|
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 |
Jeremy112
Joined: 28 Sep 2006
Posts: 2649
Location: Fond du Lac, WI
|
| Posted: Thu May 23, 2013 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Phoenixed wrote: | | Jeremy112 wrote: | I see yet another CRT vs Digital thread that has been born.
. |
Usually happens every so often...wanna bet on how many pages it goes into?  |
I'm gonna say 3 for sure, maybe 4 
_________________
When I'm asking for a Model number, that doesn't mean I'm asking for a nude photo with your number on it 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
AnalogRocks
Forum Moderator
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 26706
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
TV/Projector: Sony 1252Q, AMPRO 4000G
|
| Posted: Thu May 23, 2013 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jeremy112 wrote: | | I see yet another CRT vs Digital thread that has been born. |
See what a snarky salesman causes? 
_________________
Tech support for nothing
CRT.
HD done right!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kal
Forum Administrator
Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 18114
Location: Ottawa, Canada
TV/Projector: JVC DLA-NZ7
|
| Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 12:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| HogPilot wrote: | | Two different projectors can be calibrated exactly to REC709 with a 6-point CMS and look quite different because the colors in between the calibrated points aren't also corrected. |
Yup. I've got an article reprinted here about it: https://www.curtpalme.com/forum_archived/viewtopic.php@t=32073.html
The display in the article is pretty bad (which is of course the point) but it's a display that's well known to have excellent primaries/secondaries as the graphs show, but go inside somewher between 0-100% saturation and it all goes to hell. Ironic (as HogPilot pointed out) that someone could have calibrated this display, looked at the 6 numbers and said "this display is perfect!" when in fact it's not even close to true.
I was happy see that my RS56 out of the box is pretty close:
The errors get less and less the closer you get to the center. Been playing around with primary/secondary calibration in the last few days and I think some of the points will get better still which should hopefully help the entire gamut. Even out of the box it certainly doesn't look 'off' in terms of colour.
Kal
_________________
Support our site by using our affiliate links. We thank you!
My basement/HT/bar/brewery build 2.0
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeremy112
Joined: 28 Sep 2006
Posts: 2649
Location: Fond du Lac, WI
|
| Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 1:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Pretty interesting Kal, I really should read up more on color calibration and how it all works. I know how important color can be for any viewing experience.
I'm quite envious of your knowledge on the subject. 
_________________
When I'm asking for a Model number, that doesn't mean I'm asking for a nude photo with your number on it
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spanky Ham
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 5643
Location: Comedy Central
|
| Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 2:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
As Hog questioned, I am trying to figure out native static cr as well. I have never heard of that metric. Do you mean without a DI? If so, the JVC doesn't have a DI.
As Kal mentioned, people would have to see two displays with different on/off and ANSI cr numbers to decide which one they liked better. I know Dave (person99) thought he would never like a DLP with low on/off and high ANSI, but he ended up preferring it to his CRT. I would love to see a good comparison with a group of people, as it would certainly be enlightening.
Back to the OP, I can understand being put off by the attitude. It probably would have pissed me off as well. Like I said though, it has been drilled into him for years that digital is better. Matter of fact, I remember Ken Whitcomb telling Darin and me that Cliff should dump the stack and go DLP. That was four years ago. He made a cogent argument using Joe Kane's Sharp as his case study. The point being that almost everyone in the industry has gone digital and none will on the record tell you that CRT is better.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nashou66
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Posts: 16171
Location: West Seneca NY
|
| Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 2:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Spanky Ham wrote: | As Hog questioned, I am trying to figure out native static cr as well. I have never heard of that metric. Do you mean without a DI? If so, the JVC doesn't have a DI.
As Kal mentioned, people would have to see two displays with different on/off and ANSI cr numbers to decide which one they liked better. I know Dave (person99) thought he would never like a DLP with low on/off and high ANSI, but he ended up preferring it to his CRT. I would love to see a good comparison with a group of people, as it would certainly be enlightening.
Back to the OP, I can understand being put off by the attitude. It probably would have pissed me off as well. Like I said though, it has been drilled into him for years that digital is better. Matter of fact, I remember Ken Whitcomb telling Darin and me that Cliff should dump the stack and go DLP. That was four years ago. He made a cogent argument using Joe Kane's Sharp as his case study. The point being that almost everyone in the industry has gone digital and none will on the record tell you that CRT is better. |
True, remember about 2 years ago Alan Gouger posting about the Super Marquee he got from Galen
over on AVS saying how it was better than any Digital he's seen and then removed it about an hour later.
I called him and we talked for about an hour where is told me he had a 40k Sim digital in his theater and
that CRT was just better to him. Not as sharp but just all around better. He realized his post might hurt his business
and took it down.
Sometimes the bottom line counts more than the truth.
That same PJ Chris Stevens also told me is the only PJ he'd get to replace a CRT .
I have seen a few good digitals including the JVC and I have to say they are great with color reproduction . However I have to say no where near in Blacks no matter what the Ansi is. But this is my own personal Preference.
When I get a digital it will only be for sports and any now movie or TV series show. For critical viewing of movies and good TV series I will use a CRT.
Athanasios
_________________
Don't blame your underwear for your crooked ass~ unknown Greek philosopher
"Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15." --- President Reagan
One Smart Dog!!!
Marquee High Performance Bellows now shipping!!
Marquee Modifications and Performance Enhancement
Marquee C-element and Bellow removal
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
opv
Joined: 18 May 2010
Posts: 202
Location: Emek Hefer,Israel
|
| Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 6:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| HogPilot wrote: | | opv wrote: | HogPilot,
I wrote "native static CR" not on/off CR.
So the example of the BENQ example with the dynamic Iris doesn't contradict with what I said. |
Firstly, you should probably define "native static CR" and tell me how that's different than On/Off or ANSI as it's an uncommon term - the way I read it, it sounds like an incredibly hard metric to quantify, and just as dependent upon the material used to measure it and the qualities of the room as the projector itself. But I'd prefer a definition before I go any more into that. |
Well,
If you're looking for a formula or a script for my definition of native/static CR or at least a detailed explanation of how to measure it, I hate to disappoint you, I don't have it.
Native/static CR, unlike ansi CR, is not a standard, it's more of a concept. What is the ratio between black and white the display can reach in the same image. but the question is, what kind of image?
If you take a digital pj and turn the DI off and then measure the on/off contrast, you get the native on/off CR of that pj.
But this definition is ill-defined. What if we take a pj with a perfect DI and the manufacture chose not to tell me about the DI and didn't give me an option to turn it off.
I would measure the on/off contrast but it would not be the native/static CR.
In fact, I don't have a method to separate the sequential contrast from the native/static contrast.
However, if I put a black starry night image I will see a difference between a pj with native/static CR and a pj with only high sequential CR.
| HogPilot wrote: |
Secondly, you said this:
| opv wrote: | ecrabb,
A 10 year old LCD projector, even before the dynamic Iris age, also has better ansi CR, better MTF and no high APL compression comparing to a CRT projector.
What does this teach us? that these parameters have very little effect on image quality compared with native static CR. |
My question about your use of "native static CR" aside, I still take issue with the first portion in bold, as well as the underlined portion of the second bolded area. I didn't originally flesh out my contentions with the first bolded portion, so let me do that now: what you said about a 10 year old LCD having better ANSI CR and MTF than a CRT is, at best, such a vague and ill-defined comparison that it would be impossible to make. If you're simply assuming that any fixed-pixel display will have better MTF than a CRT, I highly suggest you read this article: MTF Revealed Part II. There's a LOT that determines the MTF of a given fixed-pixel projector: the quality of the optics, the display tech used, and even panel-alignment in a 3-chip machine. There are fixed-pixel displays out there that measure in the low 100's:1 in ANSI (CRT's realm), and there are some that measure over 1000:1, which is quite impressive. However, as a general rule, the average LCD projector available in 2003 wasn't even HD, had lots of SDE, and relatively poor contrast numbers regardless of which contrast you chose to measure. Even a "high-quality" LCD of the time wouldn't have been able to best a CRT in any way, except for maybe light output - and only at great expense to other aspects of PQ. |
Let's take specific models, Panasonic AE500, SANYO Z2, and Hitachi PJ-TX100. All these projectors are HD projectors. They have higher ansi contrast than a CRT projector they have better MTF than a CRT projector (If I remember correctly, SDE does improve MTF) and of course there is no comparison in PQ between these models and a 7" CRT like Barco G708S.
| HogPilot wrote: |
Which leads me to take issue with the underlined portion of your second statement: in the instance that I offered up, the Sim2 was close to 1000:1 whereas the BenQ was in the 400-500:1 range. The difference was starkly apparent on mid- to high-brightness content in a number of ways, with the Sim2 clearly outclassing the BenQ with that material in terms of perceived sharpness, picture detail, and image depth. Demonstrations like this very easily show that ANSI CR can increase by as little as a factor of 2 or 3 and yield significant gains in PQ. Increases in On/Off CR yield different PQ gains with different types of material, but it must occur in orders of magnitude for it to be noticeable. Paring random ANSI CRs and On/Off CRs and asking which combination would yield the best picture is a relatively useless endeavor as there's plenty more than just those two metrics that go into making a "good" picture (not to mention that the preferences of the viewer and the type of setup would have to be factored in as well), and each one measures a relatively different aspect of PQ anyways. |
Well, the Sim2 has better optics, a larger DLP chip a different bulb, different video processing etc. how exactly did you narrow the suspects of causing the PQ difference to ansi CR and MTF?
The fact is, due to the fact that you can't find two PJs that differ in only one parameter, my random CR numbers are as good as your experience in determining which parameter has more effect on PQ.
I gave the example of plasma earlier, some PDs reach very high ansi CR, 6000 maybe even 10000. If a factor 2 improvement in ansi CR, makes such a difference, than the PQ of all projectors (that are limited to ansi 800 ansi CR) should be no match, almost unwatchable, compared with a PD with a similar screen size.
Is that really the case?
Do you think a Panasonic 65VT50 blows a Sony VW95ES or a high end JVC on a 65" screen out of the sky, or make it unwatchable?
| HogPilot wrote: |
I have several buddies who just prefer the look of DLP over LCoS despite the latter's inherent On/Off benefits. They get a picture with less noise, more sharpness, better ANSI, and much better motion resolution; I get one with better black levels, higher On/Off, no noticeable pixel structure, and no RBE. We both like the benefits of the picture we get despite the drawbacks, and that's what matters in the end. |
Well that's great for you.
But don't forget it also depends on the environment.
In my case, a small 84" screen and a light controlled room, nothing comes even close to a CRT projector. Believe me I tried.
An A/B test, makes the picture on the digital looks so flat.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
km987654
Joined: 25 Jul 2007
Posts: 2874
Location: Australia
TV/Projector: Barco BG809s
|
| Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 8:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| AnalogRocks wrote: | | Jeremy112 wrote: | | I see yet another CRT vs Digital thread that has been born. |
See what a snarky salesman causes? |
Every time.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HogPilot
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 2383
TV/Projector: Vizio P702ui-B3, Pioneer Elite Pro-151FD & 111FD
|
| Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| opv wrote: | | HogPilot wrote: | | opv wrote: | HogPilot,
I wrote "native static CR" not on/off CR.
So the example of the BENQ example with the dynamic Iris doesn't contradict with what I said. |
Firstly, you should probably define "native static CR" and tell me how that's different than On/Off or ANSI as it's an uncommon term - the way I read it, it sounds like an incredibly hard metric to quantify, and just as dependent upon the material used to measure it and the qualities of the room as the projector itself. But I'd prefer a definition before I go any more into that. |
Well,
If you're looking for a formula or a script for my definition of native/static CR or at least a detailed explanation of how to measure it, I hate to disappoint you, I don't have it.
Native/static CR, unlike ansi CR, is not a standard, it's more of a concept. What is the ratio between black and white the display can reach in the same image. but the question is, what kind of image?
If you take a digital pj and turn the DI off and then measure the on/off contrast, you get the native on/off CR of that pj.
But this definition is ill-defined. What if we take a pj with a perfect DI and the manufacture chose not to tell me about the DI and didn't give me an option to turn it off.
I would measure the on/off contrast but it would not be the native/static CR.
In fact, I don't have a method to separate the sequential contrast from the native/static contrast.
However, if I put a black starry night image I will see a difference between a pj with native/static CR and a pj with only high sequential CR. |
Okay, then my suspicious as to what you are attempting to describe are correct - you're trying to describe a modified ANSI contrast. In order to make your modified ANSI CR a useful tool in comparing one display to another, one would have to rigidly set several parameters. Firstly, the dimensions and color of the measurement room, as well as the screen size and material, would have to be defined. Different sized screens in the same room will be exposed to more or less retro-reflection, and different screen materials reject stray light to varying degrees, all of which will greatly affect any measurements; hopefully the room color standard would be all flat-black paint with some sort of specified dark carpet. Secondly, the video material used would also have to be specified - are we talking about an ANSI checkerboard, a single white window, or some other kind of test pattern? Ideally, one would take a series of measurements using a range of test patterns that would yield a curve to illustrate how the projector maintains it's "modified ANSI CR" as the number of bright and dark objects on the screen increases - for instance a progression of a 1x2 checkerboard to a 64x64 checkerboard. As with ANSI contrast, obtaining accurate measurements of dark areas without collecting any light from surrounding white areas would be a tricky endeavor, although a black velvet-lined tube has often been used to try to obscure surrounding squares from the sensor's field of view.
Ultimately we'd end up with a metric that would be incredibly hard to obtain precisely or accurately, and wouldn't translate to any setup except for one that adheres to one identical to my "standard" setup described above. The only thing more useless for the purpose of discussion is to leave it and ill-defined, vague concept that doesn't provide any sort of common framework for comparing one display to another. Now, if your goal is to single out scenarios where one display tech will perform better than another, that's a different story. But then we return to what I've been saying all along - every tech has its own strengths and weaknesses, and is best suited for certain types of environments and viewer preferences.
| opv wrote: | | HogPilot wrote: |
Secondly, you said this:
| opv wrote: | ecrabb,
A 10 year old LCD projector, even before the dynamic Iris age, also has better ansi CR, better MTF and no high APL compression comparing to a CRT projector.
What does this teach us? that these parameters have very little effect on image quality compared with native static CR. |
My question about your use of "native static CR" aside, I still take issue with the first portion in bold, as well as the underlined portion of the second bolded area. I didn't originally flesh out my contentions with the first bolded portion, so let me do that now: what you said about a 10 year old LCD having better ANSI CR and MTF than a CRT is, at best, such a vague and ill-defined comparison that it would be impossible to make. If you're simply assuming that any fixed-pixel display will have better MTF than a CRT, I highly suggest you read this article: MTF Revealed Part II. There's a LOT that determines the MTF of a given fixed-pixel projector: the quality of the optics, the display tech used, and even panel-alignment in a 3-chip machine. There are fixed-pixel displays out there that measure in the low 100's:1 in ANSI (CRT's realm), and there are some that measure over 1000:1, which is quite impressive. However, as a general rule, the average LCD projector available in 2003 wasn't even HD, had lots of SDE, and relatively poor contrast numbers regardless of which contrast you chose to measure. Even a "high-quality" LCD of the time wouldn't have been able to best a CRT in any way, except for maybe light output - and only at great expense to other aspects of PQ. |
Let's take specific models, Panasonic AE500, SANYO Z2, and Hitachi PJ-TX100. All these projectors are HD projectors. They have higher ansi contrast than a CRT projector they have better MTF than a CRT projector (If I remember correctly, SDE does improve MTF) and of course there is no comparison in PQ between these models and a 7" CRT like Barco G708S. |
Ah good, some specific models. However, I'll be shocked if you can produce ANSI or MTF numbers for any of them. In fact, I'll go one step further and venture that you simply picked 3 models - only two of which were available in '03 - to attempt to not seem so vague in your claim. I'll even go a step beyond that, and say that you really have no idea how any of those projectors measured, and you're basing your entire original claim on nothing more than a mindset, which is at least partially revealed in the bolded gem above. You think fixed-pixel display automatically equals very good MTF. Strangely, I already addressed this not once but twice. Firstly, I referred you to an excellent article on MTF, which I'll re-link here so you can read it: MTF Revealed. If you actually read the article, please note that the RS35 - which measured slightly higher MTF than the Samsung A900 - had significantly less SDE. Yikes, so much for that theory. Secondly, I'll re-iterate my own statements - there's a LOT that determines the MTF of a given fixed-pixel projector: the quality of the optics, the display tech used, and even panel alignment in a 3-chip machine. I'll even throw one more in for you: chip quality. Yes, not all chips are created equally.
| opv wrote: | | HogPilot wrote: |
Which leads me to take issue with the underlined portion of your second statement: in the instance that I offered up, the Sim2 was close to 1000:1 whereas the BenQ was in the 400-500:1 range. The difference was starkly apparent on mid- to high-brightness content in a number of ways, with the Sim2 clearly outclassing the BenQ with that material in terms of perceived sharpness, picture detail, and image depth. Demonstrations like this very easily show that ANSI CR can increase by as little as a factor of 2 or 3 and yield significant gains in PQ. Increases in On/Off CR yield different PQ gains with different types of material, but it must occur in orders of magnitude for it to be noticeable. Paring random ANSI CRs and On/Off CRs and asking which combination would yield the best picture is a relatively useless endeavor as there's plenty more than just those two metrics that go into making a "good" picture (not to mention that the preferences of the viewer and the type of setup would have to be factored in as well), and each one measures a relatively different aspect of PQ anyways. |
Well, the Sim2 has better optics, a larger DLP chip a different bulb, different video processing etc. how exactly did you narrow the suspects of causing the PQ difference to ansi CR and MTF?
The fact is, due to the fact that you can't find two PJs that differ in only one parameter, my random CR numbers are as good as your experience in determining which parameter has more effect on PQ. |
First things first - the Sim2 had the exact same 1.0" DC3 that the BenQ did. I already stated that. I also already stated that the Sim2's optics are significantly better than the BenQ's, which directly contributes to the increase in ANSI CR and MTF. They also both use a dimmable 200W UHP bulb, so no difference there. As to video processing, both projectors were fed the same 1080p source, with any internal VP (such as NR, EE, etc.) turned off, because we specifically wanted to eliminate processing artifacts as a potential for the difference in look. At this point you're simply grasping for any reason to try to invalidate my observations about the usefulness of ANSI contrast and MTF in a projector so that you can continue to prop up your dogma.
| opv wrote: | I gave the example of plasma earlier, some PDs reach very high ansi CR, 6000 maybe even 10000. If a factor 2 improvement in ansi CR, makes such a difference, than the PQ of all projectors (that are limited to ansi 800 ansi CR) should be no match, almost unwatchable, compared with a PD with a similar screen size.
Is that really the case?
Do you think a Panasonic 65VT50 blows a Sony VW95ES or a high end JVC on a 65" screen out of the sky, or make it unwatchable? |
Unwatchable? I've certainly never said such a thing, it's only a straw-man argument that you're propping up. I've actually said quite the opposite - the BenQ was a fine projector with a nice image, but with the material I specified, the Sim2 threw a significantly better picture. That's it.
I do most of my watching on a 60" Pioneer Elite 9th Gen Kuro, and the picture is gorgeous, especially with its massive ANSI CR. When I go downstairs and watch my RS55, does the picture look awful? Hardly. Do I wish that it had the same ANSI CR as my Kuro, or that I could get a Kuro the same size as my 11.5' 2.37:1 theater screen? Yeah. I also wish I could have a 15' wide acoustically transparent LED TV that rolls out like a sheet of paper, has infinite CR, color gamut that exceeds human vision, is bright enough to host a Superbowl party in a fully lit-room, has perfect uniformity and grayscale/gamma/gamut tracking, only consumes 5W of power and only costs $100. Oh, and has a half-life of 5 million hours. Of course, such technology isn't available, so we have to choose our displays based on our personal preferences, the rooms that we're putting them, and what they'll be used for. In taking all of this into account, we accept the shortcomings of the displays we choose in order to maximize its benefits for our needs.
| opv wrote: | | HogPilot wrote: |
I have several buddies who just prefer the look of DLP over LCoS despite the latter's inherent On/Off benefits. They get a picture with less noise, more sharpness, better ANSI, and much better motion resolution; I get one with better black levels, higher On/Off, no noticeable pixel structure, and no RBE. We both like the benefits of the picture we get despite the drawbacks, and that's what matters in the end. |
Well that's great for you. |
Sure is. And that's the point, isn't it? Your projector is great for you, mine is great for me, my buddy's is great for him.
| opv wrote: | | But don't forget it also depends on the environment. |
Couldn't agree more, glad you're finally on-board with that observation after I've made it multiple times.
| opv wrote: | In my case, a small 84" screen and a light controlled room, nothing comes even close to a CRT projector for my needs and tastes. Believe me I tried.
An A/B test, makes the picture on the digital looks so flat. |
Fixed it for you in bold.
I'd ask what projectors you've A/B'ed, but that would be a waste of time. You're clearly more concerned with trying to thrust forth any sort of argument - cogent or not - that paints your chosen display tech superior to all others. I'm not going to argue whether you're right or wrong in your choices for your own theater (such an argument would be pointless), only that your choices aren't automatically right for everyone else.
As a corollary: I've labored quite a bit to keep this discussion about the usefulness of PQ metrics and how they translate to what we see in image quality, rather than about which display tech is better. A discussion of the latter is pointless, as (and I find myself repeating...myself...here quite a bit) every tech has its strengths and weaknesses. Until the perfect display arrives, every single one of us will have to accept compromises in our theaters in order to attain what is most important to us.
_________________
| 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 |
|
|
macgyver655
Joined: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 8508
|
| Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 1:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I wonder if long term, digital projection viewing causes snarkyism. You know, like playing a record backwards. Not that any of you guys are being snarky ........... 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xmob135lc
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 80
|
| Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
CRT has trouble with MTF and ANSI contrast spec only because these are 90's thermionic designs. Field emission CRT would have no trouble keeping digital at bay in this respect either.
2000's CRT:
| Quote: | | Field emission type electron source element, electron gun, cathode ray tube apparatus, and method for manufacturing cathode ray tube |
http://www.google.com/patents/EP1343192A4?cl=en
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
opv
Joined: 18 May 2010
Posts: 202
Location: Emek Hefer,Israel
|
| Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
HogPilot,
Is that just me, or are you taking our discussion a little bit too personal?
In general, everything I write is my opinion, I think it goes without mentioning it at the beginning of each line (except for known facts like 1+1=2, which isn't my opinion. well I guess you understand what I mean).
It was a nice theoretic discussion and I still don't know what made me deserve that last post, my English maybe?
Keep enjoying your setup and consider a cold shower.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HogPilot
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 2383
TV/Projector: Vizio P702ui-B3, Pioneer Elite Pro-151FD & 111FD
|
| Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| opv wrote: | HogPilot,
Is that just me, or are you taking our discussion a little bit too personal?
In general, everything I write is my opinion, I think it goes without mentioning it at the beginning of each line (except for known facts like 1+1=2, which isn't my opinion. well I guess you understand what I mean).
It was a nice theoretic discussion and I still don't know what made me deserve that last post, my English maybe?
Keep enjoying your setup and consider a cold shower. |
It's just you - I'm not taking anything personally. You made many assertions - personal opinion or otherwise - and I challenged the ones that were incorrect. If you're interpreting my not agreeing with everything you say as me taking something personally, then again you are incorrect.
If anything you've been quite defensive about CRT - and only metrics which would support it as your display tech of choice, while casually brushing aside anything else - from your first post in this thread. I'll suggest that dismissing a thoughtful reply with snarky (seems to be the word of this thread) quips like, "well good for you" doesn't give you the appearance of someone who's not taking things personally, or who is looking for just a "theoretic [sic] discussion."
_________________
| 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 May 24, 2013 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| macgyver655 wrote: | | I wonder if long term, digital projection viewing causes snarkyism. You know, like playing a record backwards. Not that any of you guys are being snarky ........... |
Yes, I'm the dirty digital owner here - I guess that makes me snarky by default. Sorry to have jumped in...you may all now return to your regularly scheduled digital-bashing and CRT fist-pumping
_________________
| 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 |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HogPilot wrote: | | Yes, I'm the dirty digital owner here - I guess that makes me snarky by default. Sorry to have jumped in...you may all now return to your regularly scheduled digital-bashing and CRT fist-pumping |
+1
Technically, you're just ONE of the dirty digital owners, here. You, me, Kal, and several others all have newer JVC's.
I'd like to know how many guys here that bash digital for poor black levels, SDE, and "bad color" have ever seen a recent, good digital projector. I'd bet not very many.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
macgyver655
Joined: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 8508
|
| Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HogPilot wrote: | | macgyver655 wrote: | | I wonder if long term, digital projection viewing causes snarkyism. You know, like playing a record backwards. Not that any of you guys are being snarky ........... |
Yes, I'm the dirty digital owner here - I guess that makes me snarky by default. Sorry to have jumped in...you may all now return to your regularly scheduled digital-bashing and CRT fist-pumping |
Now what makes you think I was singling you out on anything Hog?
I was actually enjoying watching this thread morph from a CRT vs digital (in a minor way) into a digital vs digital bashing (in a major way). Seriously, keep going. I haven't chuckled this much in a while. I'm curious to know which digital turns out to be the king of the hill.
Let me also add that as I already stated, I haven't been bashing digitals hardly at all lately. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
macgyver655
Joined: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 8508
|
| Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 8:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | | HogPilot wrote: | | Yes, I'm the dirty digital owner here - I guess that makes me snarky by default. Sorry to have jumped in...you may all now return to your regularly scheduled digital-bashing and CRT fist-pumping |
+1
Technically, you're just ONE of the dirty digital owners, here. You, me, Kal, and several others all have newer JVC's.
I'd like to know how many guys here that bash digital for poor black levels, SDE, and "bad color" have ever seen a recent, good digital projector. I'd bet not very many.
SC |
Now really Steve. Have I bashed any digital projectors lately? Besides, my beef has nothing to do with picture quality. I'm am absolutely sure I would be happily satisfied with the PQ of a digital.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
macgyver655
Joined: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 8508
|
| Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, and by the way...... your both snarky!
jk
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HogPilot
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 2383
TV/Projector: Vizio P702ui-B3, Pioneer Elite Pro-151FD & 111FD
|
| Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | | HogPilot wrote: | | Yes, I'm the dirty digital owner here - I guess that makes me snarky by default. Sorry to have jumped in...you may all now return to your regularly scheduled digital-bashing and CRT fist-pumping |
+1
Technically, you're just ONE of the dirty digital owners, here. You, me, Kal, and several others all have newer JVC's.
I'd like to know how many guys here that bash digital for poor black levels, SDE, and "bad color" have ever seen a recent, good digital projector. I'd bet not very many.
SC |
Well, as a previous CRT owner you seem to be immune to being labeled as "snarky"  J/K
I would be interested to hear some impressions from some of the forum CRT aficionados if they were able to see a well-setup RS66 on a large screen. I honestly wouldn't expect any to declare their allegiance to the "grey side" on the spot, but I do think at least some would be a tad less critical.
_________________
| 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 May 24, 2013 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| macgyver655 wrote: | | HogPilot wrote: | | macgyver655 wrote: | | I wonder if long term, digital projection viewing causes snarkyism. You know, like playing a record backwards. Not that any of you guys are being snarky ........... |
Yes, I'm the dirty digital owner here - I guess that makes me snarky by default. Sorry to have jumped in...you may all now return to your regularly scheduled digital-bashing and CRT fist-pumping |
Now what makes you think I was singling you out on anything Hog?
I was actually enjoying watching this thread morph from a CRT vs digital (in a minor way) into a digital vs digital bashing (in a major way). Seriously, keep going. I haven't chuckled this much in a while. I'm curious to know which digital turns out to be the king of the hill.
Let me also add that as I already stated, I haven't been bashing digitals hardly at all lately. |
Well, my whole point has really been that there is no single "king of the hill." Every person has different wants/needs/tastes in their theater that are best met by different projection technologies. Arguing for the ultimate superiority of one over the other is like trying to race a group of people on stationary bikes all proclaiming you'll make it to the finish line first.
_________________
| 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
|
|
