window, with full width on an even higher resolution desktop, because that's what your XG should be able to handle with a "data/computer-signal", i.e. not the usual so called video-signal. They didn't make the XG's to just be spec:ed higher after all.
_________________
Trying to get everything to work.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Stonefool
Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 253
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| VideoGrabber wrote: | > Point is, HDMI in and of itself, even including the pathetic HDCP, is not all that terrible, <
Oh, certainly it's fantastically wonderful. That's why they're constantly changing it, to be even more wonderful. It's gone through more revisions and "evolved" faster than any standard I can recall. And I like your characterization... "pathetic, but not terrible". Cool. 
> it's the implementation that can be done in more ways then just one <
Oh crap. You had to go and let reality intrude. Yeah, just the minor little thing that you can never be sure when connecting 2 "compatible" devices whether they'll actually work or not. But that's a small inconvenience, and certainly one that should be born by the consumer. No point in having an unambiguous standard from the start, so companies don't go off with their own misconceptions or corner-cutting. And definitely no reason to have any testing and certification process before they slap the label on. That would slow adoption and distribution down. Consumers can do that for you. Then have the "fun" of testing millions of combinations.
The fact is that HDMI is a pathetic failure when it comes to it's primary function of being a plug and play interconnect, that "just works" all the time. Instead, it's plug and pray... the same situation we see in the PC marketplace. Whoops, there I go thinking from the consumer point-of-view again. Its primary function is to be an HDCP carrier, and make sure you DON'T see what you're not authorized to see... even if that means that sometimes you can't see what you ARE supposed to see. Oh well.
I'm sometimes amazed at what consumers are willing to put up with. Even on a "functioning" system, the time to switch sources is annoying to abysmal, while HDCP does its handshaking. What used to be a simple and instantaneous process has turned into a 2-10 second aggravating PITA on every switch. The only reason HDMI/HDCP will "succeed" (and it certainly will) is because it's the only game in town, and because consumers don't have the balls to "just say no" to user-hostile protection mechanisms.
And that ends my off-topic rant for the day.  |
Just because it's not all terrible doesn't mean it's fanstaticall. The problem with using a CRT with HDMI sources isn't so much HDMI, but the implementation of HDMI, due to the fact that most of the add ons for converting HDMI to Analog has been using DVI and DVI specs. And even though manufaturers of sources outputting a HDMI signal "should" make the HDMI fully compatible with DVI they, the manufacturers of the sources players/recievers etcetera, didn't, because legally there's no need to, no matter what the specs says, and by not making stuff backwards compatible with "old" stuf you get fewer headaches.
So, HDMI works as it should with an HDFury, as long as the implementation of the HDMI in the source player is according to proper spec, being backwards compatible, and all the hdmi-specific bells and whisles can be turned off. (Assuming the HDFury is fully funtional, of course.)
And unless you have kick ass analog hardware feeding the signal, HDMI will render you a better picture.
_________________
Trying to get everything to work.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Person99
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4899
Location: Flower Mound, TX
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| VideoGrabber wrote: | > Point is, HDMI in and of itself, even including the pathetic HDCP, is not all that terrible, <
Oh, certainly it's fantastically wonderful. That's why they're constantly changing it, to be even more wonderful. It's gone through more revisions and "evolved" faster than any standard I can recall. And I like your characterization... "pathetic, but not terrible". Cool. |
This speaks more to fact that it was inappropriately rushed to market than it does its current state.
| VideoGrabber wrote: | > it's the implementation that can be done in more ways then just one <
Oh crap. You had to go and let reality intrude. Yeah, just the minor little thing that you can never be sure when connecting 2 "compatible" devices whether they'll actually work or not. But that's a small inconvenience, and certainly one that should be born by the consumer. |
I realize this is still the argument against HDMI, but really? This happened several years ago in its infancy, but I've seen very little of this of later. Joe and Jane Sixpack going to best buy today to get their flat panel, HDMI DVD or BD player, and hooking up to their cable box via HDMI most likely won't have these problems. They still exist, but a very much a minority.
As for me, I've had several HDMI sources in my house and several DVI (HDCP) and HDMI digi projectors as well as every digital to analog converter device that has been available save moome's most recent ones. Additionally, I've helped about a dozen people select A/V gear withing the last year or so and helped set up 5 or 6 of those. None with HDMI problems. Obviously, this is only anecdotal evidence, but I think the "HDMI doesn't work" is a dead horse.
Hell, the problems I've had with firewire in the A/V work make HDMI look like a cakewalk! 
_________________
Dave
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Electrogeek
Joined: 03 Aug 2007
Posts: 104
Location: Hamilton New Zealand
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 2:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
HDCP is the worst thing ever, and i mean ever
do you know i cannot place an HD DVD on my laptop (even on the internal display) with a non HDCP complain display (Like my VGA LCD) plugged in (ARGH!!!)
_________________
I have found a use for compact fluorescents hehe
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark_A_W
Joined: 15 Mar 2006
Posts: 3068
Location: Sunny Melbourne Australia
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 2:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Stonefool wrote: | | Mark_A_W wrote: | | Obviously I know nothing about NECs, and neither does Russ, who help me tweak it (9 hours on astig, with a camera and a laser....he's a bit obsessive). |
The logic of the argument is actually faulty. First I didn't critize your knowledge or experience. Secondly I can only draw conclussion, right or wrong, based on the input data, so if the input is meagre the output follows.
And it doesn't matter how "obsessive" you or your CRT-wizard is, not even as a logical argument (correct by association, like), misstakes gets made, and usually it renders down to a tiny little f*ck-up ... usually, I beleive, because of stress from too high expectations. (Best thing to do is apparently to tell the wizard you can pay for three days full work, and then leave. Hmm ... )
But, lets say your XG is at fault, pure crap even, that doesn't make your PG eXtra better then your type of XG, because it shouldn't be if your XG is fully functional and healthy through and through. Actually you should be able to run a 1080p video-window, with full width on an even higher resolution desktop, because that's what your XG should be able to handle with a "data/computer-signal", i.e. not the usual so called video-signal. They didn't make the XG's to just be spec:ed higher after all.
|
Do you (or have you) actually own an XG LC and a PG Xtra?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VideoGrabber
Joined: 09 Apr 2006
Posts: 933
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 2:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dave,
I agree that the major problems with HDMI were earlier, and things have been improving. That doesn't mean that it doesn't have a (well deserved) black-eye as a result. But you're right that it's not as bad as the "bad old days".
OTOH, I still consider it a problem/deficiency/whatever if, even when it works, it takes more than 1 second to negotiate and authorize... which is almost always.
_________________
- Tim
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WanMan
Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 10270
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 9:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've owned standalone Blu-ray and HD DVD players and the PS3 and while using HDMI-equipped displays (and using analog-only {GE Imager 601s} with HDfury solutions) and have never run into a single HDCP negotiation issue, or one where I was actually aware of any sort of delay. HDMI cabling transports have been a non-problem for me. I am not seeing this becoming a problem either, but you never know.
_________________
Trust no one. Absolutely no one. Advice of the board.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Person99
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4899
Location: Flower Mound, TX
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Electrogeek wrote: | HDCP is the worst thing ever, and i mean ever
do you know i cannot place an HD DVD on my laptop (even on the internal display) with a non HDCP complain display (Like my VGA LCD) plugged in (ARGH!!!) |
Be pissed off at the thieves. If people had morals and would not steal, they would not have to try to protect the content. It always amazes me that people get mad at the wrong people.
_________________
Dave
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Electrogeek
Joined: 03 Aug 2007
Posts: 104
Location: Hamilton New Zealand
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
if copyright was used to encourage creativity rather then pad produces bottom line i'd be happy too...
_________________
I have found a use for compact fluorescents hehe
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Person99
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4899
Location: Flower Mound, TX
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Electrogeek wrote: | | if copyright was used to encourage creativity rather then pad produces bottom line i'd be happy too... |
So, because the CEO of BMW is rich and the owner of the BMW dealership is rich, it is OK for you to go steal a car off the lot.
IP is property. IP requires work and effort. Copyright is indented to give the creator of the original work the rights to control it including things like who may perform the work, who my profit from it, etc. Unfortunately, by making it easy for someone to excersize their fair use rights you make it easy for thieves to steal. Search the internet for music and movies and see just how many thieves there are! So, how can you possibly be mad at the copyright holder for wanting the rights to control their work. I have pretty easy fair use with a BD disc. I can play it on any player in my house, I can take it to a friends, etc. Are there some sacrifices that I have to make because of the thieves? Sure, I can't legally copy it to a server.
But, in the same way you are mad at the copyright holder for protecting his or her rights with HDCP, I assume you are mad at that BMW lot owner for using a lock and chain to protect his cars.
_________________
Dave
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stonefool
Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 253
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark_A_W wrote: | | Stonefool wrote: | | Mark_A_W wrote: | | Obviously I know nothing about NECs, and neither does Russ, who help me tweak it (9 hours on astig, with a camera and a laser....he's a bit obsessive). |
The logic of the argument is actually faulty. First I didn't critize your knowledge or experience. Secondly I can only draw conclussion, right or wrong, based on the input data, so if the input is meagre the output follows.
And it doesn't matter how "obsessive" you or your CRT-wizard is, not even as a logical argument (correct by association, like), misstakes gets made, and usually it renders down to a tiny little f*ck-up ... usually, I beleive, because of stress from too high expectations. (Best thing to do is apparently to tell the wizard you can pay for three days full work, and then leave. Hmm ... )
But, lets say your XG is at fault, pure crap even, that doesn't make your PG eXtra better then your type of XG, because it shouldn't be if your XG is fully functional and healthy through and through. Actually you should be able to run a 1080p video-window, with full width on an even higher resolution desktop, because that's what your XG should be able to handle with a "data/computer-signal", i.e. not the usual so called video-signal. They didn't make the XG's to just be spec:ed higher after all.
|
Do you (or have you) actually own an XG LC and a PG Xtra? |
Usually this type of question is only ask to, by a logical fallacy, disqualify a person in a debate, but if it turns out the person "seems to have the education/knowledge" a whole battery of follow up questions is used to try to ... "disqualify" the person's arguments.
But since I am me, I think I actually already answered this one indirectly. I don't own an XG, never have and probably never will, and I don't currently know anyone who still does own an XG of any version.
PG+ was my first CRT, and the only NEC I've tinkered with myself, and the "Xtra" versions I have only viewed passing by.
Does this disqualify me from stating the obvious, that an XG LC in good health should be better than a PG Xtra?
If you convert a non-LC XG, that is better than a PG Xtra, to an XG-LC that then makes it worse than said PG Xtra, probability probably dictates: You messed up somewhere. And from my own experience with owning multiple CRTs at one time, one that are supposed to outdo a lesser one but actually don't has always been because I didn't use the exact same cables and/or source hardware between them. Hence the base of my reasoning.
But hey, maybe the liquid wasn't pure, or original. Or the lenses not properly cleaned before the liquid went in. But I think most people actually make sure nothing is f*ck*** up in that process. 
_________________
Trying to get everything to work.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Electrogeek
Joined: 03 Aug 2007
Posts: 104
Location: Hamilton New Zealand
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 2:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
No, just no! you dont steel the car! (twit, you have missed the point!) however, if they come up with a new way to stop it crashing, why should they be the only people allowed to use it????? Sure, they should be allowed to profit from it for a reasonable period in order to insure they are able to continue R&D, however, preventing people from using the idea, or even coming up with it independently is wrong, Read that W. R. O. N. G. this kind of thinking impedes the growth of the human of the human race, if people did not patent software, we would have software now that could do everything we wanted (be feature complete for its task), not needing multiple bits of software for different tasks. perhaps a complete tool for setting up a crt?
I am not saying no copyright so i can copy movies... that is bad (just to be clear) i am however saying, if i want to use a mouse in a story i damn well should be allowed too.
PS. if the copyright we use now existed when Shakespeare was alive, we would have none, read NONE of his work, all his work was based on that of others.... jsut something to think about...
_________________
I have found a use for compact fluorescents hehe
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WanMan
Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 10270
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 10:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Folks, take the stealing and morals argument elsewhere, please.
_________________
Trust no one. Absolutely no one. Advice of the board.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SisterOfMercy
Joined: 31 Oct 2007
Posts: 155
Location: Zwart Nazareth, The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, somebody needs to be reported to the Analogy Police!
_________________
The kissing and the colour come crashing down
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Electrogeek
Joined: 03 Aug 2007
Posts: 104
Location: Hamilton New Zealand
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry, wrong place wrong time....
_________________
I have found a use for compact fluorescents hehe
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spanky Ham
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 5643
Location: Comedy Central
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Stonefool"] | Mark_A_W wrote: | | Stonefool wrote: |
Do you mean that your PG can resolve more then your XG? If this is true then it has nothing to do with the video processor, first and foremost. An XG will outperform a PG even with the XG having more wear and tear, so to speak, on the tubes. All you have to do is making sure everything is working as it should, and that the electro magnetic focus of the tubes is at least acceptable ... hmm simple huh?  Better let some super CRT-PJ nerd set up your XG first, before you spend money on a VP.
Actually a video processor, like the DVDO/IScan or Lumagen, isn't that much of well use. Because after a couple of years all you want to use is the scaler and framrate conversion but use the better "video processing" of the source player. I guess this depends much on what you kind of source players you use and there internal chipsets/processors ... There are after all still players with the VXP chipset that you can couple with extra external hardware, that ends up doing the same thing for less the price. But if you prefer a one in all unit thingy you should have a look at the Crystalio II VPS 3100/3300/3800 -- with the 3800 you don't only get two different VP chipset, VXP and DCDi, but also USB 2.0, Tbase-100, and internal Harddrive.
But of course, first make sure the XG outperforms the PG with your current source hardware, because it should. |
| Quote: |
My PG Xtra was sharper than my XG LC.
It's an LC thing.
The XG LC looks sharper for video (LC clarity beats AC haze), but test patterns show that the Xtra was sharper (and the XG was sharper before I converted it to LC).
|
Can you exclude that you screwed things up when you converted your XG to LC?
Of course to actually know if one "lesser" machine is better then a "higher-end" machin you need to know that all the details are in proper order, like the tubes being clean, lenses are stellar (pref original to each machine), all the proper tweaks have been done on both sets of tube assemblys, etc.
You also need to know that all the boards are on board, so to speak, working as they should within specs.
You also need to use the same cables and source hardware to drive both, and of course and all of that drives the source should be stellar as well.
So, maybe there's a perfectly good reason for why your PG was sharper then your XG.
|
| Stonefool wrote: | | Mark_A_W wrote: | | Stonefool wrote: | | Mark_A_W wrote: | | Obviously I know nothing about NECs, and neither does Russ, who help me tweak it (9 hours on astig, with a camera and a laser....he's a bit obsessive). |
The logic of the argument is actually faulty. First I didn't critize your knowledge or experience. Secondly I can only draw conclussion, right or wrong, based on the input data, so if the input is meagre the output follows.
And it doesn't matter how "obsessive" you or your CRT-wizard is, not even as a logical argument (correct by association, like), misstakes gets made, and usually it renders down to a tiny little f*ck-up ... usually, I beleive, because of stress from too high expectations. (Best thing to do is apparently to tell the wizard you can pay for three days full work, and then leave. Hmm ... )
But, lets say your XG is at fault, pure crap even, that doesn't make your PG eXtra better then your type of XG, because it shouldn't be if your XG is fully functional and healthy through and through. Actually you should be able to run a 1080p video-window, with full width on an even higher resolution desktop, because that's what your XG should be able to handle with a "data/computer-signal", i.e. not the usual so called video-signal. They didn't make the XG's to just be spec:ed higher after all.
|
Do you (or have you) actually own an XG LC and a PG Xtra? |
Usually this type of question is only ask to, by a logical fallacy, disqualify a person in a debate, but if it turns out the person "seems to have the education/knowledge" a whole battery of follow up questions is used to try to ... "disqualify" the person's arguments.
But since I am me, I think I actually already answered this one indirectly. I don't own an XG, never have and probably never will, and I don't currently know anyone who still does own an XG of any version.
PG+ was my first CRT, and the only NEC I've tinkered with myself, and the "Xtra" versions I have only viewed passing by.
Does this disqualify me from stating the obvious, that an XG LC in good health should be better than a PG Xtra?
If you convert a non-LC XG, that is better than a PG Xtra, to an XG-LC that then makes it worse than said PG Xtra, probability probably dictates: You messed up somewhere. And from my own experience with owning multiple CRTs at one time, one that are supposed to outdo a lesser one but actually don't has always been because I didn't use the exact same cables and/or source hardware between them. Hence the base of my reasoning.
But hey, maybe the liquid wasn't pure, or original. Or the lenses not properly cleaned before the liquid went in. But I think most people actually make sure nothing is f*ck*** up in that process. |
I believe more than one test has been done and found that corner focus on a LC is worse than an AC. It has been awhile, but I believe my XG LC didn't focus as well in the corners as my PG9+.
In your post, you make the assumption that an XG is automatically better than a PG. While that may be true, the difference may not be as great as you believe. From talking with tse, advances in CRT tech for pjs pretty much stopped in the late 90s. Of course, the only way to really know is to do some tests. The best test for sharpness is MTF, but I think tse is the only one capable of doing that on this board. Having seen him test a 9500, I think you would be surprised at how close the NECs probably are and how low in comparison to digital that CRT is.
As for Mark making mistakes on his LC conversion, that is news to me. I followed his build and don't remember any major issues, but maybe you can enlighten me.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
benareeno
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 1614
Location: ottawa, canada
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
All Mark said is that the Xtra was sharper...doesn't mean it's better. Sharpness is not the the be all end all of a picture. I'd take the increased contrast ratio any time! And as he indicated...test patterns are where the sharpness increase was visible...probably not while watching a movie.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kschmit2
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 1141
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Stonefool,
I don't know what your point is, but it has always been the case that a properly set up PG Xtra will have better sharpness in test patterns than a properly set up XG LC.
Between the PG Xtra and an XG AC it is somewhat more complicated. The XG has slightly more inherent signal noise, in an otherwise slightly superior circuit. The result is that perceived sharpness is about equal between those two models, and again higher than the XG LC.
This assumes that the AC models use either HD-144 or HD-145 lenses (both lens models were available as options on both the PG Xtra and the XG AC).
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nashou66
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Posts: 16171
Location: West Seneca NY
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't know what all the fuss is about sharpness, I was thinking about this the other day while walking in the mall shopping for Xmass. Looking around at the sights there is not a real "sharpness" to objects at any distance with natural eyesight. And yes I can see fine But I think you know what I mean, I have seen some digital's that were too sharp, PJ's and flat screens, they objects looked two dimensional but in a three dimensional scene, so it looks like you have those card board cutout pictures at different distances from you. So I agree that sharpness isn't everything in a display. Shadow and color gradation details will give a more life Like Image than Sharpness.
Athanasios
_________________
Don't blame your underwear for your crooked ass~ unknown Greek philosopher
"Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15." --- President Reagan
One Smart Dog!!!
Marquee High Performance Bellows now shipping!!
Marquee Modifications and Performance Enhancement
Marquee C-element and Bellow removal
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WanMan
Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 10270
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nashou66 wrote: | I don't know what all the fuss is about sharpness, I was thinking about this the other day while walking in the mall shopping for Xmass. Looking around at the sights there is not a real "sharpness" to objects at any distance with natural eyesight. And yes I can see fine But I think you know what I mean, I have seen some digital's that were too sharp, PJ's and flat screens, they objects looked two dimensional but in a three dimensional scene, so it looks like you have those card board cutout pictures at different distances from you. So I agree that sharpness isn't everything in a display. Shadow and color gradation details will give a more life Like Image than Sharpness.
Athanasios |
Maybe your eyes are getting older and not focusing quickly enough.
_________________
Trust no one. Absolutely no one. Advice of the board.
|
|
| 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
|
|
