| Author |
Message |
VideoGrabber
Joined: 09 Apr 2006
Posts: 933
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kal commented:
> The 16x9 to 235:1 ratio changes didn't bother me at all. <
It should probably be noted though that you're running a 16x9 CIW screen (not CIH), and don't do masking AFAIK (the ideal combo for this type of dual AR presentation). If either of those elements were not the case, your conclusions would likely have been quite different.
_________________
- Tim
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
VideoGrabber
Joined: 09 Apr 2006
Posts: 933
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kal, I was curious if you've done any experimenting with masking, and how you'd respond to Mark_A_W's comments...
> anyone who cares about the image has a masking system, the no.1 most essential tweak. <
> left the masks open, which even with a LC CRT looks SHITE. (Pisspoor Ansi contrast.... <
In your case, with your CIW screen, there are a couple fairly easy ways to handle masking:
a) two panels 7" high and screen width, hung manually.
b) one panel, 14" high and screen width, hung below the screen and motorized to rise an appropriate amount based on AR (0-14"), along with sliding the PJ image up, so the top was always aligned with the top of screen for any AR.
_________________
- Tim
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kal
Forum Administrator
Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 18114
Location: Ottawa, Canada
TV/Projector: JVC DLA-NZ7
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| VideoGrabber wrote: | Kal commented:
> The 16x9 to 235:1 ratio changes didn't bother me at all. <
It should probably be noted though that you're running a 16x9 CIW screen (not CIH), and don't do masking AFAIK (the ideal combo for this type of dual AR presentation). If either of those elements were not the case, your conclusions would likely have been quite different. |
Yup. Most definitely. Same reason why people with masking setups are upset when they put subtitles outside the image area (a big no-no).
I never thought of this movie being a problem because of masking... of course it would be. Very true.
Kal
_________________
Support our site by using our affiliate links. We thank you!
My basement/HT/bar/brewery build 2.0
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kal
Forum Administrator
Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 18114
Location: Ottawa, Canada
TV/Projector: JVC DLA-NZ7
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| VideoGrabber wrote: | Kal, I was curious if you've done any experimenting with masking, and how you'd respond to Mark_A_W's comments...
> anyone who cares about the image has a masking system, the no.1 most essential tweak. <
> left the masks open, which even with a LC CRT looks SHITE. (Pisspoor Ansi contrast.... <
In your case, with your CIW screen, there are a couple fairly easy ways to handle masking:
a) two panels 7" high and screen width, hung manually.
b) one panel, 14" high and screen width, hung below the screen and motorized to rise an appropriate amount based on AR (0-14"), along with sliding the PJ image up, so the top was always aligned with the top of screen for any AR. |
I haven't tried it. It would be very easy to test to see however.
I'm not sure how masking is going to make such a HUGE difference in ANSI contrast however.
Think about it: For masking to help ansi contrast the masks would have to be soaking up light that is coming off the active image, bouncing off the walls/ceiling/floor back on to the unused screen areas and then bouncing back out and then back on to the active image area.
The more bounces you have the more the light scatters. I helped my ANSI contrast a lot more by making the side walls and ceiling darker than making the screen wall darker since there are less bounces involved.
It certainly wouldn't HURT to do masking (every little bit helps) but to say that without it the ANSI contrast is pisspoor doesn't make any sense to me. Masking would help ANSI the most if the room was all white (more light bounce). But then, making the room something other than white is going to help a lot more than masking. The logic seems backwards to me. For better ansi contrast treat the room first, then the screen with masking.
Kal
_________________
Support our site by using our affiliate links. We thank you!
My basement/HT/bar/brewery build 2.0
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark_A_W
Joined: 15 Mar 2006
Posts: 3068
Location: Sunny Melbourne Australia
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
God Kal, if you haven't tried masks, or seen a setup with them, you will be floored by the difference.
Just try it.
I'm serious - I'd take a 1030 with masks over a G90 without.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Clarence
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 3827
Location: Smith Mtn Lake, VA
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 12:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark_A_W wrote: | | anyone who cares about the image has a masking system, the no.1 most essential tweak. |
| Mark_A_W wrote: | | I'm serious - I'd take a 1030 with masks over a G90 without. |
Interesting... Wallace and I were just commenting the other day that masking seems almost pointless with good black levels and good gamma (both of our projectors were calibrated by Ken W).
I have a very light-controlled room with black speaker columns, black curtains, and black frame trim around my 16:9 screen, but when I watch a 2.35 movie, I can't notice a transition from 2:35 image, unused top/bottom of 16:9 screen, and then the black frame trim, so I can't imagine a masking system being "the no.1 most essential tweak". When I built my HT, I originally had plans for a masking system, but after calibration, found it unnecessary.
But since you consider tubes completely unwatchable after 3,000 hours maybe you watch at hyper-elevated brightness levels?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WanMan
Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 10270
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 12:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think just bit off the last reasonable sanity saying 1030+masking > G90. Maybe a G90 with burned tubes firing onto a white wall.
_________________
Trust no one. Absolutely no one. Advice of the board.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark_A_W
Joined: 15 Mar 2006
Posts: 3068
Location: Sunny Melbourne Australia
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 12:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have a flat DARK purple room - almost flat black. The border around the screen is black felt. It's almost a bat cave.
The projector is LC, it does fade to black, with gamma tweaked, and it's calibrated with HCFR (and colorfacts).
The mask just makes the image hang in space and POP out at you. The wash from the active area into the black bar area, even on my friends calibrated G90, ruins the image.
Try it, it will cost about $50. Best improvement you could make, at any price.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Clarence
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 3827
Location: Smith Mtn Lake, VA
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 12:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark_A_W wrote: | I have a flat DARK purple room - almost flat black. The border around the screen is black felt. It's almost a bat cave.
The wash from the active area into the black bar area, even on my friends calibrated G90, ruins the image. |
What color is your ceiling and flooring?
You must be getting some reflections from somewhere.
I think a simpler test will be to cut out a scrap of black and paste it into the non-imaged 16:9 area. If I can see the black square during a movie, then masking would help.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark_A_W
Joined: 15 Mar 2006
Posts: 3068
Location: Sunny Melbourne Australia
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 12:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ceiling is flat dark purple.
Floor is wood, but covered in a mostly blue rug.
It's a bat cave. No reflections.
My image is very good without the masks (on 2.40 material), with the masks it is AWESOME.
Have you guys ever seen a masked system?
You dismiss because you think you don't need it. You do.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Clarence
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 3827
Location: Smith Mtn Lake, VA
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 12:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark_A_W wrote: | Have you guys ever seen a masked system?
You dismiss because you think you don't need it. You do. |
Yes, several masked systems, mainly on digital setup though.
But Haflich uses one with his 9500.
Curt, got any 1030's for sale? Time for me to upgrade.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Clarence
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 3827
Location: Smith Mtn Lake, VA
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 1:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
I taped a 3" square of black velvet to the bottom of my screen under the 2.35 area... it doesn't take much light in the scene at all to become visible.
Far from "ruined" and far from "worse than a 1030", but I can certainly see where a black masking panel above and below a 2.35 image would be useful.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zebu Fellenz
Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Posts: 2567
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 1:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Clarence wrote: | | Mark_A_W wrote: | Have you guys ever seen a masked system?
You dismiss because you think you don't need it. You do. |
Yes, several masked systems, mainly on digital setup though.
But Haflich uses one with his 9500.
Curt, got any 1030's for sale? Time for me to upgrade. |
I'll trade you and throw in the masking panel's free... I just have to buy a 1030 from Curt first 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MikeEby
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 5237
Location: Osceola, Indiana
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 2:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Clarence wrote: | I taped a 3" square of black velvet to the bottom of my screen under the 2.35 area... it doesn't take much light in the scene at all to become visible.
Far from "ruined" and far from "worse than a 1030", but I can certainly see where a black masking panel above and below a 2.35 image would be useful. |
I conducted a similar test myself. I moved the active image to the bottom screen. It did appear to improve the image quite dramatically. I think I’m going to start building a masking system this weekend. I just won’t use it on multi-AR movies.
Mike
_________________
Doing HD since the last century!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark_A_W
Joined: 15 Mar 2006
Posts: 3068
Location: Sunny Melbourne Australia
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Clarence wrote: | I taped a 3" square of black velvet to the bottom of my screen under the 2.35 area... it doesn't take much light in the scene at all to become visible.
Far from "ruined" and far from "worse than a 1030", but I can certainly see where a black masking panel above and below a 2.35 image would be useful. |
Yes, ok, I am deliberately exaggerating.
But the mask really makes an enormous difference. It swamps the difference between AC and LC.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
