|
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 |
jbmeyer13
Joined: 03 Dec 2010
Posts: 1135
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 2:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mp20748 wrote: | | jbmeyer13 wrote: |
What did the Barco tech department declare as the technical differences between the HFQ900 and the HD10E? |
They didn't.
| jbmeyer13 wrote: | | It seems very odd that a set of HFQ900's directly off a 909 would perform better than individually sourced HFQ900's. |
who did this test and how did they do it.....but the most important question should be why would they do it.
It would only make sense to test and match lenses if they were made from different batches, years or versions. And that's not how they were purchased. And if made all at the same time on the same run, why would one be different from the other?
And are you trying to convince me that Barco hired people to open boxes and compare lenses to find the best match for the 909..
Do you have any idea what these PRECISION lenses would cost each from the manufacturer, and have you ever heard of a set of lenses from this same manufacturer not being equal to the others? |
Mike,
This is not meant to be a shot at you but the fact that there is no explanation from the tech rep as to the actual difference between the HFQ900 and HD10E brings that entire assertion into question. The only difference may well be the label saying HFQ900 (which also happens to say HD10E). What is more interesting to me is why there would be differences between HFQ900's.
I don't know what Barco did and neither do you. Barco didn't make the lenses, therefore it's possible that USPL did some type of additional QC prior to the lens being sent to Barco. I'm not sure who did the test (Nash told me about it) but I don't see any reason why they would make the story up as there is really nothing to gain. 
_________________
Projector: Modded 9501LC ULtra- MP VIM, Vold VNB, ETECH LVPS, Silver VIM Cables, HD10F's & a V1 case!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mp20748
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 5689
Location: Maryland
TV/Projector: 9500LC Ultra / Super 02 and 03 VIM
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jbmeyer13 wrote: | | This is not meant to be a shot at you but the fact that there is no explanation from the tech rep as to the actual difference between the HFQ900 and HD10E brings that entire assertion into question |
What assertion. What part of "they didn't" did you not understand. Or that I made no claims as to what the difference could be.
But they were CLEAR that matching the lens did not happen.
| Quote: | | [b]I don't know what Barco did and neither do you. Barco didn't make the lenses, therefore it's possible that USPL did some type of additional QC prior to the lens being sent to Barco. |
A lot of things is/was possible. but let us start with you not knowing anything about any of this, and with me having about ten years experience with the Barco 909, also being Barco Trained and registered as a Barco Partner. To include having talked directly to Barco's Technical on this matter.
| Quote: | | I'm not sure who did the test (Nash told me about it) but I don't see any reason why they would make the story up as there is really nothing to gain |
Think about this. You've been challenging me on what I don't know, with you NOT knowing anything at all about what you've claimed, to you also admitting that you based your whole argument on what you read that someone else had said. And you don't really know who started that most ridiculous assertion, or where it started.
So from now on, just say I've read somewhere that Barco MAY have matched sets of lenses and that's what the HFQ900 label MAY indicate.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jbmeyer13
Joined: 03 Dec 2010
Posts: 1135
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mp20748 wrote: | | jbmeyer13 wrote: | | This is not meant to be a shot at you but the fact that there is no explanation from the tech rep as to the actual difference between the HFQ900 and HD10E brings that entire assertion into question |
What assertion. What part of "they didn't" did you not understand. Or that I made no claims as to what the difference could be.
But they were CLEAR that matching the lens did not happen.
| Quote: | | [b]I don't know what Barco did and neither do you. Barco didn't make the lenses, therefore it's possible that USPL did some type of additional QC prior to the lens being sent to Barco. |
A lot of things is/was possible. but let us start with you not knowing anything about any of this, and with me having about ten years experience with the Barco 909, also being Barco Trained and registered as a Barco Partner. To include having talked directly to Barco's Technical on this matter.
| Quote: | | I'm not sure who did the test (Nash told me about it) but I don't see any reason why they would make the story up as there is really nothing to gain |
Think about this. You've been challenging me on what I don't know, with you NOT knowing anything at all about what you've claimed, to you also admitting that you based your whole argument on what you read that someone else had said. And you don't really know who started that most ridiculous assertion, or where it started.
So from now on, just say I've read somewhere that Barco MAY have matched sets of lenses and that's what the HFQ900 label MAY indicate. |
Going in circles on this. When you called the Barco tech department and inquired about technical specs for the HFQ900 and were told that they are a variant of the HD10E I thought you asked what the difference's were. The Barco rep (not you) makes the assertion that the HFQ900 is a variation of the HD10E but doesn't provide any technical details on what constitutes the differences.
I'm not challenging your experience, rather the vague (IMO) response you received from Barco. If a customer is calling me about a product I would provide as much information as possible, specifically how it differs from other similar products in the lineup (without having to be asked 100 prompting questions). I'm questioning the validity of the Barco tech departments statement because of a general lack of supporting information. For all we know (which isn't much at this point) there could be no difference between the HFQ900 and HD10E specifications. We have all called a company's tech department and spoke with someone who really wasn't helpful or as knowledgable as expected.
Do you think you could call the Barco tech department and inquire as to what the differences are?
_________________
Projector: Modded 9501LC ULtra- MP VIM, Vold VNB, ETECH LVPS, Silver VIM Cables, HD10F's & a V1 case!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mp20748
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 5689
Location: Maryland
TV/Projector: 9500LC Ultra / Super 02 and 03 VIM
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 4:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jbmeyer13 wrote: |
Do you think you could call the Barco tech department and inquire as to what the differences are? |
How about the 10E's having a width of 300" (25 feet) - with the HFQ900 having a width of 72 feet (864")
Not sure what the above mean, but there do seem to be a real difference in the specs.
Oh, and the 10E is not a new lens, it's been around for some time. The HFQ900 is what shows the 10E as being something different. So in the design phase of the Barco 909, US Precision produced a NEW lens (HFQ900) design for the Barco 909:
OK, on another one of your disputes, you posted the following in a previous post on this thread:
| Quote: | Regardless of what the spec sheet says I have tried both 10L and G90 10F lens on my 45" x 80" screen and the 10F is noticeable sharper at 1080p
|
Now hold onto what you said here, because I want you you understand that an 10F (90" >) lens would be outside of its specs on a 80" wide screen. And also remember to open the download and look at the very bottom left at the 10L lens on that chart and what's right above it.
and also what you said here:
| Quote: | | -The 10L is only good up to a screen width of 71"; anything wider and the edge focus is compromised. |
You were disputing what I had said here:
| Quote: |
Now beyond the HFQ900 lens, some may find this hard to believe, but the HD10L's are the sharpest on screen sizes 80' wide and less.
|
so it appears that I was indicating the the HFQ900 was the best for larger screens with the 10L being its compliment on lower screens (see chart below).
At the bottom of the attached download and you'll see why I placed the 10L's as being best for an 80" screen size and below:
| Quote: |
HD-215 60" to 240" Optically coupled for high contrast, designed specifically for HDTV applications
5.75 HD-8B 70" to 270" Air coupled, high performance lens w/a plastic mount
HD-117.12 54" to 83" Liquid coupled, flat screen
HD-117.24 80" to 340" High magnification version
HD-10E 90" to 300" High resolution f/1.15, 167 mm focal length, optically coupled
HD-10L 60" to 90" Low magnification version of HD-10E
|
| Description: |
|
Download |
| Filename: |
USPL Projection Lens Line.doc |
| Filesize: |
148.5 KB |
| Downloaded: |
277 Time(s) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jbmeyer13
Joined: 03 Dec 2010
Posts: 1135
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="mp20748"] | jbmeyer13 wrote: |
OK, on another one of your disputes, you posted the following in a previous post on this thread:
| Quote: | Regardless of what the spec sheet says I have tried both 10L and G90 10F lens on my 45" x 80" screen and the 10F is noticeable sharper at 1080p
|
Now hold onto what you said here, because I want you you understand that an 10F (90" >) lens would be outside of its specs on a 80" wide screen. And also remember to open the download and look at the very bottom left at the 10L lens on that chart and what's right above it.
and also what you said here:
| Quote: | | -The 10L is only good up to a screen width of 71"; anything wider and the edge focus is compromised. |
You were disputing what I had said here:
| Quote: |
Now beyond the HFQ900 lens, some may find this hard to believe, but the HD10L's are the sharpest on screen sizes 80' wide and less.
|
so it appears that I was indicating the the HFQ900 was the best for larger screens with the 10L being its compliment on lower screens (see chart below).
At the bottom of the attached download and you'll see why I placed the 10L's as being best for an 80" screen size and below:
| Quote: |
HD-215 60" to 240" Optically coupled for high contrast, designed specifically for HDTV applications
5.75 HD-8B 70" to 270" Air coupled, high performance lens w/a plastic mount
HD-117.12 54" to 83" Liquid coupled, flat screen
HD-117.24 80" to 340" High magnification version
HD-10E 90" to 300" High resolution f/1.15, 167 mm focal length, optically coupled
HD-10L 60" to 90" Low magnification version of HD-10E
|
|
An HD10F is not oustide its range when used with an 80" wide screen. The G90 manual lists 90-300"diagonal as the screen size range; 90" diagonal= 80" width.
The chart you enclosed (from 1997) has different data than the VDC chart I supplied earlier in the thread (from after 2000). Here is yet another spec sheet: http://static.nikita.cx/hthifi/download/white_paper/hd10_specs.pdf
I can see why you stated what you did and I disputed it because it did not align with my personal experience setting up my PJ or with the manual from VDC.
The real question is does an HFQ900 focus better than an HD10E. Perhaps the only thing that constitutes the variation is width range going up to 72'.
_________________
Projector: Modded 9501LC ULtra- MP VIM, Vold VNB, ETECH LVPS, Silver VIM Cables, HD10F's & a V1 case!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mp20748
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 5689
Location: Maryland
TV/Projector: 9500LC Ultra / Super 02 and 03 VIM
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 27, 2013 1:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jbmeyer13 wrote: |
An HD10F is not oustide its range when used with an 80" wide screen. The G90 manual lists 90-300"diagonal as the screen size range; 90" diagonal= 80" width.
The chart you enclosed (from 1997) has different data than the VDC chart I supplied earlier in the thread (from after 2000). Here is yet another spec sheet: http://static.nikita.cx/hthifi/download/white_paper/hd10_specs.pdf
I can see why you stated what you did and I disputed it because it did not align with my personal experience setting up my PJ or with the manual from VDC.
|
I over looked the width/diagonal thing. But also, you should see what I was saying in a previous post about not really going by what's in the manual. Even the lens manufacturer produced different numbers at different times and years of manufacture.
| Quote: |
The real question is does an HFQ900 focus better than an HD10E. Perhaps the only thing that constitutes the variation is width range going up to 72' |
There is still mystery between the HFQ900 and the 10E. The only thing I've heard other than "New design" is "maybe this" or "maybe that" but nothing speculated I'd want to post.
Your point about the sharpness may depend on the difference in the range could be a very important rule to look at. I say that because over the years I keep reading different peoples opinion on which lens is sharper than the other, but that test would have to be substantiated by a verified method of testing. You just can't look at a line of group of lines and say this lens is sharper than the other lens.
There are things like lens test, and these test require certain test patterns to properly evaluate. because some of the lens do well at certain throw distances and width ranges, while others do better at higher scan rates. So its not that simple to simply say "on my setup this lens was sharper" Also, and because of the tube assembly the lens attaches to, lens A may perform better on projector C better than it did on Projector B. So an HFQ900 could performance different between two different projectors.
So a proper lens test would have to include, throw, screen width, projector make model and especially with our target being 1920X1080P, it would have to include the scan rate and bandwidth of the actual projector. And you'll also need some rather fancy test patterns to test both center and entire screen surface using various test.
When William setup his Blend system, I told him he would need to get the HFQ900 lenses. I told him to go with that lens set because they were the best out there for blending.
I was trying to find that thread and post of the guy who posted screenshots showing him comparing the 10F to two other lens. One I'm sure was the GT-17, but don't remember what the other was. I wanted to use that also as a reference, before I do a very similar posting also showing why I use the GT-17's over the 10F lenses. I actually have one 10F on my Marquee feeding it 1920X1440 /60hz right now. I had to size the vertical off the screen for this setup in order to properly evaluate the lens in the center. I'll be posting some shots of this more like next week.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mp20748
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 5689
Location: Maryland
TV/Projector: 9500LC Ultra / Super 02 and 03 VIM
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 27, 2013 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
I took a few quick shots from my setup, with Green only projected on my 8' wide screen.
They are taking using my Chroma Pattern Generator feeding directly into the BNC's on my 02 VIM.
The scan rate I'm sending directly into my Marquee is: 2048X1536 /60hz - if you look in two of the patterns that scan rate is fairly visible.
There are several other patterns to use to evaluate a lens, and I may get into all of them sometime later.
It'll be awhile before I'll be ready to compare the two lenses. So I'm thinking maybe we'll be ready to do this by next weekend.
Marquee 9500LC at 2048X1536 60hz - GT-17 Lens
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jbmeyer13
Joined: 03 Dec 2010
Posts: 1135
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 27, 2013 1:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There is something else to consider- when swapping out lenses there's a good chance you will need to tweak the geometry. When I switched from the 10L's to 10F's I didn't need to adjust the throw distance but did need to spend quite a bit of time getting the geometry back to being perfect.
I think that 1920 x 1080p at 60 and 72hz would be ideal. I run 1920 x 1080p/60 and 1920 x 800p/72 but would love to see 1080/72 if you can do that. To do this test properly will take some time to say the least.
_________________
Projector: Modded 9501LC ULtra- MP VIM, Vold VNB, ETECH LVPS, Silver VIM Cables, HD10F's & a V1 case!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mp20748
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 5689
Location: Maryland
TV/Projector: 9500LC Ultra / Super 02 and 03 VIM
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 12:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jbmeyer13 wrote: | | There is something else to consider- when swapping out lenses there's a good chance you will need to tweak the geometry. When I switched from the 10L's to 10F's I didn't need to adjust the throw distance but did need to spend quite a bit of time getting the geometry back to being perfect |
The lenses can have a bit of differences in geometry, especially the 10L's. But what they shouldn't show is distortions in areas of the optics. This was a problem in an early version of the 10L's, and what makes the HFQ900 lens set so great. And why I said they were perfect for blending.
| Quote: | | I think that 1920 x 1080p at 60 and 72hz would be ideal. I run 1920 x 1080p/60 and 1920 x 800p/72 but would love to see 1080/72 if you can do that. To do this test properly will take some time to say the least. |
The test patterns I posted (previously) are at 2048X1536 /60hz. When I get back to this thread with more test patterns, I'll also be showing that same resolution being properly resolved, and I'll be doing so using the SMPTE test pattern to confirm. So Full 1080P 72hz is no challenge on my setup. And that's why I test the lenses at even higher scan rates.
|
|
| 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
|
|
