|
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 |
mp20748
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 5689
Location: Maryland
TV/Projector: 9500LC Ultra / Super 02 and 03 VIM
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 8:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Boilermaker wrote: |
Along comes the digital display device, which does not really transform it into the analog domain, but processes it in various ways (depending on display type) in order to "emulate" analog light as were are used to. It attempts to "fool" your eye/brain into thinking it is analog. It is here that I believe something (and I don't have the faintest idea of what it is!) is amiss, which is why we have the quoted statement above.
Bob |
Thanks for this excellent illumination on the subject.
I've yet to see a digital display (regardless of cost), that did not have that artificial look to it..
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bob,I agree... To an extent... But, it's also worth pointing out that a scanning electron beam on phosphor-coated glass (with differential decay rates), and non-linear amplified light output... While that stuff is "analog" in nature, they aren't exactly "realistic" representations of nature, either.
Analog was not without its flaws, either... Most of the consumer broadcast mechanisms used HF rolloff filters and subsampling to get the signal into an allotted bandwidth.
But, I agree that CRT has a great look - I've always loved it. But, I see its flaws, too.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jbmeyer13
Joined: 03 Dec 2010
Posts: 1135
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Boilermaker wrote: | | Quote: | | But for movies, there is just some sort of intangible reason why i prefer the softer analog picture |
While I never saw one, maybe someone on this forum has seen the analog HD Laser Disc system that was developed in Japan, and never was marketed anywhere else. If I recall it had 1050 lines, but I'm not sure. Because it was pure analog from camera to your display, it was probably superior to our new 1080i HD. Does anyone remember seeing one of these
Bob |
You are talking about the MUSE system. Pioneer made a few players (HLD-X9, HLD-X0) and they were (and still are) very expensive. There was a small library of titles (Terminator 2 was notable) but the format never went anywhere. I've never seen one but they are supposed to be very good.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Boilermaker
Joined: 21 May 2006
Posts: 527
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I've yet to see a digital display (regardless of cost), that did not have that artificial look to it.. |
Just a wild guess, but perhaps that is why you almost always see a Pixar movie used as demo material when shopping for projectors, etc. It never was in analog film. Advantage-Digital.
Bob
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gjaky
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Posts: 2802
Location: Budapest, Hungary
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Boliermaker: You're right: the less the conversion, better the quality (in every aspect), but it seems the nano world is much like digital world (discrete steps) instead of analog.
_________________
projectors in the past : NEC 6-9PG xtra, Electrohome Marquee 6-7500, NEC XG 1351 LC ( with super modified Electrohome VNB neckboard !!!)
current: VDC Marquee 9500LC
The MOD: VNB-DB, VIM-DB
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Boilermaker
Joined: 21 May 2006
Posts: 527
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Analog was not without its flaws, either... Most of the consumer broadcast mechanisms used HF rolloff filters and subsampling to get the signal into an allotted bandwidth. |
Yes, but this was not a flaw being analog, it was caused by a bandwidth restriction set 3/4 century ago. Now, the tremendous advantage of digital shows up here. Look at how much information we are now getting from that same bandwidth in digital format. No contest!
I find one thing interesting if you will follow this:
Using digital techniques while the signal is still in the digital domain, I blend two halves of the original signal using two analog projectors to end up with a 2.4 AR picture and have an approximate 300% gain in light output, greatly enhanced resolution capability, and effective doubling of video bandwidth. This is a 100% digital manipulation with no artifacts or other anomalies.
Now - If I had a digital projector and wanted to use a 2.4AR screen, I would use a digital method to "remap" the 800 lines to 1080 lines, AND an analog method of using a non-linear lens to end up with a 2.4 AR. However slight, there must be some anomalies with the 800 to 1080 digital remapping and there is surely some slight abberations with the non-linear lens.
Digital blending of two analog projectors is a more "lossless" method of having a 'scope presentation than the present analog & digital method used on digital projectors. I understand that soon there will be 2.4 digital projectors, but I don't know what the resolution is, so the verdict is still out on those until they appear.
I suggest you get another G-70!
Bob
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spanky Ham
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 5643
Location: Comedy Central
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would be interested to see what everyone here would choose in a shoot out without knowing which pj was which and price was not a factor. People are piling on Crabb, but I bet a lot here would choose a digital if price was not a concern.
| Boilermaker wrote: |
To Crabb,
I suggest you get another G-70!
Bob |
It won't happen, as Steve prefers the total HT experience and already hates the amount of noise of his current G70. I can't imagine him wanting to double that. I know that if he won a RS45 or could buy one for $500 then there would be a nice G70 available on Craigslist. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Spanky is exactly right. I love movies and home theater, not video projection. While I totally love and geek out on installs like yours Bob, or Cliffy's stack, I have exactly zero interest in a stack or blend. One CRT projector has enough visual and space impact on a room, and creates enough heat and noise... A doubling of that is a non-starter. If I had a larger, more utilitarian room... Maybe.
I'm actually very conflicted, actually. I love the look of CRT... I love the picture that looks like 35mm. But, I HATE the size, noise, and the other visual artifacts. I'm well aware that going from CRT to digital (or the reverse, really) just trades one set of artifacts (flaws) for another. But, I've seen enough setups now between CEDIA and lots of private viewings to know what I like and don't like, what I can live with and not live with. Five years ago, I had zero interest in digital... Compromises weren't worth the end product. In the last couple of years, it's a different story. For me, at least.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dturco
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 3778
Location: Eastern Shore Maryland
TV/Projector: Runco DLP VX-3000i Marquee 9500 parts doner
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Spankywrote wrote: | | but I bet a lot here would choose a digital if price was not a concern. |
I always say to myself yeah a blend would be great...Then I say how much does it cost to do that? As far as I can tell it's north of $9000. Two P/J's, two scalers, two HDMI devices.
And then the Blending device[s].
PJ's worth having should be L/C, have good to new tubes,cost north of $1500 each. Two scalers Lumagen Mini's, 1500 each. Blend machine. What $4000? Two HDMI Moome cards or external 300 each. Plus second HDMI cabling $150. And second mounting system $200-500?
So $3000
+$3000
+$4000
+ $600
+ $150
+ $500
-------
$11,250
Rs55 $6000
VDC L.E.D. $14000 [without discount.]
The math is in favor of DIGITAL. Eases of use digital. Brightness, digital again. Noise, hands down digital is quieter. Picture quality... maybe CRT wins here, but by how much? I sure don't know anymore.
_________________
Firefly rules. Can't stop the signal.
http://www.hulu.com/firefly
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Boilermaker
Joined: 21 May 2006
Posts: 527
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I'm well aware that going from CRT to digital (or the reverse, really) just trades one set of artifacts (flaws) for another |
.
Exactly! Each of us is looking for something different from this hobby. I don't think that there is a "one size fits all", but we all get enjoyment out of it.
| Quote: | | I always say to myself yeah a blend would be great...Then I say how much does it cost to do that? As far as I can tell it's north of $9000. Two P/J's, two scalers, two HDMI devices |
Yes, while you can probably beat your estimates a little, it ain't cheap. It is all in what you want out of it. I enjoyed immensely creating a custom blend and made some good friends in the process. I am also guilty of spending considerably more time tweaking and changing things than I do watching movies. Also, when I do watch a movie, I spend too much time looking for flaws that I can "play" with. But that is what I enjoy!
My intent was an assault on the "state of the art" and yet stay within my budget (I cheated somewhat on that!).
Actually, if I won a huge lottery and had no budget, I would stay with a crt blend but do the following:
1 - Build a dedicated room such that I could use rear projection so the projectors could be as big, ugly and noisy as they are and it wouldn't matter.
2 - I would call Curt and ask him to find the two most pristine G-90's he could find and fill them with new tubes.
Bob
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
macgyver655
Joined: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 8508
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dturco wrote: | | Spankywrote wrote: | | but I bet a lot here would choose a digital if price was not a concern. |
I always say to myself yeah a blend would be great...Then I say how much does it cost to do that? As far as I can tell it's north of $9000. Two P/J's, two scalers, two HDMI devices.
And then the Blending device[s].
PJ's worth having should be L/C, have good to new tubes,cost north of $1500 each. Two scalers Lumagen Mini's, 1500 each. Blend machine. What $4000? Two HDMI Moome cards or external 300 each. Plus second HDMI cabling $150. And second mounting system $200-500?
So $3000
+$3000
+$4000
+ $600
+ $150
+ $500
-------
$11,250
Rs55 $6000
VDC L.E.D. $14000 [without discount.]
The math is in favor of DIGITAL. Eases of use digital. Brightness, digital again. Noise, hands down digital is quieter. Picture quality... maybe CRT wins here, but by how much? I sure don't know anymore. |
Ok, here's where I must interject again.
Now I'm again not disagreeing that digital may be better for some
But your math equation is again leaving out longevity. How many digital projectors will it take to last as long as a CRT? 2....3.....4????
4 X $6000 = $24,000
And this is not calculating bulbs.......
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dturco
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 3778
Location: Eastern Shore Maryland
TV/Projector: Runco DLP VX-3000i Marquee 9500 parts doner
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mac Wrote wrote: | But your math equation is again leaving out longevity. How many digital projectors will it take to last as long as a CRT? 2....3.....4????
4 X $6000 = $24,000
|
Yes it does leave lifetime TCOO out. But given the rate of digital advancements the 4k projectors, which will be coming out soon, should last longer then 5 years. Now to compete with that 4k machine, which will exist during the lifespan of the CRT, you would need two 1080p machines and a non existent set of scalers and blending devices. Meaning during the lifetime of the blend you will spend more cash to get to where the 4k machines will be in the next 5 years.
I am not against the CRT blend in theory, But starting one now seems like it would not make sense for nearly anyone. Having to wrestle up Nine Thousand, to do it and knowing the effort that will go into it... My TIME is more valuable then that NOW, let alone what my future time will be worth.
Cost isn't always dollars. Time to enjoy instead of fiddle has value too.
_________________
Firefly rules. Can't stop the signal.
http://www.hulu.com/firefly
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
macgyver655
Joined: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 8508
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dturco wrote: | should last longer then 5 years. This is a bold and unsubstantiated statement... no offense!
Now to compete with that 4k machine, which will exist during the lifespan of the CRT, you would need two 1080p machines and a non existent set of scalers and blending devices. This also depends on whether 4k will eliminate the digital affect in their image.
Meaning during the lifetime of the blend you will spend more cash to get to where the 4k machines will be in the next 5 years. This brings about the question if 4k will outdo 1080P blend in IQ.
I am not against the CRT blend in theory, But starting one now seems like it would not make sense for nearly anyone. I would never recommend it for you , You've had enough problems.... Your a digital guy as from what I see.
Having to wrestle up Nine Thousand, to do it and knowing the effort that will go into it... My TIME is more valuable then that NOW, let alone what my future time will be worth.
Cost isn't always dollars. Time to enjoy instead of fiddle has value too. |
Your definitely a digital guy. I was just commenting on your math...lol. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dturco
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 3778
Location: Eastern Shore Maryland
TV/Projector: Runco DLP VX-3000i Marquee 9500 parts doner
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mac wrote wrote: | | Your definitely a digital guy. |
Cool, what would you recommend? 
_________________
Firefly rules. Can't stop the signal.
http://www.hulu.com/firefly
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Boilermaker
Joined: 21 May 2006
Posts: 527
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Now to compete with that 4k machine, which will exist during the lifespan of the CRT, you would need two 1080p machines and a non existent set of scalers and blending devices |
That isn't quit true. First, lets look a little closer at what the new 4K machines really are. There is not now, nor will there be in my lifetime a source of 4K movies. The 4K machines scale up to 4K from 1080 programming material. The prime reason for the scaling was to be able to get closer to the screen without seeing the screen door effect. The horizontal upscaling just got a free ride because they are stuck with square pixels. There is not a real increase in resolution - It is more a marketing specsmanship IMHO.
| Quote: | | you would need two 1080p machines and a non existent set of scalers and blending devices. |
Actually, to have the same effective resolution as the 4K machines have, there is no need for any new hardware. The actual horizontal information that we are dealing with is 800 lines. It would take me about ten minutes to change the output on both TVOne's to 1064X1600 which would have the same effective resolution but have a much more natural scaling of just doubling.
Granted, this would be pushing the resolving limit of my 8" XGLC's, so I just use 1200 which is almost as natural. If I had a pair of 9" projectors, I would be running 1600 right now, and have less artifacts than the 4K machines will have.
I haven't checked, but what is the price on those new 4K's.
Bob
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dturco wrote: | should last longer then 5 years. | macgyver655 wrote: | | This is a bold and unsubstantiated statement... no offense! |
|
No offense, but it's no more bold and unsubstantiated than the constant stream of bold and unsubstantiated claims you and Curt rattle off about digital projectors only lasting 2-3 years. We all know the digitals aren't built as well as the CRT's were (that original cost many, many times more to manufacture than the new digitals... But, let's see the data to back your claim of 2-3 years. Let's see MTBF ratings. Let's see percentages and probabilities... Until then, your assertions about TCO are hyperbole.
SC
Last edited by ecrabb on Sat Jan 21, 2012 7:54 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
macgyver655
Joined: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 8508
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dturco wrote: | | Mac wrote wrote: | | Your definitely a digital guy. |
Cool, what would you recommend? |
I would probably agree with the majority here with the JVC. I've actually been in contact with JVC professional as I may be looking into being a repair center, if it's viable. I'm not even sure yet if they have independent centers like their consumer line or if it's all in house.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
macgyver655
Joined: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 8508
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | | dturco wrote: | should last longer then 5 years. | macgyver655 wrote: | | This is a bold and unsubstantiated statement... no offense! |
|
No offense, but it's no more bold and unsubstantiated than the constant stream of bold and unsubstantiated claims you and Curt rattle off about digital projectors only lasting 2-3 years. We all know the digitals aren't built as well as the CRT's were (that original cost many, many times more to manufacture than the new digitals... But, let's see the data to back your claim of 2-3 years. Let's see MTBF ratings. Let's see percentages and probabilities... Until then, your assertions about TCO are hyperbole.
SC |
Nope....and your still living in dream land......
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| macgyver655 wrote: | | Nope....and your still living in dream land...... |
That's what I thought. Ya got nothin'. Sorry, Mac!
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
macgyver655
Joined: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 8508
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | | macgyver655 wrote: | | Nope....and your still living in dream land...... |
That's what I thought. Ya got nothin'. Sorry, Mac!
SC |
Yep...nothing for you......  You can take a horse to water but you can't make him drink....... 
|
|
| 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
|
|
