|
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 |
CIR Engineering
Joined: 25 Aug 2008
Posts: 4269
Location: Chicago USA & Berlin Germany
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Axatax wrote: | | Quote: | | I use 1080i 120 Hz on lot of projectors and it's not radical at all. It is the exact same bandwidth as 1080p 60 Hz. The advantage of 1080i 120 is that if you have a video processor that can do IVTC then you will have zero judder on film and US video. 120 is an even multiple of both 24 and 60 |
This would also mean going back to analog connections from the VP to the PJ. No problem unless you're trying to interface a BDP, etc. to the processor via HDMI (necessitating another black box). |
I run this through DVI / HDMI all the time. It's no problem as the BW requirements are no more than 1080p 60 Hz. Only negative on the Lumagen is that it can't "GenLock" at 120 Hz, but that isn't a big deal really.
craigr
_________________
JETI 1501-HiRes 2nm Spectroradiometer
JETI 1211 Spectroradiometer
Photo Research PR-650 Spectroradiometer
Klein K10-A Colorimeter
Murideo Fresco SIX-G HDMI 2.x Multimedia Generator
Murideo Fresco SIX-A HDMI 2.x Analyzer
Light Illusion ColourSpace XPT Color Calibration Software
Light Illusion LightSpace XPT Pro Version 10.x Color Calibration Software
OMARDRIS JVC Software Patch to use K10-A and Jeti with JVC OEM AutoCal Software!
Sencore CR7000 CRT Tube Analyzer / Rejuvenater
Authorized Dealer for Lumagen & just about everything worth buying 
www.CIR-Engineering.com - craigr@cir-engineering.com
Phone: 865-405-6892
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CIR Engineering
Joined: 25 Aug 2008
Posts: 4269
Location: Chicago USA & Berlin Germany
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Person99 wrote: | My two cents on the 60 Hz judder thing. Folks in the NTSC contries have grown up watching judder. Just like a bad smell in your house that you eventually become desensitized to, I think most people in NTSC areas just don't see the judder unless it is pointed out to them with just the right scene.
Now, those in PAL-land like our pal Mark have not grown up watching judder. They have seen smooth film their whole lives be it on TV or in the theater. To these folks (and some of us anal f*ckers), judder sticks out like a sore thumb.
If you are in the U.S. and judder does not bother you--don't worry about it. It is about your fun and enjoyment. If you are not sure judder bothers you, try to find a way to compare judder-less to judder full and see if you want to go that route. |
I totally agree!
This is synonymous to folks in PAL countries NOT being bothered by flicker. I see lots of folks in PAL countries claim that they like 48 Hz on CRT projectors. I look at 48 Hz and can't stand the flicker for an instant on any CRT.
I travel back and forth to Germany a lot for extended periods of time. Whenever I first get there, the PAL flicker drives me nuts. After a month, I have to force myself to notice the flicker if I want to see it.
craigr
_________________
JETI 1501-HiRes 2nm Spectroradiometer
JETI 1211 Spectroradiometer
Photo Research PR-650 Spectroradiometer
Klein K10-A Colorimeter
Murideo Fresco SIX-G HDMI 2.x Multimedia Generator
Murideo Fresco SIX-A HDMI 2.x Analyzer
Light Illusion ColourSpace XPT Color Calibration Software
Light Illusion LightSpace XPT Pro Version 10.x Color Calibration Software
OMARDRIS JVC Software Patch to use K10-A and Jeti with JVC OEM AutoCal Software!
Sencore CR7000 CRT Tube Analyzer / Rejuvenater
Authorized Dealer for Lumagen & just about everything worth buying
www.CIR-Engineering.com - craigr@cir-engineering.com
Phone: 865-405-6892
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark_A_W
Joined: 15 Mar 2006
Posts: 3068
Location: Sunny Melbourne Australia
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 18, 2008 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
48 or 50hz flicker (as well as the cinemas) gives me epilepsy...
I just tried 1920x802 at 71.928hz on my XG. Look basically identical to 1920x1080i at 95.904hz, for scope movies anyway.
I could STILL see scanlines in whites, so I went back to the interlaced res. They both look good.
And yes, I don't think all 3:2 pulldown is performed equally. My mates HD-DVD player is smoother at 60hz than his PC at 60hz. But the PC or VP-50 at 48hz was smoother again.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VideoGrabber
Joined: 09 Apr 2006
Posts: 933
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 19, 2008 11:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Person99 commented:
> You are overestimating the impact of that 33% loss in resolution. Couple things: resolution is definately one of those "diminishing returns" categories. Image brightness, shadow detail, and color accuracy all are more important than sheer resolution in terms of overall realism of the image. Is there a big difference between 480p and 1080p? Hell yes. Between 720p (let alone 1440x960) and 1080p--not so much.
Further, not all resolution is created equal. decreases in horizontal resolution are less noticeable than decreases in vertical resolution. Your G70 is not handling all of the 1920 (you probably have an effective resolution around 1600-1700 horizontal), but it still looks good. 1440x960 has a vertical resolution 89% of the original--pretty much unnoticable. The less important horizontal is downscaled to 75% of the original width--again pretty much unnoticable on content. <
Hey, Dave! That's not what you were saying a few months back, when you were lamenting how doing CIH @2.35 on a CRT was throwing away too much rez on 16:9 content. That was dropping you right at 1440 horizontal.
What changed your mind?
_________________
- Tim
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MYoung
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 369
Location: Madison, WI
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark_A_W wrote: |
Don't run 1080p 60hz. It judders (are you guys blind?).
|
I'm not blind. I agree about the juddering at 60Hz. To my eyes, getting rid of judder gives it that extra cinematic feel. With judder it's like watching a movie on TV. 1080p @ 48Hz for me thanks to my Lumagen VisionHDP. WanMan, what about getting a VisionHDP and playing with resolutions and refresh rates to find what you like the most for your set?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WanMan
Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 10270
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 1:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Its an option, and not a terribly expensive one. Its funny how one can go from discussing the pros and cons of the display to the pros and cons of the processor.
_________________
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: Mon Oct 20, 2008 3:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| VideoGrabber wrote: |
Hey, Dave! That's not what you were saying a few months back, when you were lamenting how doing CIH @2.35 on a CRT was throwing away too much rez on 16:9 content. That was dropping you right at 1440 horizontal. |
IIRC, the vertical was being dropped to 600 or so from 1080 on 16:9 content. That was the biggest objection I had.
There is also light output for 16:9 stuff on the CRT that is also a CIH problem.
_________________
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: Thu Oct 23, 2008 11:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I do own an NEC XG135LC
|
Should be able to do 1080p with up to date hardware feeding the signal. Sure the sweet spot was 960p, was, back in the day. But now you have have full access to HDMI, a good and proper boosted signal, which all make a big difference, depending on the health of your tubes mostly, but the hardware has the capacity to through a "Full-HD" picture.
If an 6PG+, from 1994, actually can resolve more lines with better hardware feeding the signal, then what _was_ the so called accepted sweet spot, then it would suprise me if an XG135s sweet spot today is only about a 100 more lines. It should stand to reason that the XG135 can through a proper 1080p "sweet spot" picture with todays source hardware ... depending mostly on the health of the tubes, which assumes the PJ's hardware are healthy.
Correct me if I'm wrong, because if I am wrong why would any one buy an XG today.
_________________
Trying to get everything to work.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nashou66
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Posts: 16171
Location: West Seneca NY
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Person99 wrote: | | VideoGrabber wrote: |
Hey, Dave! That's not what you were saying a few months back, when you were lamenting how doing CIH @2.35 on a CRT was throwing away too much rez on 16:9 content. That was dropping you right at 1440 horizontal. |
IIRC, the vertical was being dropped to 600 or so from 1080 on 16:9 content. That was the biggest objection I had.
There is also light output for 16:9 stuff on the CRT that is also a CIH problem. |
Not if you plan to blend !
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 |
|
|
Elaine Benes
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
Posts: 1416
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Stonefool wrote: | | why would any one buy an XG today. |
Have you tried to SELL an XG lately ?
Pretty much NO ONE is buying XG's these days....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WanMan
Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 10270
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 11:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Stonefool wrote: | | Quote: |
I do own an NEC XG135LC
|
Should be able to do 1080p with up to date hardware feeding the signal. Sure the sweet spot was 960p, was, back in the day. But now you have have full access to HDMI, a good and proper boosted signal, which all make a big difference, depending on the health of your tubes mostly, but the hardware has the capacity to through a "Full-HD" picture.
If an 6PG+, from 1994, actually can resolve more lines with better hardware feeding the signal, then what _was_ the so called accepted sweet spot, then it would suprise me if an XG135s sweet spot today is only about a 100 more lines. It should stand to reason that the XG135 can through a proper 1080p "sweet spot" picture with todays source hardware ... depending mostly on the health of the tubes, which assumes the PJ's hardware are healthy.
Correct me if I'm wrong, because if I am wrong why would any one buy an XG today. |
Point taken. So, who is running 1920x1080P on an XG1351/2LC and how are they achieving this? Are they using an outboard video processor, built a dedicated HTPC for BD playback, installed custom electronics (e.g. Moome card), modified onboard electronics?
_________________
Trust no one. Absolutely no one. Advice of the board.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil Smith
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 7717
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
1080p was a little soft on my G70. 1080i looked better to me.
None of the deficiencies of my pj would bother me until Dave would come over and point them out.  
Ferret, I can't imagine you not being happy with the XG.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't run 1080i on my G70; I hate the obvious scan lines. I mean, they're REALLY obvious. Yes, I could defocus, change my spot shape, etc. I would, except for the fact that 1080p looks incredible! Is it fully resolved? No. Do I care? No. I have a gorgeously-rendered film-like image with none of the image artifacts I find so distracting - pixels, aliasing, and scan lines. It literally looks almost like 35mm film. I can see film grain and phosphor grain, but nothing else.
To be fair, I do sit pretty close to my screen - 9' +/- from an 8' wide screen. Frankly, it's a little large for 16:9 material, but it's perfect for scope @ 96x40 - the vast majority of what I watch in my theater.
From everything I've heard and read, the XG LC and G70 are very comparable machines. If so, and the XG is in very good to excellent condition, then I think you should be able to make a 1080p pic you'll be pretty happy with. Maybe not fully resolved, but then you're not spending $5-7000 on a nice 9" machine, either.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stonefool
Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 253
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| WanMan wrote: | | Stonefool wrote: | | Quote: |
I do own an NEC XG135LC
|
Should be able to do 1080p with up to date hardware feeding the signal. Sure the sweet spot was 960p, was, back in the day. But now you have have full access to HDMI, a good and proper boosted signal, which all make a big difference, depending on the health of your tubes mostly, but the hardware has the capacity to through a "Full-HD" picture.
If an 6PG+, from 1994, actually can resolve more lines with better hardware feeding the signal, then what _was_ the so called accepted sweet spot, then it would suprise me if an XG135s sweet spot today is only about a 100 more lines. It should stand to reason that the XG135 can through a proper 1080p "sweet spot" picture with todays source hardware ... depending mostly on the health of the tubes, which assumes the PJ's hardware are healthy.
Correct me if I'm wrong, because if I am wrong why would any one buy an XG today. |
Point taken. So, who is running 1920x1080P on an XG1351/2LC and how are they achieving this? Are they using an outboard video processor, built a dedicated HTPC for BD playback, installed custom electronics (e.g. Moome card), modified onboard electronics? |
Who? Don't know any one who owns an XG today, but that wasn't the point. The point, how ever badly delivered, was that what was the sweet spot of yester day was with yester days source hardware.
I'm terrible att explaingin things, so I'm sorry about that,
But let's put this way, if I can, today, resolve more then 720p @ 75 Hz on my very well used paperweight for Barco 708s, which has obvious limits since it is an ES focus machine, but I couldn't do that a couple of years ago even with a couple of thousand hours less use on the tubes. And the only thing that I have changed has been to update the source hardware.
I'm not a electronic techie wizard, but to me, it points to that the source hardware hasn't been able to diliver what the PJ can actually handle, i.e. the resolution it can actually resolve with the proper source hardware. (All the very very rich peeps have no say in this, because the rest of us couldn't buy your kind of hardware "yesterday".
I hope I made my point though, that what kind of resolution a PJ can through so much depends on the quality of the source hardware. (Ehm, a few hundred words later it all makes sence in just a handfull of words, shite ... )
_________________
Trying to get everything to work.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil Smith
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 7717
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 12:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | I don't run 1080i on my G70; I hate the obvious scan lines. I mean, they're REALLY obvious. Yes, I could defocus, change my spot shape, etc. I would, except for the fact that 1080p looks incredible! Is it fully resolved? No. Do I care? No. I have a gorgeously-rendered film-like image with none of the image artifacts I find so distracting - pixels, aliasing, and scan lines. It literally looks almost like 35mm film. I can see film grain and phosphor grain, but nothing else.
To be fair, I do sit pretty close to my screen - 9' +/- from an 8' wide screen. Frankly, it's a little large for 16:9 material, but it's perfect for scope @ 96x40 - the vast majority of what I watch in my theater.
From everything I've heard and read, the XG LC and G70 are very comparable machines. If so, and the XG is in very good to excellent condition, then I think you should be able to make a 1080p pic you'll be pretty happy with. Maybe not fully resolved, but then you're not spending $5-7000 on a nice 9" machine, either.
SC |
My G70 may not have focused as well as yours (lots of hours on it). Plus, I sat about 1.5 back. 1080i looked very nice.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nashou66
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Posts: 16171
Location: West Seneca NY
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VideoGrabber
Joined: 09 Apr 2006
Posts: 933
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 1:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Person99 wrote:
>IIRC, the vertical was being dropped to 600 or so from 1080 on 16:9 content. That was the biggest objection I had. <
Thanks for the response, Dave. Actually, it was 820p. CIH means the same vertical for all ARs. You didn't want to shrink 1080 for 1.78 down to 820, to match 2.35, because of the 25% "loss of rez".
> There is also light output for 16:9 stuff on the CRT that is also a CIH problem. <
It could be, though I haven't heard Gary M. complain about that. Perhaps he just doesn't watch much 16:9.
_________________
- Tim
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VideoGrabber
Joined: 09 Apr 2006
Posts: 933
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 1:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
> Also found some screen shots of mikes XG at 1080p72hz <
Yeah, those are really 'orrible.
_________________
- Tim
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nashou66
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Posts: 16171
Location: West Seneca NY
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VideoGrabber
Joined: 09 Apr 2006
Posts: 933
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
> Come on they are not that bad <
Just in case you didn't catch the grin, I was kidding.
_________________
- Tim
|
|
| 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
|
|
