CurtPalme.com Home Theater Forum

[bachiano]

Been looking around a while and could not find it.
Links appreciated.
Thanks

[ecrabb]

You mean like this one?

http://ecrabb.com/avs/ecrabb_SMPTE_1920x1080_v1.png

SC

[wkosmann]

Yo Ecrabb;

Is that bad boy only in 1.85:1?

I.e., do you have a version in 2.35:1, to check out on the blend?

William

[bachiano]

Yeap. Just like that one.
Thank you !!!

[ecrabb]

[wkosmann]

Actual projected resolution is 2660 x 1050, (1400 x 1050 minus 10% for the blend) which works out to an aspect ratio of 2.53:1. although the SmX screen is a true 2.35:1.

Sooooo, since I really care about the aspect ratio, 1920 x 817 gives me exactly 2.35:1.

Buttttttttttttt, since beggars shouldn't be choosers, I'll take what I can get.

[bachiano]

Hi ecrabb

Do you still use a G70?

Are you able to fully resolve 1080p with your g70 ?

I've read through, I think, most of the g70 threads and I know you said you prefer 1080P.

Curious.

[ecrabb]

Howdy!

Yep, still happily watching my G70... I wish it was smaller and quieter, and I wish my screen was scope, but hey - you can't have everything, right?

Yes, I much prefer 1080p on my G70, but no - it definitely doesn't "fully resolve" 1080p; I don't know that even most 9" machines "fully resolve" 1080p. It's all about MTF, so varying degrees of sharpness. If a machine is nearly perfectly sharp (like a DLP, for instance), then you can think of those on/off lines like a square wave. A softer machine will make that square wave start to look more like a sine wave. If it gets too soft, the on/off lines blend together, and you end up with a mushy grey, or a flat line instead of a square wave or sine wave.

So, back to the G70. Vertical is very good. Nice and sharp. Not fully resolving 1080p, but nice and sharp. You can't see scan lines like you can with a sharp 9" machine, but you can clearly see on/off lines.

Horizontal is probably closer to the sine wave I mentioned. Not super-sharp, but not too soft, either.

I would guess if you wanted really sharp resolving power, you'd have to run the G70 somewhere in the 960-1280 horizontal ballpark, and in the 720p vertical ballpark.

But, we're not trying to full resolve all the pixels, right? We're trying to create a life-like, film-like image. Running at 1080p, the projector may not be able to fully resolve all the picture information we send it, but that doesn't mean we should throw away a bunch of picture information in the digital domain just so the projector can more fully resolve the pixels.

I find that by running at 1080p, you get sort of an "oversampling" effect, where you see no pixels or scan lines, and you end up with a very film-like image.

That's probably a bit of a long-winded answer, but that's how I think about it.

I can snap a pic of my on/off patterns at 1080p if you want.

Cheers,
SC

[Nashou66]

here's a good one.

Athanasios

[bachiano]

Thanks Nashou66

it's going to be interesting putting up that pattern up on my pj.

[bachiano]

ecrabb

Very clear explanation.
So the g70 does not "fully resolve" 1080p
but "just resolves" 1080p.

Got it.

So in the little gullies where the sine wave does not dip all the way down we get a little less contrast between the on/off line but that's all.
I think I can live with that.

Last night I tried, in my 5 min set up, 1080p and 1080i.
In 1080i it was very sharp but the scan lines were very prominent and a bit distracting.
In 1080p the image was impressive with great color saturation and no scan lines - very silky looking image - but I did see the softness.
I expect when I do a real setup and spend a couple of days with focus and scheimpflug,
I will be able to squeeze out most of that softness.

Thanks

[Nashou66]

[dturco]

[ecrabb]

Had it mostly done, then got away from it... Circled back tonight and finished.

I made the first 1920x800, which is 2.40:1. From everything I could find on the subject, everything recent is all shot at 2:39 or 2:40. It works well because 80 is evenly divisible into both dimensions for a nice grid.

But, seeing that William's screen is 2.35, and I've heard others using that AR, I made another at 1920x817. I did so by simply padding 8 pixels to the top and 9 pixels to the bottom, then I just extended the grid that amount and slapped a new border on. I didn't see any point in recreating the grid, as I doubt there's anything evenly divisible into 1920 and 817.

Here they are:
ecrabb_SMPTE_1920x800_v1.png
ecrabb_SMPTE_1920x817_v1.png

So, William... If you have a 2.35:1 screen, do most of the scope movies have 1/2 an inch or so of blank pixels between your screen border and the active image? From the reading I did, Cinemascope features haven't been 2.35:1 since the early 70's. Since then, everything has been 2.39 or 2.40:1.

Given that, I don't don't quite even understand why Carada (or anybody else for that matter) sells a 2.35:1 screen... Seems like everybody should be standardizing on 2.40:1.

SC

[dvh99]

[wkosmann]