|
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 |
jamsys
Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 152
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 25, 2012 6:00 pm Post subject: Barco gotta go - divorce pending!! :) |
|
|
We are remodeling and the wide wants the big stuff gone 
I have a Hitachi 56" Ultravision Director series rear projection 9" tubes. Picture is beyond.... Lost that battle but she bought the new Elite (sharp) 60" for 6k retail... The mags say its the best out there, but expensive... I don't want to put it on Craigslist, anyone?
Real prob is my Barco Cine8 (zenith pro1200xx) w 120" screen.... Love it except calibrations and size... But the best I have seen.. It's god like 
So I really like the Sony SXRD projectors
http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&identifier=S_Cinema_Projectors
Either the 95ES or the HW50ES
What % am I giving up, cons, better suggestions in that range?
Thx
Scott
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
garyfritz
Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 12088
Location: Fort Collins, CO
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 25, 2012 6:43 pm Post subject: Re: Barco gotta go - divorce pending!! :) |
|
|
| jamsys wrote: | | We are remodeling and the wide wants the big stuff gone |
Maybe calling her "the wide" is why the divorce is pending!!! 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nashou66
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Posts: 16171
Location: West Seneca NY
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garyfritz
Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 12088
Location: Fort Collins, CO
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 25, 2012 8:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Cliffy is considering a digital? AND it's one I could almost afford!?
What is this world coming to...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spanky Ham
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 5643
Location: Comedy Central
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 25, 2012 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Is the Barco in a dedicated theater? If so, then why do you need to get rid of it.
As for which digital, what do you like best about CRT?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jamsys
Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 152
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Spanky Ham wrote: | Is the Barco in a dedicated theater? If so, then why do you need to get rid of it.
As for which digital, what do you like best about CRT? |
It is a theater / family room, mostly theater... I have a large audio system... It's just the size of the pj... Biggest think I like about CRT is black level, NO pixels, warmth.....
I can't go with the Benq, as I can't deal with DLP and the color wheel...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spanky Ham
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 5643
Location: Comedy Central
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 3:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Then get a JVC.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jamsys
Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 152
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Spanky Ham wrote: | | Then get a JVC. |
Why JVC??? Its the same LcOS as Sony and Sony is cheaper... Just trying to figure it out..
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
overclkr
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 4227
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garyfritz wrote: | Cliffy is considering a digital? AND it's one I could almost afford!?
What is this world coming to... |
Considering? I have officially crossed to the bulb side
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
overclkr
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 4227
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jamsys wrote: | | Spanky Ham wrote: | | Then get a JVC. |
Why JVC??? Its the same LcOS as Sony and Sony is cheaper... Just trying to figure it out.. |
JVC uses Eshift which will pretty much solve your pixel worries. As far as blacks go, to the best of my knowledge, the higher in the model range you go, the better your blacks will be BUT you will sacrafice light output to acheive the higher contrast.
Have you seen the BenQ W7000? If not, you should try to audition one. Almost twice the amount of lumens of the brightest JVC HT line. Blacks arent that great, but the light output makes up for most of it. Also, with the color wheel, in the past I was very sensitive to RBE, but thus far it has been very minimal. Best I have ever seen from a single chip DLP.
Good luck on your search.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jamsys wrote: | | Spanky Ham wrote: | | Then get a JVC. |
Why JVC??? Its the same LcOS as Sony and Sony is cheaper... Just trying to figure it out.. |
No, it's not the same. That's like saying that two CRT projectors were the same because they used the same Panasonic tubes. The optical blocks are different, different lamps, different lenses, different filters, so the look and performance of the machines are also somewhat different.
I don't know all the details such as calibrated brightness, color accuracy, greyscale, primary accuracy, etc. though, so you should do your homework. I'm sure the Sony's are also excellent machines, but try to see both sets of machines before you decide one way or the other.
| jamsys wrote: | It is a theater / family room, mostly theater... I have a large audio system... It's just the size of the pj... Biggest think I like about CRT is black level, NO pixels, warmth.....
I can't go with the Benq, as I can't deal with DLP and the color wheel... |
I can probably add to this discussion, just having made the transition from G70 to JVC RS45 this summer.
I loved CRT (still do in some ways), but was considering selling the house, and wanted something smaller and lower-impact (on my room). I was also excited that digitals were finally getting really good, and even more excited to get a decent noise floor back in my room (one aspect of CRT that sucks royally). So, I sold my G70 and got an RS45.
Like you, I loved the pixel-free image (if a bit soft), loved the deep, rich black level (on/off - yes!), and the "analog" feel of the picture. So far, I'm really happy with the transition. I don't miss the black level, save for the occasional pitch-black type scene, like at the beginning of Cars. Other than that 2% of scenes, it's a non-issue. If there is any light on the screen at all, black levels are excellent.
I'm running 110" diag (96x54) Wilsonart DesignerWhite ~1.3 gain, and I'm running the RS45 in eco (low lamp) mode with the iris at smallest setting (dimmest picture), and it's brighter than the G70 was calibrated to where I watched it. Yes, it will drop off as the lamp ages, but I can slowly open the iris. I'm already at 200 or 250 hours and it hasn't changed significantly.
The only time I ever see the lower motion resolution of the LCOS is on rolling end-credits, so that's a non-issue to me. I've even done a bit of gaming, and motion resolution doesn't bother me at all. Unless you have a P43 green in your CRT, it isn't that great, either.
The pixel issue was really important to me, and it's the one thing out of all that bothers me slightly. I sit very close - about 1.2 screen widths, i.e. 10 feet from my 8-foot wide screen. I can't really see pixels, but I do see aliasing ("jaggies") occasionally on very small, high-contrast, fine detail like small white typography. I de-focused every so slightly, and it helped greatly, but I still notice from time to time. I like every other aspect of the RS45 so well, I may watch for a nice used or b-stock RS55 with e-shift and replace the RS45. This is only because I sit so close; a couple of feet further back and the 1080p LCoS image from the RS45 is visibly pixel-free.
I'll have to see Cliff's BenQ, but I've never seen a single-chip DLP that I particularly cared for, so I'd be surprised if this one looked that much better to me. But, if Cliffy likes it, who knows?
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RVonse
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 3152
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 12:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ecrabb,
Are you saying that the RS55 will have less screendoor than your 45, even though they are both 1080p projectors? Like yourself, I sit much closer than I should. So screendoor is something I worry alot about too.
In my theater my eyes are about 7 feet away from a 10 foot wide screen. I don't know why but to me it seems like the perfect place to be and for a crt in good focus it works out very well. But as far as I can tell there is nothing at any price range other than a 4k machine that I can find out there that will not show screendoor effect. But I continue to look.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spanky Ham
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 5643
Location: Comedy Central
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 12:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
As Steve said, the Sony and JVC use different LCOS. Sony uses an iris to get their on/off cr, while JVC is native. Sony has some positive features, but you said you like the black level of CRT. To me, that means JVC.
I am not sure how you figure the JVC is more expensive. Based on your link, you have a budget of $4k to $6k. Crabb paid a little over $2k for his b-stock RS45. Right now, you can get manufactured refurb RS60 for $2950 or a RS65 for $6300.
http://stores.ebay.com/JVCPROSTORE?_rdc=1
Rvonse,
Last years and this years premium models have e-shift, which gives a 4k image. Difficult to describe, as its probably best to go to JVC's website and read about it. The RS60 above doesn't have 4k, while the RS65 does.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HogPilot
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 2383
TV/Projector: Vizio P702ui-B3, Pioneer Elite Pro-151FD & 111FD
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 12:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RVonse wrote: | Ecrabb,
Are you saying that the RS55 will have less screendoor than your 45, even though they are both 1080p projectors? Like yourself, I sit much closer than I should. So screendoor is something I worry alot about too.
In my theater my eyes are about 7 feet away from a 10 foot wide screen. I don't know why but to me it seems like the perfect place to be and for a crt in good focus it works out very well. But as far as I can tell there is nothing at any price range other than a 4k machine that I can find out there that will not show screendoor effect. But I continue to look. |
The short answer is yes, for a couple reasons.
But first, screen door effect (SDE) refers to visible gaps in between pixels - which, with LCoS (JVC's DILA, Sony's SXRD, etc), is almost a non-issue as the fill factor is incredibly high. SDE is somewhat more prominent with DLP, but is mostly a problem with LCD (except for Panasonic projectors which use an extra optical element to eliminate the gaps). SDE certainly contributes to pixel visibility, but it isn't the sole reason that you'd see pixels on a fixed-pixel display. Often times pixels are made visible (as ecrabb already stated) along high-contrast, diagonal borders. Variables that contribute to pixel visibility with this type of content (aside from display tech) are visual acuity, seating distance, and projector resolution.
With some JVC projectors that use e-Shift, pixel visibility is further reduced with an optical element and processing that effectively creates a 4K image by rapidly overlapping 1/2 pixel-shifted 1080p images. Not only does the higher pixel count reduce the chance that one will see pixel structure, but the already incredibly small gaps between pixels are filled-in by the overlapping pixels.
JVC projectors that use e-Shift are the RS55, RS65, RS48, RS56, and RS66.
_________________
| 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 |
Last edited by HogPilot on Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:01 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 12:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
RV,
Man, 7 feet from a 10-foot screen is REALLY sitting close - even for CRT. I love an immersive image, but wow... You'll certainly be a candidate for 4k when/if it the hardware and software are widely available.
But, yes - e-Shift would absolutely reduce - actually practically eliminate - screen door. The source is 1080p, but e-Shift creates a second grid of pixels shifted half a pixel right and down. It creates a much more "solid" film-like image because the shifted pixels most obscure the screen-door. I saw it at CEDIA; walked right up to the screen, in fact. It really does work.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mc86
Joined: 20 Sep 2008
Posts: 767
Location: pittsburgh, pa
TV/Projector: ECP 4500 (Vidikron box), ECP4500+, wanting 07MS/07MTS, evaluating pc soft-blend
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 6:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
To other eShift ignorant folks like me who are wondering more on how eShift works, read on. I hope to clarify the truth I know Crabb, HogPilot, and others must certainly speaketh. Apologies if this was already explained here clearly before, but I didn't see it on here via a a few quick searches.
The explanation of e-Shift as simply moving pixels 1/2 down and 1/2 over, periodically, is incomplete. An article showing a simplified schematic of this optical trick's technology can be found here . However, please note, this trick alone doesn't "effectively create a 4K image" or anything -- it simply dodges an 1080p image periodically (1/60 or 1/120, etc.) to illuminate the black spaces and thereby reduce SDE. The article shows this is done by altering the index of refraction of a component the projected image passes through. Regardless, his a simple trick, but not a clever one in and of itself.
But wait, there's more! Yes indeed, the intelligent designers ALSO employ sophisticated algorithms to avoid any interference and to enhance the resultant summation. The algorithms perform analysis via a line-doubling-like interpolation (only smarter) AND then assign colors to the to-be-shifted pixels that may/may not be different from the original pixel's value! Combine this with the above and the result is now officially clever. And while this still doesn't create a 4K image per se or require more pixels, it does paint a screen with information in excess of the original pixel data given to the PJ. A nice description is here that shows this all at work. Nifty. All of this later logic wasn't clear to me before. More actual pixels in the PJ's native resolution on helps implement this and reduces jaggies, etc.
Bottom line: when Crabb writes:
| ecrabb wrote: |
The pixel issue was really important to me, and it's the one thing out of all that bothers me slightly. I sit very close - about 1.2 screen widths, i.e. 10 feet from my 8-foot wide screen. I can't really see pixels, but I do see aliasing ("jaggies") occasionally on very small, high-contrast, fine detail like small white typography. I de-focused every so slightly, and it helped greatly, but I still notice from time to time.
SC |
He isn't kidding -- the SDE would be essentially gone AND shouldn't look fuzzy if done well. Jaggies should be helped a little, too. Besides, consider that 1920pixels at 96" wide are 0.05"/pixel (1.25mm/pixel). Plus, the gap between the pixel is a fraction of the pixel width. The idea SDE is within human visual acuity at 10ft amazes me. Of course, jeez...some nuts amongst us sit 7ft away from a 10ft screen!   I sit ~13ft back from a little over 7ft wide screen, so I'm on other end of spectrum.
Anyway, this long ramble helped me out...hope it helps someone else.
bests,
Matt
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HogPilot
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 2383
TV/Projector: Vizio P702ui-B3, Pioneer Elite Pro-151FD & 111FD
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 10:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mc86 wrote: | To other eShift ignorant folks like me who are wondering more on how eShift works, read on. I hope to clarify the truth I know Crabb, HogPilot, and others must certainly speaketh. Apologies if this was already explained here clearly before, but I didn't see it on here via a a few quick searches.
The explanation of e-Shift as simply moving pixels 1/2 down and 1/2 over, periodically, is incomplete. An article showing a simplified schematic of this optical trick's technology can be found here . However, please note, this trick alone doesn't "effectively create a 4K image" or anything -- it simply dodges an 1080p image periodically (1/60 or 1/120, etc.) to illuminate the black spaces and thereby reduce SDE. The article shows this is done by altering the index of refraction of a component the projected image passes through. Regardless, his a simple trick, but not a clever one in and of itself.
But wait, there's more! Yes indeed, the intelligent designers ALSO employ sophisticated algorithms to avoid any interference and to enhance the resultant summation. The algorithms perform analysis via a line-doubling-like interpolation (only smarter) AND then assign colors to the to-be-shifted pixels that may/may not be different from the original pixel's value! Combine this with the above and the result is now officially clever. And while this still doesn't create a 4K image per se or require more pixels, it does paint a screen with information in excess of the original pixel data given to the PJ. A nice description is here that shows this all at work. Nifty. All of this later logic wasn't clear to me before. More actual pixels in the PJ's native resolution on helps implement this and reduces jaggies, etc.
Bottom line: when Crabb writes:
| ecrabb wrote: |
The pixel issue was really important to me, and it's the one thing out of all that bothers me slightly. I sit very close - about 1.2 screen widths, i.e. 10 feet from my 8-foot wide screen. I can't really see pixels, but I do see aliasing ("jaggies") occasionally on very small, high-contrast, fine detail like small white typography. I de-focused every so slightly, and it helped greatly, but I still notice from time to time.
SC |
He isn't kidding -- the SDE would be essentially gone AND shouldn't look fuzzy if done well. Jaggies should be helped a little, too. Besides, consider that 1920pixels at 96" wide are 0.05"/pixel (1.25mm/pixel). Plus, the gap between the pixel is a fraction of the pixel width. The idea SDE is within human visual acuity at 10ft amazes me. Of course, jeez...some nuts amongst us sit 7ft away from a 10ft screen! I sit ~13ft back from a little over 7ft wide screen, so I'm on other end of spectrum.
Anyway, this long ramble helped me out...hope it helps someone else.
bests,
Matt |
Just a quick note: eShift absolutely does create 4K pixels, in the same sense that displays create billions of colors even though they really only use red, green and blue: it is designed to trick our visual system based on how our visual system works. Not all 4K of those pixels are individually addressable, but if you were to count every single square pixel on the screen with eShift engaged, you would count 3840x2160. The PRIMARY purpose of eShift is to achieve 4K display resolution without a 4K panel. The elimination of inter-pixel gaps and reduction of pixel visibility are simply added bonuses.
_________________
| 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 |
|
|
fefrank
Joined: 10 Jun 2012
Posts: 83
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 1:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HogPilot wrote: | | mc86 wrote: | To other eShift ignorant folks like me who are wondering more on how eShift works, read on. I hope to clarify the truth I know Crabb, HogPilot, and others must certainly speaketh. Apologies if this was already explained here clearly before, but I didn't see it on here via a a few quick searches.
The explanation of e-Shift as simply moving pixels 1/2 down and 1/2 over, periodically, is incomplete. An article showing a simplified schematic of this optical trick's technology can be found here . However, please note, this trick alone doesn't "effectively create a 4K image" or anything -- it simply dodges an 1080p image periodically (1/60 or 1/120, etc.) to illuminate the black spaces and thereby reduce SDE. The article shows this is done by altering the index of refraction of a component the projected image passes through. Regardless, his a simple trick, but not a clever one in and of itself.
But wait, there's more! Yes indeed, the intelligent designers ALSO employ sophisticated algorithms to avoid any interference and to enhance the resultant summation. The algorithms perform analysis via a line-doubling-like interpolation (only smarter) AND then assign colors to the to-be-shifted pixels that may/may not be different from the original pixel's value! Combine this with the above and the result is now officially clever. And while this still doesn't create a 4K image per se or require more pixels, it does paint a screen with information in excess of the original pixel data given to the PJ. A nice description is here that shows this all at work. Nifty. All of this later logic wasn't clear to me before. More actual pixels in the PJ's native resolution on helps implement this and reduces jaggies, etc.
Bottom line: when Crabb writes:
| ecrabb wrote: |
The pixel issue was really important to me, and it's the one thing out of all that bothers me slightly. I sit very close - about 1.2 screen widths, i.e. 10 feet from my 8-foot wide screen. I can't really see pixels, but I do see aliasing ("jaggies") occasionally on very small, high-contrast, fine detail like small white typography. I de-focused every so slightly, and it helped greatly, but I still notice from time to time.
SC |
He isn't kidding -- the SDE would be essentially gone AND shouldn't look fuzzy if done well. Jaggies should be helped a little, too. Besides, consider that 1920pixels at 96" wide are 0.05"/pixel (1.25mm/pixel). Plus, the gap between the pixel is a fraction of the pixel width. The idea SDE is within human visual acuity at 10ft amazes me. Of course, jeez...some nuts amongst us sit 7ft away from a 10ft screen! I sit ~13ft back from a little over 7ft wide screen, so I'm on other end of spectrum.
Anyway, this long ramble helped me out...hope it helps someone else.
bests,
Matt |
Just a quick note: eShift absolutely does create 4K pixels, in the same sense that displays create billions of colors even though they really only use red, green and blue: it is designed to trick our visual system based on how our visual system works. Not all 4K of those pixels are individually addressable, but if you were to count every single square pixel on the screen with eShift engaged, you would count 3840x2160. The PRIMARY purpose of eShift is to achieve 4K display resolution without a 4K panel. The elimination of inter-pixel gaps and reduction of pixel visibility are simply added bonuses. |
So is this like Image compression? 4k compressed to a 1080p panel?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HogPilot
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 2383
TV/Projector: Vizio P702ui-B3, Pioneer Elite Pro-151FD & 111FD
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fefrank wrote: | | HogPilot wrote: | | mc86 wrote: | To other eShift ignorant folks like me who are wondering more on how eShift works, read on. I hope to clarify the truth I know Crabb, HogPilot, and others must certainly speaketh. Apologies if this was already explained here clearly before, but I didn't see it on here via a a few quick searches.
The explanation of e-Shift as simply moving pixels 1/2 down and 1/2 over, periodically, is incomplete. An article showing a simplified schematic of this optical trick's technology can be found here . However, please note, this trick alone doesn't "effectively create a 4K image" or anything -- it simply dodges an 1080p image periodically (1/60 or 1/120, etc.) to illuminate the black spaces and thereby reduce SDE. The article shows this is done by altering the index of refraction of a component the projected image passes through. Regardless, his a simple trick, but not a clever one in and of itself.
But wait, there's more! Yes indeed, the intelligent designers ALSO employ sophisticated algorithms to avoid any interference and to enhance the resultant summation. The algorithms perform analysis via a line-doubling-like interpolation (only smarter) AND then assign colors to the to-be-shifted pixels that may/may not be different from the original pixel's value! Combine this with the above and the result is now officially clever. And while this still doesn't create a 4K image per se or require more pixels, it does paint a screen with information in excess of the original pixel data given to the PJ. A nice description is here that shows this all at work. Nifty. All of this later logic wasn't clear to me before. More actual pixels in the PJ's native resolution on helps implement this and reduces jaggies, etc.
Bottom line: when Crabb writes:
| ecrabb wrote: |
The pixel issue was really important to me, and it's the one thing out of all that bothers me slightly. I sit very close - about 1.2 screen widths, i.e. 10 feet from my 8-foot wide screen. I can't really see pixels, but I do see aliasing ("jaggies") occasionally on very small, high-contrast, fine detail like small white typography. I de-focused every so slightly, and it helped greatly, but I still notice from time to time.
SC |
He isn't kidding -- the SDE would be essentially gone AND shouldn't look fuzzy if done well. Jaggies should be helped a little, too. Besides, consider that 1920pixels at 96" wide are 0.05"/pixel (1.25mm/pixel). Plus, the gap between the pixel is a fraction of the pixel width. The idea SDE is within human visual acuity at 10ft amazes me. Of course, jeez...some nuts amongst us sit 7ft away from a 10ft screen! I sit ~13ft back from a little over 7ft wide screen, so I'm on other end of spectrum.
Anyway, this long ramble helped me out...hope it helps someone else.
bests,
Matt |
Just a quick note: eShift absolutely does create 4K pixels, in the same sense that displays create billions of colors even though they really only use red, green and blue: it is designed to trick our visual system based on how our visual system works. Not all 4K of those pixels are individually addressable, but if you were to count every single square pixel on the screen with eShift engaged, you would count 3840x2160. The PRIMARY purpose of eShift is to achieve 4K display resolution without a 4K panel. The elimination of inter-pixel gaps and reduction of pixel visibility are simply added bonuses. |
So is this like Image compression? 4k compressed to a 1080p panel? |
I don't know all the details of how the image processing works, but it goes something like this:
1. The 1080p image is scaled up to a 3840x2160 image (exactly 4 times the original resolution).
2. Using a proprietary algorithm, the internal image processor creates two separate 1080p images that, when shifted by 1/2 pixel horizontally and vertically and overlapped, re-create the 4k image within the constraints of the addressable pixels (half of the approx 8.3 million total pixels).
3. The projector displays the frames through the eShift optical element, resulting in a 4k image.
_________________
| 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: Thu Dec 27, 2012 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: |
I de-focused every so slightly, and it helped greatly,
|
thats nice to see i'm not the only one doing that.. I once suggested that on a forum and got kind of beaten up.
But guess you need to be used to CRT to do things like that..
I was reading about a guy here who just changed from JVC X7 to the new X75, and got it pro calibrated with a Lumagen. And they ended up not using the E shift.. I think the eshift introduced quite some noise to.
I think both the e shift and the defocusing is worth testing if you have the option. Scaling is still what it is, not perfect.
I'm using a 110" gain 1.0 16:9 screen its 2,5m wide and I'm about 4m away. And i cant say i can pin point the pixels but they are somehow visible. Ill need to get about 2x screen wide away before it don't bother me.
|
|
| 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
|
|
