CurtPalme.com Home Theater Forum

[Tim in Phoenix]

Guys

Not many rooms or users are blend candidates. You would have to want a screen width of nine to fourteen feet; you would need to afford two matching projectors with newer tubes (no 16:9 wear) and appropriate lenses; a 1.0 gain screen; and a budget to support sources and processor(s). The good news is that a well-done edge blend system is very sharp and brighter than stink Also, with a throw formula under 1, you can put a large screen in a smaller room if you don't mind projectors on the ceiling.


.

[Boilermaker]

Could not have summed it better, Tim. But I think there are a handful of candidates here that just need a slight nudge. There also might be a closet blender or two that doesn't post. Those that need a nudge better not witness a blend, or they will be hooked. I was when I saw your's some years back, Tim.


Bob

[dturco]

OK cant you just buy a dual output VideoCard and do a blend with a computer? Something like this?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130613

I have no clue if it can be done this simply or not , but it seems as if it should work. I mean just build a $1000 PC, get 2 8500's for $1000, re-tube @ $3600, Dragan mods $850, new screen $600...Blend? $7050

Or buy 2 8500'S from Curt for $3000? New screen $600, PC at $1000...Blend? $4600

Yes, no, maybe?

[Boilermaker]

Several years ago, a few people went this route and there should be some old threads either here or the other place. There have probably been enough advancements since then in video cards to make it doable, but I don't know.

Bob

[VideoGrabber]

Mike commented:

> Ok, I did not read the entire thread, so I did not see... <

Unfortunately, that did not stop you from telling everyone here that they were wrong.

Bob wrote:

> I have three final resolutions that I use: 1920X1080@60Hz, 1920X800@72 and 1920X1200@72. <

and Mike inquired:

> ...please explain how either of those three scan rates are not putting a strain on your projector? <

He left them in those terms because he wanted to emphasize to you that nothing had been done to the signal to compromise it. Those are the net result across the 2 PJs. Each individual PJ though is only handling: 1064x1080@60 Hz, 1064x800@72 and 1064x1200@72 Hz. That's why I initially inquired about his 1600p comment. At his 1200p max, he still has enough bandwidth left to resolve 1064 on each scan line, and I suspected he would not at 1600p.

When Nash mentions that he runs his at 96 Hz sometimes, I suspect that's not for 1200p output, because it seems (to me) that would negatively impact IQ (causing softening). But I wouldn't tell him that, I'd ask him that.

and Mike admits:

> I know, I'm missing something. <

That's been a big part of the problems here. You have. And instead of asking questions to get what appear to you to be inconsistencies resolved, you're spreading that confusion around, and claiming that others don't know what they're talking about. 'Shoot first, ask questions later' is not the most effective strategy in a technical forum, my friend.

> I would like to also see those screenshots showing that those resolution are being resolved, and to be honest with you, that would be the determiner on this matter. <

Well, I always enjoy screenshots too, but I recognize that folks have limited free time, and using that to "prove" something to you may not be a particularly high priority. Personally, all I need is for Nash or Bob to tell me what results they're getting. That's all the proof I need. They've been doing this a long time, and know what they're talking about.

> ...even on my single 9500LC, I can get it to resolve all those rates that was mentioned, <

That's cool, but basically irrelevant what a MP-optimized 9" PJ will resolve. Your 9" still won't effectively light up as big a screen, which is what they were going for.

> ...and can get it to do a better resolve and sharpness job than either blend setup. <

Than either of what blend setup? I'm not sure if you're referring to Nash and Bob's (which you've never seen), or some other blend setups you've worked with on contract jobs.

> One of the main benefits of having blended CRT's is 1, brightness. 2, the ability to clearly project higher resolutions, 3, a punchier and more dynamic image. <

That's one of them, eh?

[Nashou66]

TV-one makes a PC card but its just to get power and the rest is Analog, no DVI. So you would need a Moome external to go before the PC cards . But still doable. Andres in spain went the PC route , he developed a SLR camera system to calibrate the blend zone in the Marquee for zone contrast and RGB levels using alternating patters and then the program would send the marquee the commands to adjust zone,contrast,G2,drive etc in the Blend zone area. I was suppose to get an SLR camera and he was going to calibrate it remotely from Spain! We never got around to it . He's a Computer genius!!!

Nashou

[Nashou66]

Tim, I run 1920x800p@96. I like that so far, it reduced the scan lines, but they really were never a problem at 72 hz either.

The TV-One units are very well made and do some great things with the signals they are given. They do have some limitations regarding some color space issues and lack of CMS( I wish they'd add that!) The best things they do is the pixel mapping and frame rate interpolation. just awesome. The 1 to 1 pixel mapping adds nothing to the image. I only found one or two times it did not get it right and then a few plus or minus of the total resolution numbers would get it in line. I even tried 800p@120hz, no problem, but a little less definition of the 1 to 1 bars, but still discernible.

Athanasios

[gjaky]

[ecrabb]

[VideoGrabber]

[mc86]

This thread, and the ones I saw on the AVS archives (including SC!), talk a lot about how hard it would be to eliminate the overlap (bright line/dark line) on a hard edge and the PITA it is to fight drifting convergence, geometry, color, etc. But I haven't come across any first-hand accounts of setting up and trying to maintain a HARD edge. Especially with respect to getting to the point artifacts are tolerable and what the perceptual experience was. Are some of you speaking from first-hand experience 10 years ago, etc? That said, I have two Qs:

First, might the guy with the crappiest projector have the easiest time hiding the blend/not noticing it in the first place?

That is, perhaps it is so hard to achieve a "good" HARD edge precisely because folks are working with 1080p content being fully resolved via super-nice 8"/9"LC machines. By comparison, might my crappy little ECPs yield a more-easily-tolerable hard edge blend as a natural result of using 1080i (or 720p especially soft)? Heck, I know Tim said he once saw three ECPs stacked...this couldn't be more of a PITA, could it?!

Second, might the guy with the crappiest projector benefit most from a blend?

That is, using Tim's criteria earlier for candidates...
1) My couch must sit ~13ft from my desired screen location and therefore a 9ft screen would be good. A 7" machine simply shouldn't cover that much screen with 700 piddly lumens. I'd love to have more illuminance AND a bigger screen.

2) I currently own two functional ECP 4500s and have 2 sets of minty tubes with "appropriate" lenses. Ergo, the guy with the cheap machine has the least $ to spend.

3) I scored a 10ft screen from a dumpster at my work I can take home. (It has bad motor)

4) I don't mind two PJs on the ceiling and the WAF would not be a deal breaker.

5) As I already touch-up convergence everytime we watch something, doing so twice wouldn't be a big deal. Geometry, etc. seems to all hold very stable, but maybe I just don't notice with only one machine. Plus, I think if my tube/alignment and optical setup was better/perfect, convergence drift wouldn't nearly as much of an issue, either.

NOW, SC's very good point (in my book) of relying on PC for BR playback and use of PC for blending is unacceptable. BUT what if I used an external PC monitor "expander" to do the work AND tricked it with control from a PC but signal from my HDF3 (for example)? THAT would be tolerable and only would cost $150 or so! I have the analog version to drive my CRT monitors at work (and my pen tablet) and love it.

I'm really curious.

Thoughts?
Matt

[Tim in Phoenix]

Say Matt

I do not see a PC as a good base for a system unless it would easily process BluRay and HD satellite/cable. Two seven inch projectors are better than no projectors, and your upgrade paths will be fairly obvious as you will eventually want nine inch projectors and a better screen. A good system could be started with the Analog SmartEdge processor and a Moome MUX for under $7K, the rest can come later as your budget permits. I used a $70 piece of white canvas from an art supply store for a screen for years, even after becoming a Stewart dealer


.

[Boilermaker]

[Nashou66]

I agree with everything Bob says, I think you'd like a ECP blend. no reason it won't work for 1920x800p But you need CMS capable VP's otherwise its a moot point. So that C2-7000 on ebay for 1200 and then possible 2 dvdo duos or 2 radiance minis or find 2 used VidoEq's. So you might be able to do it for less than 4k if you find some used VP's. also get the Moome MUX-HD, i says its a must for any non HDCP compliant system.

nashou

[VideoGrabber]

Moot.

[Nashou66]

[mc86]

This is a total noob follow-up to Nashou, but 800p would not look mushy on a 7"ES machine b/c of active area zoom, correct?

Matt

[mc86]

in context, nashou could've meant it as in "video mute" point!
Matt

[Nashou66]

[Boilermaker]

And it would have enough light output for your 10' screen. Just make sure your screen has a gain of no more than 1.0.


Bob