CurtPalme.com Home Theater Forum

Spanky Ham · Joined: 22 Mar 2006 Posts: 5643 Location: Comedy Central

Case,
As Clarence proved long ago, you can indeed have a very large picture. What Dave is referring to is the ability to get adequate ft/lmbs. This can be subjective, but most people prefer a brighter pic with at least 10 ft/lmbs. I prefer a bright image and for this reason I will probably build a Vutec UHG style screen.

Nashou66 · Joined: 12 Jan 2007 Posts: 16171 Location: West Seneca NY

I think he's addicted!!!! Very Happy

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1103959

Athanasios

cmjohnson · Joined: 03 Apr 2006 Posts: 5180 Location: Buried under G90s

I emphatically disagree with the assertion that you can't get the best picture with a screen larger than 90". I've always used an 8 foot
wide screen, even back in the days when my PJ was a Sony VPH-722Q1, which is a purely 480i-only projector. It actually threw a very
nice picture. Then I upgraded to a Marquee 8000, then to a 9500LC, and then modded the heck out of the 9500LC.

I assure you, my 9500LC doesn't suffer at all for being used on an 8 foot wide screen. (107 inches diagonal assuming 16:9)

As an experiment, right after I rebuilt this PJ, and since I had to do a full setup on it anyway, I set it up on a temporary
screen in the workshop where I was doing the rebuild, and set it up on a mere 60" diagonal screen, with maximized rasters.

Yes, it was punchy as all get-out. Be sure of that. If I'd had Blu-Ray at the time it would have been the video version of crack.
But when I installed the PJ and got it all set up again on the 8 foot wide screen and finished the calibration and alignment,
the larger picture still had plenty of punch, and what's more, the size of the image pushed it to another level entirely. The smaller
picture, though bright, vivid, and punchy, just doesn't have the impact you get with a bigger screen and a PJ that can resolve every
pixel at that larger size.

And, the truth is that the smaller picture didn't look natural. It was overdone. Those high output 9" CRTs were really made for a
larger picture and with the smaller picture they seemed to be overdriving the image. It's kind of hard to explain but that's about how
it feels to me. And most digitals seem to do exactly the same thing, to my way of thinking. I think many of them are too bright,
frankly. My suspicion is that this is due to contrast levels between the PJ and the environment it's in. CRTs on properly sized
screens in dark rooms give about the same apparent brightness level as a typical commerical theater. It's also about the same
apparent brightness level as a typical TV delivers in a typical lit room, I think. A really bright digital PJ in a darkened room is an
unnatural thing. We typically don't experience that level of contrast between light and dark in our regular day, and I think that
that's the final reason why digitals look fake to me.

CJ

**AnalogRocks** · Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 9:38 am Post subject:

Well said CJ.

I run the AMpro at 10.5 feet wide. Although it's not as bright as the RPTV it still "pulls you into the picture" more so than the 60x60" portable sreen I first had. Size does matter especially at 9 inches.

( : o)>

CasetheCorvetteman · Joined: 09 Nov 2008 Posts: 6326 Location: Australia

I agree with you both, but i think i allready said that earlier in the thread!! HAHA!! Wink

Spanky Ham · Joined: 22 Mar 2006 Posts: 5643 Location: Comedy Central

cmjohnson · Joined: 03 Apr 2006 Posts: 5180 Location: Buried under G90s

Something else to consider is that the movies we watch are all carefully composed for a specific visual character. Lots of time and effort
are spent on making the lighting "just so" in anything other than the rawest, low budget documentaries. And it's NOT how things look
in the real world when you go out there and look around. I don't think it's appropriate to try to use the brightness and contrast levels
your eyes will experience when you walk out the front door and go to work or go shopping, to the kinds of brightness and contrast that
you'll encounter in a theater or in your home theater. They're two very different visual environments, by design.

Especially in the case of computer generated imagery, there is no real point of reference as to how bright it should be compared to
the world outside your theater. The better reference here is to a carefully calibrated top end monitor (probably still a CRT monitor)
that's on the desk of the digital artists and renderers. That's the display they used to set the visual tone of the movie, and its look should
be replicated closely for the ideal picture.

I think relative contrast is far more important than absolute picture brightness. A direct view TV in a daylit room likely isn't achieving
any better an overall contrast ratio (between the picture and the room lighting) than is a CRT projector in a well-darkened room. And
rear projection TVs in daylit rooms are even worse, particularly when viewing well off-axis.

My 9500, running in my darkened theater on an 8 foot wide screen, can easily make me squint on a very bright scene. Do I really have
any need or use for more available brightness than that?

Personally, I don't think so.

CJ

**AnalogRocks** · Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 10:49 pm Post subject:

jask · Joined: 17 Mar 2006 Posts: 10187 Location: kamloops BC

I recall reading somewhere the 16 ft lambert standard of the motion picture industry was decided on because extended high brightness scenes had a negative impact on the viewers later perception of detail in low light scenes.

CasetheCorvetteman · Joined: 09 Nov 2008 Posts: 6326 Location: Australia

Spanky Ham · Joined: 22 Mar 2006 Posts: 5643 Location: Comedy Central

Tom.W · Joined: 09 Mar 2006 Posts: 6635

Funny but flicker never bothered me even at 48 Hz...

**AnalogRocks** · Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 7:03 am Post subject:

Flicker drives me nuts but only from crappy florescent lights. Spanky your friend shoulda cranked the refresh rate on his monitor. Wink

CasetheCorvetteman · Joined: 09 Nov 2008 Posts: 6326 Location: Australia

**AnalogRocks** · Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 7:11 am Post subject:

I run this one ( 19inch Princeton Ultra95 c.1999 ) at 1152x864 at 72Hz. The only fliker I get is when I have the fan on beside it.

Hey Spanky, is your friend sensitive to DLP rainbows too?

jask · Joined: 17 Mar 2006 Posts: 10187 Location: kamloops BC

sounds like a low refresh/res. setting to me too, I miss my Panasonic sl 70i (1280x1024/66) it was far less fatiguing than my current LCD.... I am really enjoying all this empty desk space.

**AnalogRocks** · Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 9:29 am Post subject:

I always hear the "I have more desk space!" thing. Tell me, what are you going to do with it? Sell it for condo's? Laughing

BIG BEAUTIFUL CRT'S!!

CasetheCorvetteman · Joined: 09 Nov 2008 Posts: 6326 Location: Australia

jask · Joined: 17 Mar 2006 Posts: 10187 Location: kamloops BC

ecrabb · Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:30 pm Post subject:

I don't know what you guys are talking about with your whole "CRT's rock and LCD's suck thing." You must be looking at total crap LCD's and the very best CRT's. I've been using both for years and you couldn't PAY me to go back to a CRT for my desktop monitor.

I used an FW900 at my last job for a couple of years @ 1920x1200/75hz. It was a hell of a monitor, no question. Hands down, one of, if not THE very best CRT monitor ever made. I even looked for them and considered buying one if I could have found on in the area. I also had a couple of 21" Trinitrons at home - an Apple StudioDisplay 21 and an IBM P220 or whatever it was. Again - both excellent monitors. I loved the Trinitrons. Still, a year or two ago, I got my hands on an Apple Cinema 24, and I don't miss the big Sony's one bit. It's excellent. It's calibrated, so the color is good, greyscale is good, and of course it's sharp as a tack with perfect geometry. I can also grab it and move it from the basement workhole to the dining room table if I want to do some work upstairs and be with the family. True - it's an LCD, so it doesn't do perfect black, but calibrated an with some ambient light (which you need to actually work - I'm a graphic designer), the lack of perfect black isn't an issue. I switched from a 21" Trinitron at work to a Samsung 20 (both calibrated)... Again - I don't miss the Trinitron one bit... and I do photography, video, and design work. It's not like I'm Excel jockey or something.

Maybe if I sat in the dark at my desk watching movies or playing games... But, I don't.

Don't get me wrong - I LOVE my CRT in my HT, but just don't see the big deal with switching on the desktop. I don't miss the massive amount of desk real-estate chewed up by the big tanks, either.

My designer buddy and I are planning to replace our 20's with 30's, soon. We're shopping right now. 2560x1600, here I come! Try THAT with a CRT monitor! Wink

SC