|
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 |
VideoGrabber
Joined: 09 Apr 2006
Posts: 933
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 2:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Spanky,
> So, who was right? <
As is usually the case when an argument goes on for as long as that one did, they both were. However, each was somewhat confused as to what the other was saying, and neither wanted to give any ground. Darin did a lot of bashing, and Amir did a lot of dodging. 
> Honestly, I preferred over 2 sw when I was running 4x3. It was still a much bigger picture than I would have gotten with any other technology. <
Well, you just completely changed the context!  For 4x3 in HD (Wizard of Oz), I tend to prefer around 1.6-1.7x. But for SD, I'd definitely agree with you about the 2.0x.
That's why it's really important to know the other characteristics. Viewing scope at 1.2x is one thing. Viewing 4:3 at 1.2x is a 'horse of a different color', so to speak. I can't imagine that being enjoyable (other than perhaps in an Imax theater, as part of a ride. ). And definitely NOT from SD content (~7 scan lines per inch). (blurro-vision TM)
_________________
- Tim
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
HogPilot
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 2383
TV/Projector: Vizio P702ui-B3, Pioneer Elite Pro-151FD & 111FD
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | I'm sure its all about taste, i don't defocus so the pixel is all gone, its visible on a close range.
I think the sharpness to digital projectors is artificial, like making a digital image you have to decide light and color of each pixel, so that define borders much harder than in real life. Whats so great to me with crt, is that i think it actually soften the resolution so you hit a very realistic balance to real life sharpness / focus. The sharper and more focus you get on everything in the image the more dept you loos, and it feels much more flat. Look AVATAR on Digital and CRT.. |
Optical sharpness on a video projector and sharpness contained within the source material are two different things. True sharpness in terms of the source material can only be increased when material is initially captured by using better optics or a higher resolution sensor or medium. After that, we worry about optical sharpness on our projectors - i.e., how does the projector handle boundaries with rapid changes in luminence or color? Are those boundaries clean (representing a high MTF), or do they have a gradient to them (representing lower MTF, or what some would call "soft")?
I often hear people talk about - and I'm one of those people - video projectors that produce a "film-like" image. Something we need to keep in mind is that, unless you have a film projector and film reels in your home, you're not watching film; you're watching a digital transfer of film composed of a array of finite pixels. Once you make the transition to optical disc from film, the source material is now digital and no longer film - assuming, of course, that the material you're watching wasn't shot digitally to begin with, which an increasing number of titles are. This begs two questions: how should that digital material be reproduced in terms of fidelity, and what shape is a pixel captured or encoded as? Every authoritative piece of information I've ever read says that pixels are square (or rectangular) with finite edges. If the shape of the pixels are visible from one's seating position (i.e., you can see pixel structure), than the solution shouldn't be to blur the edges; it should be to increase the number of pixels or increase viewing distance. Blurring the edges of pixels not only avoids the primary issue, but it also is a step back from a fidelity standpoint since you're less accurately reproducing the source material. The fact that CRT produces an image where pixels aren't visible is a strength, but its relative softness is not in terms of fidelity (not to mention end-user preference).
And this brings me back to my comment about "taste" - no single display technology does everything right. To compound the issue, what one person considers a weakness of one tech, another might consider a strength. So chosing a display tech very much comes down to personal taste and priorities, and what you personally value in terms of not only PQ but from a set-up and maintenence standpoint as well.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | On digital you often gets sharp focus on objects 20m back from the actual action area. Its kind of wow, but wrong to human eyes/ vision. |
If a digital projector is reproducing this kind of sharpness, it's in the source material, it's not a consequence of the display tech, and thus that level of sharpness is intended. See my comment above about the difference between source material sharpness and the optical sharpness of our displays. It has nothing to do with the display tech over-sharpening the material, it's just reproducing it as the material is captured.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | I'm all in for realistic and authentic look. |
I'm all for reproducing the source material as faithfully as possible, realizing that the display tech I choose will always imprint its own "look" upon the image. If I want true realism, I go outside or travel - I watch movies to escape reality, not reproduce it.
_________________
| ecrabb wrote: | | Curt Palme wrote: | | Interesting, Mac isn't returning my emails. Go figure. |
He's mad at us for making Hog a moderator. He took his ball and went home.
SC |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HogPilot wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | I'm sure its all about taste, i don't defocus so the pixel is all gone, its visible on a close range.
I think the sharpness to digital projectors is artificial, like making a digital image you have to decide light and color of each pixel, so that define borders much harder than in real life. Whats so great to me with crt, is that i think it actually soften the resolution so you hit a very realistic balance to real life sharpness / focus. The sharper and more focus you get on everything in the image the more dept you loos, and it feels much more flat. Look AVATAR on Digital and CRT.. |
Optical sharpness on a video projector and sharpness contained within the source material are two different things. True sharpness in terms of the source material can only be increased when material is initially captured by using better optics or a higher resolution sensor or medium. After that, we worry about optical sharpness on our projectors - i.e., how does the projector handle boundaries with rapid changes in luminence or color? Are those boundaries clean (representing a high MTF), or do they have a gradient to them (representing lower MTF, or what some would call "soft")?
I often hear people talk about - and I'm one of those people - video projectors that produce a "film-like" image. Something we need to keep in mind is that, unless you have a film projector and film reels in your home, you're not watching film; you're watching a digital transfer of film composed of a array of finite pixels. Once you make the transition to optical disc from film, the source material is now digital and no longer film - assuming, of course, that the material you're watching wasn't shot digitally to begin with, which an increasing number of titles are. This begs two questions: how should that digital material be reproduced in terms of fidelity, and what shape is a pixel captured or encoded as? Every authoritative piece of information I've ever read says that pixels are square (or rectangular) with finite edges. If the shape of the pixels are visible from one's seating position (i.e., you can see pixel structure), than the solution shouldn't be to blur the edges; it should be to increase the number of pixels or increase viewing distance. Blurring the edges of pixels not only avoids the primary issue, but it also is a step back from a fidelity standpoint since you're less accurately reproducing the source material. The fact that CRT produces an image where pixels aren't visible is a strength, but its relative softness is not in terms of fidelity (not to mention end-user preference).
And this brings me back to my comment about "taste" - no single display technology does everything right. To compound the issue, what one person considers a weakness of one tech, another might consider a strength. So chosing a display tech very much comes down to personal taste and priorities, and what you personally value in terms of not only PQ but from a set-up and maintenence standpoint as well.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | On digital you often gets sharp focus on objects 20m back from the actual action area. Its kind of wow, but wrong to human eyes/ vision. |
If a digital projector is reproducing this kind of sharpness, it's in the source material, it's not a consequence of the display tech, and thus that level of sharpness is intended. See my comment above about the difference between source material sharpness and the optical sharpness of our displays. It has nothing to do with the display tech over-sharpening the material, it's just reproducing it as the material is captured.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | I'm all in for realistic and authentic look. |
I'm all for reproducing the source material as faithfully as possible, realizing that the display tech I choose will always imprint its own "look" upon the image. If I want true realism, I go outside or travel - I watch movies to escape reality, not reproduce it. |
I agree. Reproducing the source material as faithfully as possible. 1080P 1:1 no scaling and no grid on screen.
Don't you think the space between the pixels make the image look sharper, also sharper than the content was intended.?
Do you think e shift scaling and overlapping pixels is true to the material.?
My idea of most true to the material with most realism is CRT that can resolve full 1080P.
What is your ultimate projector dream, only thinking of the way its reproducing image, forget about the space and work needet ??
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HogPilot
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 2383
TV/Projector: Vizio P702ui-B3, Pioneer Elite Pro-151FD & 111FD
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | I agree. Reproducing the source material as faithfully as possible. 1080P 1:1 no scaling and no grid on screen.
Don't you think the space between the pixels make the image look sharper, also sharper than the content was intended.? |
Well, SDE (space between the pixels) and being able to detect pixel structure are not necessarily one in the same. For example, on my RS50, I could sometimes see the pixels along the edges of white credits on a black background. There was absolutely no SDE visible, but the pixel structure was visible because of the high contrast involved (this is usually the most common scenario in which pixel structure is most readily apparent). So it's quite possible to be able to see pixels (or at least part of their edges) without seeing any SDE.
So no, it's not the space between the pixels that makes the image look sharper. And I think the "sharper than intended" argument is baseless, barring any significant information from directors on the subject. Keep in mind that most film that we see in theaters is many levels removed from the original positive, not to mention that the quality of the image is hit or miss (usually miss given the overall poor attention that projectionists pay to proper setup these days). So the film we see in theaters can often be a far cry from what the director sees during screenings. There's certainly a very good case to be made against using what we see in our average theaters as a reference for PQ.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | Do you think e shift scaling and overlapping pixels is true to the material.? |
It's no different than upscaling a DVD to watch on an HD display, which everyone here does (some regularly). Are you suggesting that if we're not watching 480i movies at their native interlaced resolution, that we're degrading the material? Aside from trotting out test patterns - which equal or exceed Nyquist frequency, unlike 99% of the material in the movies we watch - there's really no argument to be made against upscaling when it's done to take advantage of a display that has a higher resolution than the source material.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | My idea of most true to the material with most realism is CRT that can resolve full 1080P. |
And I fully respect that that is your preference. My point here is not to turn this into a "which tech is the best" pissing match, which is futile (as I've stated already). My point is that there are other display techs that exceed CRT in multiple PQ areas, and there are a lot of people that prefer those techs for those reasons. And no one is wrong - they just have to be happy with what they're watching.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | What is your ultimate projector dream, only thinking of the way its reproducing image, forget about the space and work needet ?? |
My ultimate display wouldn't be a projector, but rather a gigantic ultra-thin display with high light output, infinite CR, a gamut as wide as what we can see, 32K resolution, easy to transport, low power consumption, and it accurately reproduces whatever is fed to it without imposing its own character upon the image. I think I have a good shot at getting about half of those within my lifetime 
_________________
| ecrabb wrote: | | Curt Palme wrote: | | Interesting, Mac isn't returning my emails. Go figure. |
He's mad at us for making Hog a moderator. He took his ball and went home.
SC |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HogPilot
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 2383
TV/Projector: Vizio P702ui-B3, Pioneer Elite Pro-151FD & 111FD
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | I agree. Reproducing the source material as faithfully as possible. 1080P 1:1 no scaling and no grid on screen.
Don't you think the space between the pixels make the image look sharper, also sharper than the content was intended.? |
Well, SDE (space between the pixels) and being able to detect pixel structure are not necessarily one in the same. For example, on my RS50, I could sometimes see the pixels along the edges of white credits on a black background. There was absolutely no SDE visible, but the pixel structure was visible because of the high contrast involved (this is usually the most common scenario in which pixel structure is most readily apparent). So it's quite possible to be able to see pixels (or at least part of their edges) without seeing any SDE.
So no, it's not the space between the pixels that makes the image look sharper. And I think the "sharper than intended" argument is baseless, barring any significant information from directors on the subject. Keep in mind that most film that we see in theaters is many levels removed from the original positive, not to mention that the quality of the image is hit or miss (usually miss given the overall poor attention that projectionists pay to proper setup these days). So the film we see in theaters can often be a far cry from what the director sees during screenings. There's certainly a very good case to be made against using what we see in our average theaters as a reference for PQ. The whole argument is moot anyways since we don't watch film in our homes, we watch 100% digital material, some of which comes from film and some of which does not. In terms of fidelity, we should be reproducing what's on the disc, not trying to emulate the look of something that we don't even remotely have access to.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | Do you think e shift scaling and overlapping pixels is true to the material.? |
It's no different than upscaling a DVD to watch on an HD display, which everyone here does (some regularly). Are you suggesting that if we're not watching 480i movies at their native interlaced resolution, that we're degrading the material? Aside from trotting out test patterns - which equal or exceed Nyquist frequency, unlike 99% of the material in the movies we watch - there's really no argument to be made against upscaling when it's done to take advantage of a display that has a higher resolution than the source material.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | My idea of most true to the material with most realism is CRT that can resolve full 1080P. |
And I fully respect that that is your preference. My point here is not to turn this into a "which tech is the best" pissing match, which is futile (as I've stated already). My point is that there are other display techs that exceed CRT in multiple PQ areas, and there are a lot of people that prefer those techs for those reasons. And no one is wrong - they just have to be happy with what they're watching.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | What is your ultimate projector dream, only thinking of the way its reproducing image, forget about the space and work needet ?? |
My ultimate display wouldn't be a projector, but rather a gigantic ultra-thin display with high light output, infinite CR, a gamut as wide as what we can see, 32K resolution, easy to transport, low power consumption, and it accurately reproduces whatever is fed to it without imposing its own character upon the image. I think I have a good shot at getting about half of those within my lifetime
_________________
| ecrabb wrote: | | Curt Palme wrote: | | Interesting, Mac isn't returning my emails. Go figure. |
He's mad at us for making Hog a moderator. He took his ball and went home.
SC |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well i understand most of what your telling, but i don't agree.
Scaling SD material is needed to look it on a HD display.. its just the way it is. its made to be seen on very small CRT display, and work best like that, specially the ultra sh*tty NTSC format.
But i don't think anyone would enjoy pixels as big as stamps flying around the HT screen so we scale it the best we can, and depending how its done, its so much better than having monster pixels. LOL
In that case we let it give os some ringing and artifacts, to get the calculated higher resolution.
But lets keep this to BD material. And here i don't miss any resolution, i prefer 1,5- 2x screen width to my position.
Not in relation to resolution, but i'm not so cross-eyed that i can keep up with whats going on all over the screen if i get any closer
And about your ultimate display, could you put a name on it, not the imaginary one please..
And being a little curious ill like to ask what kind of projectors other than the RS55 do you, or did you have.?
And would love if you have some calibration files to share of your displays. specially to see how close to perfect you can get the RS55. Then ill post some of my X7 calibration files to compare with.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HogPilot
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 2383
TV/Projector: Vizio P702ui-B3, Pioneer Elite Pro-151FD & 111FD
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 4:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | | Well i understand most of what your telling, but i don't agree. |
That's the beauty of things, we don't have to agree on this particular subject. That's why you have a CRT and I have my RS55, and we're both happy
| stridsvognen wrote: | Scaling SD material is needed to look it on a HD display.. its just the way it is. its made to be seen on very small CRT display, and work best like that, specially the ultra sh*tty NTSC format.
But i don't think anyone would enjoy pixels as big as stamps flying around the HT screen so we scale it the best we can, and depending how its done, its so much better than having monster pixels. LOL
In that case we let it give os some ringing and artifacts, to get the calculated higher resolution. |
I'll repeat myself here - the benefits of upscaling material to a higher resolution that's native to one's display are well documented and understood. People were doing with with CRTs long before HD digital projectors were available - they paid serious money for line doublers and quadruplers to make it happen, too. And ringing is not a guaranteed artifact when scaling, it's simply a by-product of over-agressive sharpening applied after scaling. Lumagen's no-ring scaling algorithm is a great example of scaling done right. And I've already stated in the case of the RS55's ringing with e-shift, almost all of the real-world movie material that I've watched exhibited zero ringing.
| stridsvognen wrote: | But lets keep this to BD material. And here i don't miss any resolution, i prefer 1,5- 2x screen width to my position.
Not in relation to resolution, but i'm not so cross-eyed that i can keep up with whats going on all over the screen if i get any closer |
Again, your preference. If you like to sit that far back from the screen, more power to you. I prefer to sit around 1 screen width and have no problems fully enjoying and keeping up with the material I watch. But with my visual acuity (I'm 20/15), I can't sit that close without an increase in resolution, which is why the e-shift on the RS55 is so great. There is nothing magic about 1080p, except for the fact that it represents the first significant increase in resolution to our TVs for many decades. Yes, it has allowed larger displays and closer seating distances, but we have by no means arrived at a display that's capable of exceeding the capabilities of human vision. The march for increased resolution on displays, increased gamuts, and overall better performance will not stop simply because we've made some improvements in the last 10-15 years. In other words, resolutions greater than 1080p are definitely useful, and my current setup with 4K-lite proves that.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | And about your ultimate display, could you put a name on it, not the imaginary one please.. |
My ultimate display doesn't exist yet - there is not a single display technology that doesn't have flaws at this point. Maybe some day that will change, but as of right now my RS55 and my Pioneer Elite plasmas make me quite happy.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | And being a little curious ill like to ask what kind of projectors other than the RS55 do you, or did you have.? |
The first projector I saw was a CRT (couldn't tell you anything about it) back in '01 - a girl I was dating took me to her parent's house and we watched Independence Day in her dad's theater downstairs. It was a pretty nice setup and I knew that one day I wanted to have a theater like that. Then in '06 when I got my first assignment out of pilot training, I visited a buddy of mine, and he had a Toshiba PE7700 in his theater, and I was blown away by the quality of the picture. So I started off with an InFocus Screenplay 5000 (LCD) for about $800. The fill factor and convergence weren't that great, and the black levels were abysmal, but it was a great starter projector. After that I upgraded to an Optoma H79 (DLP), which was one of the best machines of its day. This was a significant step up from the SP5000 in every way except for the classic DLP rainbows, which I didn't see all the time but were detectable enough to be an annoyance. I had that for about a year driving a 2.35:1 setup (with an anamorphic lens); then when the RS1 came out in '07 I was one of the first people to jump on that train - and I loved it. Since then I've owned quite a few projectors - FPJ1 (RS2 clone), Sony Pearl (their first 1080p LCoS machine), BenQ W10000 (DLP machine), RS35, RS50, and RS55, and two Sim2 HT3000's ($20K DLPs). I've also used a Planar PD7060 and PD7130 (both DLP) as well as my current Acer K330 (LED DLP) as "travel" projectors for when I deploy. They all have their own strengths and weaknesses, but I always find myself coming back to JVC's LCoS because of the blacks and the fill factor, plus it's a 3-chip machine.
| stridsvognen wrote: | | And would love if you have some calibration files to share of your displays. specially to see how close to perfect you can get the RS55. Then ill post some of my X7 calibration files to compare with. |
Unfortunately I didn't have the time to put enough hours on my RS55 to calibrate it before I deployed, but once I get back and I calibrate it I'll be happy to share my files here. Keep in mind I'll probably use my Lumagen Radiance's CMS rather than the processing internal to the RS55 because I'm already familiar with the Radiance's controls. When I used it to calibrate my RS2, I was very, very happy with the results.
_________________
| ecrabb wrote: | | Curt Palme wrote: | | Interesting, Mac isn't returning my emails. Go figure. |
He's mad at us for making Hog a moderator. He took his ball and went home.
SC |
|
|
| 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
|
|
