|
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 |
Person99
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4899
Location: Flower Mound, TX
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| VideoGrabber wrote: | 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". |
Actually, there is no way to interlace a resolution like 820 with most HT equipment. Thus, it will have to be progressive. In that small of a raster, it would take a 9" machine to do 820 really resolved. So, the only way to get this sharp is going to be downscaling below 700 vertical lines. Still not that bad. But honestly, my thoughts these days are with a CRTs poor ANSI CR, I like to make it up with resolution!  My current thinking is that on high ANSI CR machines, resolution actually becomes less important.
| VideoGrabber wrote: | > 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. |
1) Gary has stated that just about all he watches is 2.35:1 content.
2) Have you seen Gary's set up? It is a tiny room with a tiny screen. I don't even think his CIH screen is 8' wide.
3) It's Gary.
_________________
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 |
|
 |
VideoGrabber
Joined: 09 Apr 2006
Posts: 933
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
> Actually, there is no way to interlace a resolution like 820 with most HT equipment. <
??? Mark_A_W has no problem with it, and does so regularly. I managed to do it in the test I tried with a Radeon HD2400pro. The DVDO VP50 can also handle Active Area Scanning in interlaced mode (any line count, frame-locked up to 72 Hz currently, though I'm trying to convince them to enable 96i, since the hardware can handle it). The Lumagen HDP, unfortunately, can not. When I discussed it with Jim, he didn't seem to think anything other than 1080i was justifiable.
> My current thinking is that on high ANSI CR machines, resolution actually becomes less important. <
Thanks for that info, Dave. I value your perspectives, and appreciate your sharing them.
_________________
- Tim
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Person99
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4899
Location: Flower Mound, TX
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| VideoGrabber wrote: | > Actually, there is no way to interlace a resolution like 820 with most HT equipment. <
??? Mark_A_W has no problem with it, and does so regularly. I managed to do it in the test I tried with a Radeon HD2400pro. The DVDO VP50 can also handle Active Area Scanning in interlaced mode (any line count, frame-locked up to 72 Hz currently, though I'm trying to convince them to enable 96i, since the hardware can handle it). The Lumagen HDP, unfortunately, can not. When I discussed it with Jim, he didn't seem to think anything other than 1080i was justifiable. |
I said "most HT equipment" because HTPC is still in the minority but should have noted it. The VP50 can do it as I understand but have not played with it. BTW, I had the same talk with Jim and I think he is right. Even 1080i is becoming less and less necessary to support. In 5 years, 1080i will be one of the antiquated things.
_________________
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 |
|
|
Axatax
Joined: 01 Nov 2006
Posts: 403
TV/Projector: Sony VPH-G70Q (aka Barco Cine8 Onyx)
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | In 5 years, 1080i will be one of the antiquated things. |
'Cept for that pesky ATSC thing.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Electrogeek
Joined: 03 Aug 2007
Posts: 104
Location: Hamilton New Zealand
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
is it sad that i am fairly fond of my Sony-VPH 1020 made sometime in the late 80's (which, among other things, has near new tubes in it, is small enough that it lives on the roof in my living room and having no fans, it completely silent in operation hehe)
_________________
I have found a use for compact fluorescents hehe
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MikeEby
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 5237
Location: Osceola, Indiana
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
About the only thing I can say I don't like about my XG is it's louder then hell, so plan on a hush box. I bought it in 2002 as a b-stock and paid top dollar about $5K. If I would have bought a digital at the time I would probably been on my 2nd or 3rd replacement unit and would have a much higher TOC. When the thing dies I will probably replace it with digital but until then I'm going to hold on to it.
I was considering a blend but with the economy as it is and all the work involved in retrofitting the my theater I'm going to hold off on that idea for now. I have been reading Dave's CIH thread and it looks like it might be the way to go in a year or two.
Mike
_________________
Doing HD since the last century!
Last edited by MikeEby on Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WanMan
Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 10270
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I still see a tremendous difference between my 8 year old CRT RPTV and 5 year old used CRT projector (GE 601/NEC 6PG) and the 2 year old LCD flat-panel. Both the CRTs still beat it hands down for contrast ratio and black levels, and they are no where in the same class as the XG. It wasn't anything of PQ concern, but shear resolving power.
Now that some have provided feedback on this aspect I am going to hang it and spend $1-1.5K on a VP and see how well someone can set it up for me.
_________________
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: Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Axatax wrote: | | Quote: | | In 5 years, 1080i will be one of the antiquated things. |
'Cept for that pesky ATSC thing. |
Well, the big question is if the providers are all going to start de-interlacing it and sending it out 1080p. There seems to be some going that direction. The number of people who get their HD OTA is not huge.
But, you actually seem to have missed my point. The real point was that within 5 years, the percentage of displays that are capable of natively rendering 1080i and are set up to do such will likely be less than 5% of the displays (if I was a betting man, I'd say less than 2%). It will primarily be the HD CRT RPTVs still in use by early adopters. But even a number of them will have moved on. That leaves CRT projectors. It is likely that the vast majority of CRT projectors in use in 5 years (which will be a very tiny number) will primarily be machines capable of a good 1080p.
Given the above and the fact that CRT projectors are the only display technology at all that can handle interlaced resolutions other than 1080i and their numbers are falling, I agree with Jim that it makes little sense for a VP to bother with outputting interlaced resolutions other than 1080i. Even 1080i output will not be used much as the vast majority will want to display progressively and have their VP do the deinterlacing.
_________________
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 |
|
|
Person99
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4899
Location: Flower Mound, TX
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MikeEby wrote: | | About the only thing I can say I don't like about my XG is it's louder then hell, so plan on a hush box. I bought it in 2002 as a b-stock and paid top dollar about $5K. If I would have bought a digital at the time I would probably been on my 2nd or 3rd replacement unit and would have a much higher TOC. |
Actually, you did not pay top dollar. You got a smokin' deal then! Secondly, in 2002 a digital that could not even approach the performance of the XG was over $10,000. In 2004 you could have got a digital that would have been in the same performance ballpark as an XG, but it would have cost you $12,000.
Frankly, $5K in 2002 for a new high quality PJ that still holds up very well compared to the competition 6 years later is a smokin' deal.
_________________
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 Oct 31, 2008 2:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Elaine Benes wrote: | | 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.... |
I'm a user not a dealer. 
:p
But let me guess, it's still mostly the fans right (disregarding the existence of the marquees and the sonys)? 
_________________
Trying to get everything to work.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stonefool
Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 253
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| WanMan wrote: | I still see a tremendous difference between my 8 year old CRT RPTV and 5 year old used CRT projector (GE 601/NEC 6PG) and the 2 year old LCD flat-panel. Both the CRTs still beat it hands down for contrast ratio and black levels, and they are no where in the same class as the XG. It wasn't anything of PQ concern, but shear resolving power.
Now that some have provided feedback on this aspect I am going to hang it and spend $1-1.5K on a VP and see how well someone can set it up for me. |
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.
_________________
Trying to get everything to work.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark_A_W
Joined: 15 Mar 2006
Posts: 3068
Location: Sunny Melbourne Australia
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. |
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).
Also, what's with the HDMI comments previously? After playing around with HDMI and DVI I ran back to Analogue VGA. VGA just works, and looks just as good, or better, than HDMI, provided you have a decent Analogue run.
HDMI SUCKS.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Person99
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4899
Location: Flower Mound, TX
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark_A_W wrote: |
Also, what's with the HDMI comments previously? After playing around with HDMI and DVI I ran back to Analogue VGA. VGA just works, and looks just as good, or better, than HDMI, provided you have a decent Analogue run.
HDMI SUCKS. |
Too much of a generalization. It is true that with a CRT and all the sources we have today that the source is digital and the display is analog. Given that, I agree with you that I don't understand the obsession with HDMI runs to the projector. There is no benefit to this run being digital vs. analog (actually, with the current standards, the analog run is more robust.
However, the thing that does matter is the DAC. Not all DACs are equal. You are using an HTPC, you will likely have a first class DAC. Not everyone wants the expense or hassle of an HTPC or they may want to use sources that put the HTPC out of the loop. Due to the rise of HDMI in both sources and displays, manufacturers have very little motivation to put good DACs in sources. I've tested sources where their analog output was equal to their HDMI and I've tested some where their analog was vastly inferior to the HDMI. The use of HDMI from all sources allows the use of a consistent and high quality DAC.
_________________
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 |
|
|
Z-Photo
Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 2749
Location: Huntsville - Alabama
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Not to get the thread even more OT - (lol)
but I plan on going grey for the next projector - the 1208s/2 will be replaced with the Sony VPL-VW60 or whatever model is next.
3k hour life and bulbs that cost 279 -
just my two cents
_________________
Engineer by Day
Photographer by Night
My Portfolio
The Only GOOD AMPRO - is a Dead AMPRO.
wait - are they not all DEAD already?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Axatax
Joined: 01 Nov 2006
Posts: 403
TV/Projector: Sony VPH-G70Q (aka Barco Cine8 Onyx)
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 31, 2008 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Too much of a generalization. It is true that with a CRT and all the sources we have today that the source is digital and the display is analog. Given that, I agree with you that I don't understand the obsession with HDMI runs to the projector. There is no benefit to this run being digital vs. analog (actually, with the current standards, the analog run is more robust. |
Not so simple.
With an HDMI card in my PJ, I only need one DA conversion for HDMI source devices (HDMI from BDP into scaler, scaler through HDMI to the PJ). With HDCP in play, the alternative is to run component into the scaler, then RGBHV into the PJ, resulting in multiple DA conversions. I could of course use something like the Moome HDMI-HDMI switch, but this yields the same net result as the first option, but only for a single source.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stonefool
Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 253
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 1:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Mark_A_W"] | 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.
| Quote: |
Also, what's with the HDMI comments previously? After playing around with HDMI and DVI I ran back to Analogue VGA. VGA just works, and looks just as good, or better, than HDMI, provided you have a decent Analogue run.
HDMI SUCKS. |
HDMI usually sucks with crappy or faulty hardware. It's not exactly a billion dollar buisness creating HDMI/DVI to RGB/HV capable hardware. To be able to sale for cheap the hardware needs to be cheap. Then factor in that there is a sofware issue as well, and even if there are so called standards, those standards are only on paper pretty much, never in the implementation, and things gets, simply put, f*ck*** up in the implementation only because it is software based, because the companies can "afford making there misstakes".
Sure outputting a strong and clean RGB/HV, VGA, signal can be better an HDMI/DVI signal, but it all depends on so much. Actually, your best signal can be component based, even though it's supposed to be the worst of the progressive signals.
When it comes to signal transfer it's very much individual, and "room based" if your really unlucky (depending on the quality of the electricity, current, outlets, and how the wiring were drawn, and the types of wiring used.)
HDMI signals also depend on the actual HDMI cable, version -- single link or dual link, made for 1.2 or 1.3, 1.3 but not for "deep color", blah blah blah. Right?! (For instance I have three different HDMI cables, apparently of same brand and "version", but only one is working with my HDFury/HD+ combo.)
Point is, HDMI in and of itself, even including the pathetic HDCP, is not all that terrible, it's the implementation that can be done in more ways then just one that tend to screw things up for the rest of us.
But of course a good and proper analog signal or a digital SDI signal is what we'd all prefer. If for nothing else just to screw with the Hollywood Imperiums anal fixation of copy protection schemes. 
_________________
Trying to get everything to work.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark_A_W
Joined: 15 Mar 2006
Posts: 3068
Location: Sunny Melbourne Australia
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 2:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
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).
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VideoGrabber
Joined: 09 Apr 2006
Posts: 933
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
> 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. 
_________________
- Tim
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ohmess
Joined: 11 Sep 2008
Posts: 242
Location: Vienna, VA
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 8:47 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.
> 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. |
Dude -- I'm with you on this, but how in the world would we just say no? Hold off buying HDMI compatible devices? And even if we did that, do you think the marketing weinies who work for the electronics giants would know that this was the reason?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Axatax
Joined: 01 Nov 2006
Posts: 403
TV/Projector: Sony VPH-G70Q (aka Barco Cine8 Onyx)
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 11:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've had problems with HDMI, but I've always managed to work around these issues and get the gear working reliably in the end. Nothing insurmountable, yet.
In a perfect world we'd all be running HD-SDI and ADAT throughout the entire component chain, but HDMI is what we're stuck with if we want titles from major studios. If you're in this hobby for the enjoyment of film...
|
|
| 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
|
|
