| Author |
Message |
AnalogRocks
Forum Moderator
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 26706
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
TV/Projector: Sony 1252Q, AMPRO 4000G
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 5:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Do the oval trick with the magnets. That's how Kal runs his I belive.
_________________
Tech support for nothing
CRT.
HD done right!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
klabo
Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Any of you guys know where to look for an error if you are missing 50-60 lines in the botton of the picture on a NEC XG with moome DVI card. I have very good cables and blank to 100% I am using powerstrip with all kind of 1080i96 settings but the lower part of the picture is missing???(it is the size of the process bar missing)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CasetheCorvetteman
Joined: 09 Nov 2008
Posts: 6326
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark_A_W wrote: | | I'm going to try a different drivers and then a different PC. |
Mark, have you tried overclocking the arse off that old video card? Is this one of the newer 9500s with no fan on it? Been a long time since i used any Radeon cards, but i used to get a long way over clocking my 7000 (many many MANY years ago) and the 9800 PRO would go a fair rise too, as long as you kept it cool.
| Jesse S wrote: | | Perhaps 1920x1440i? |
As i was reading through this thread just then i was thinking that myself yes. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jesse S
Joined: 12 May 2007
Posts: 209
Location: Etobicoke
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| klabo wrote: | | Any of you guys know where to look for an error if you are missing 50-60 lines in the botton of the picture on a NEC XG with moome DVI card. I have very good cables and blank to 100% I am using powerstrip with all kind of 1080i96 settings but the lower part of the picture is missing???(it is the size of the process bar missing) |
Try adjusting the position (in XG controls). Might just be the image not centered in the raster.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark_A_W
Joined: 15 Mar 2006
Posts: 3068
Location: Sunny Melbourne Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 1:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CasetheCorvetteman wrote: | | Mark_A_W wrote: | | I'm going to try a different drivers and then a different PC. |
Mark, have you tried overclocking the arse off that old video card? Is this one of the newer 9500s with no fan on it? Been a long time since i used any Radeon cards, but i used to get a long way over clocking my 7000 (many many MANY years ago) and the 9800 PRO would go a fair rise too, as long as you kept it cool.
|
Ok, I'm lost, why would I do that?
I have a HD2600XT, it runs all HD video just fine. Why would I overclock it? I don't game.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CasetheCorvetteman
Joined: 09 Nov 2008
Posts: 6326
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 5:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark_A_W wrote: | | CasetheCorvetteman wrote: | | Mark_A_W wrote: | | I'm going to try a different drivers and then a different PC. |
Mark, have you tried overclocking the arse off that old video card? Is this one of the newer 9500s with no fan on it? Been a long time since i used any Radeon cards, but i used to get a long way over clocking my 7000 (many many MANY years ago) and the 9800 PRO would go a fair rise too, as long as you kept it cool.
|
Ok, I'm lost, why would I do that?
I have a HD2600XT, it runs all HD video just fine. Why would I overclock it? I don't game. |
Im sure at some point in the thread you said you have a Radeon 9500. If that is the case, im suprised it would have the power, which is why i made the sugestion, overclocking is not something only gamers do. Overclocking increases performance as you probably know, and some components are sold as underclocked versions of the higher end models.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kschmit2
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 1141
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
come on, don't derail this thread.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bert Randolph
Joined: 03 Jul 2007
Posts: 81
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 8:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jesse S wrote: | I flipped back and forth from 1280x720p 72hz and 1920x1080i 96hz.
The scan lines drive me nuts on 1080i. I can see them anywhere onscreen that is medium to fully lit. It's much finer than the 480i that you'd get from hooking up a dvd player to s-video, but it is very apparent even at 10' away. I saw the same thing 5 years back when I had the Rogers HD cable box, which output 1080i 60hz and that was on my 6PG. Lettering in movies has scan lines and artifacts from the interlacing. It seems like there is more detail on 1080p source but the artifacts and scan lines negate much of the benefit.
I thought about defocusing electronically and that won't work either. It might blend the lines vertically but then you are blurring adjacent pixels. You would have to create oval dots using the astig controls.
Perhaps 1920x1440i? |
Jesse,
try 1920x1080i 120 hz. On my setup it looks much cleaner as 1920x1080i 96 hz. Not really sure why - 96 Hz should be enough.
Resolution is down a bit with 120 Hz though - a tribute to bandwidth...
Daniel.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CasetheCorvetteman
Joined: 09 Nov 2008
Posts: 6326
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 8:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kschmit2 wrote: | | come on, don't derail this thread. |
Who is derailing the thread? I was simply offering abit of friendly advice based on what i had read on page 1.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark_A_W
Joined: 15 Mar 2006
Posts: 3068
Location: Sunny Melbourne Australia
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 8:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CasetheCorvetteman wrote: | | kschmit2 wrote: | | come on, don't derail this thread. |
Who is derailing the thread? I was simply offering abit of friendly advice based on what i had read on page 1. |
That was 2 years ago.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jesse S
Joined: 12 May 2007
Posts: 209
Location: Etobicoke
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 8:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is why I didn't like 1080i 96hz. But I'm using 1080p 72hz now and it looks awesome.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark_A_W
Joined: 15 Mar 2006
Posts: 3068
Location: Sunny Melbourne Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
How close do you sit?
I can only see them on white highlights and they don't bother me. I sit 1.5x screenwidth away I guess - the back of the projector is over my head.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jesse S
Joined: 12 May 2007
Posts: 209
Location: Etobicoke
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I sit about 10' from a 96x54" screen. So 120/96=1.25x. I have slight astigmatism but I never wear glasses. Even so the scanlines
are just way too noticeable. 1080p looks fine on the XGLC and I'll definitely be using that from now on.
Even 720p content looks better. I setup ffdshow to resize anything that is below 1080p using lanczos. Without that the vidcard
uses bicubic, and it looks a bit "globby".
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spanky Ham
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 5643
Location: Comedy Central
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark_A_W wrote: |
Ok, I'm lost, why would I do that?
I have a HD2600XT, it runs all HD video just fine. Why would I overclock it? I don't game. |
It will make your video faster!  Sorry, I couldn't resist.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spanky Ham
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 5643
Location: Comedy Central
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jesse S wrote: | This is why I didn't like 1080i 96hz. But I'm using 1080p 72hz now and it looks awesome.
|
I never question anyones preferences, but this picture is right at the screen. Show me a pic from your seating distance. For me, I prefer the sharpness of 1080i over the softness of 1080p. I know Scott and I talked about this once and he mentioned that most everyone grew up with CRTs and scanlines. We should be used to them by now.
Before people start coming back and saying that 1080p isn't soft, it is a matter of degrees. Read that Sarnoff paper that Elaine posted last year.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jesse S
Joined: 12 May 2007
Posts: 209
Location: Etobicoke
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 11:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Even without my glasses the scanlines are fully visible at 10' away. Faces look broken up and any bright areas are streaked with
scanlines. 1080p may not resolve 100% but it looks better than 720p. I could use some other res like 1440x960 but then 1080p source
would need scaling, which would probably nullify the gains of using the lower res.
If you sit 12-15' away or use a smaller screen, then 1080i might be an option.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spanky Ham
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 5643
Location: Comedy Central
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jesse S wrote: | Even without my glasses the scanlines are fully visible at 10' away. Faces look broken up and any bright areas are streaked with
scanlines. 1080p may not resolve 100% but it looks better than 720p. I could use some other res like 1440x960 but then 1080p source
would need scaling, which would probably nullify the gains of using the lower res.
If you sit 12-15' away or use a smaller screen, then 1080i might be an option. |
It all depends on how many screenwidths you are from the image, not the distance or screen size.
I don't want to get into a debate over i and p, but this has always bugged me about the p advocates. It seems like a lot of the 1080p preferers act like i is worse than watching s-video. I realize that the i people counter with the softness of p, but it just seems that the p preferers always bring up how bad i looks.
Anyway, unto each their own.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jesse S
Joined: 12 May 2007
Posts: 209
Location: Etobicoke
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 5:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
For film source, there is no debate. The source is progressive and only a progressive setup will render it like film.
Even if you setup some odd-ball res like 1920x1440i to cram the lines back together, there will still be artifacts when there is motion. Movies have an annoying habit of moving. Also, I don't think an interlaced setup can maintain full resolution when motion exceeds a certain inch/second value. There is a point where the 2nd field is still drawing but the pixels have moved. Using a higher refresh is irrelevant. If the source is 24fps and you use 96hz, it just repeats the frame 4 times. There are interpolation schemes like Tri-mension but those destroy the film motion blur. LCD's with 120hz mode interpolate and they ruin film motion too.
The only reason they ever allowed 1080i was to accomodate the junky CRT RPTV's available at that time. Thank the tech gods that HD-DVD and Bluray were real 1080p from the outset.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yonexsp
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
Posts: 311
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jesse S wrote: | For film source, there is no debate. The source is progressive and only a progressive setup will render it like film.
Even if you setup some odd-ball res like 1920x1440i to cram the lines back together, there will still be artifacts when there is motion. Movies have an annoying habit of moving. Also, I don't think an interlaced setup can maintain full resolution when motion exceeds a certain inch/second value. There is a point where the 2nd field is still drawing but the pixels have moved. Using a higher refresh is irrelevant. If the source is 24fps and you use 96hz, it just repeats the frame 4 times. There are interpolation schemes like Tri-mension but those destroy the film motion blur. LCD's with 120hz mode interpolate and they ruin film motion too.
The only reason they ever allowed 1080i was to accomodate the junky CRT RPTV's available at that time. Thank the tech gods that HD-DVD and Bluray were real 1080p from the outset. |
Jesse, gotta disagree with your assessment of 96i, you must have awesome eyesight from 12ft back to see those scanlines, but each to his own I guess 
Can you provide your settings for 1080p@72 on your XG, I want to compare and see if the softness outweighs the whatever is better. As the source is 24, I never thought you would have problems of missed fields etc.
Thx K./
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark_A_W
Joined: 15 Mar 2006
Posts: 3068
Location: Sunny Melbourne Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 12:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jesse S wrote: | Even without my glasses the scanlines are fully visible at 10' away. Faces look broken up and any bright areas are streaked with
scanlines. |
This doesn't sound right.
This sounds like what my XG did when it didn't like the vertical timings. It did something like 540p..but still interlaced at the same time... instead. Then I could definitely see the scanlines, and faces were broken up.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
