| Author |
Message |
awymncwl
Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Posts: 2
Location: Hong Kong
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 8:02 am Post subject: 4k with G90 |
|
|
Hi all,
I heard/read that it is possible to watch 4k source on 2 G90. Could anyone tell me what gear I need and how they work?
cheers
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CasetheCorvetteman
Joined: 09 Nov 2008
Posts: 6326
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 11:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
4k as in 4k or UHD? They are not the same. You could probably do either of the with a blend in an interlaced form.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mx83toy
Joined: 14 Dec 2012
Posts: 322
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 1:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Did t a dewd on this forum push 4k 8xxx Ultra?? Pretty sure was interlaced
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ElTopo
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 1640
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 1:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You need to blend your G90s with a TV one C2 7000 series unit which has edge blend option inside.
Total res: 3840 x 2160p for UHD.
Each output to: 2048 x 1536@60Hz so you have a total of 4096 x 1536 incl. the blend zone.
I don't know if the G90 can handle 2048x1536 ? My Sony CRT monitor does and is sharp.
ElTopo
_________________
Barco Cine 9 the one and only
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RaWsHaRk
Joined: 01 May 2009
Posts: 131
Location: Finland
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I dont think its a reasonable thing to do. not long ago there were a lot of threads if even a 909 barco can "fully resolve" full hd. trying to push 4 times more pixels is just not sensible, if u need to have 4k get a modern display and keep crt for the lower res stuff...
of course there a few who claim to do it, and perhaps its possible with enough tinkering but...its not just worth it.
_________________
Electrohome Marquee 7500.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ElTopo
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 1640
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Could you post the thread please ?
A 909 resolves Full HD (1080p) 100% !
_________________
Barco Cine 9 the one and only
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ElTopo
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 1640
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
1920 x 800 (single G90) vs. 2048 x 1536 (one G90 in a blend environment)
_________________
Barco Cine 9 the one and only
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CasetheCorvetteman
Joined: 09 Nov 2008
Posts: 6326
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes a G90 will do 2048x1536, max listed res is 2500x2000p
Its like the older sets and doing 1080i on those cause they couldnt do 1080p, if a set can so easily do 1080p, i see no reason it wouldnt be worth a shot on 2160i
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
noos@xp37+
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 464
Location: Berlin/Munich
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2013 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hello,
well the only solution I know of that is advertised to be 4k ready incl. softblend are highend Nvidia quadros (5800, 6000...)
http://www.nvidia.com/object/nvidia-mosaic-technology.html
At the end of this video you will see progressive 4k blend resolutions shot into the Marquee. I was very satisfied even at 2000x1600 72hz (half 4k 22:9 3820:1600). At 48hz you should also be able to do a good 16:9 3840x2160p (2000x2160p)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZdzBNPfq8E
But I stopped to go for a 4k blend, because at 1600p or 2160p, you will not be able to do 3d refresh rates anymore (not enough scan rate!). But you could run 2D at 4k, and 3D at a lower resolution.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CasetheCorvetteman
Joined: 09 Nov 2008
Posts: 6326
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2013 6:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
3840x2160 id Ultra HD, not 4k...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ElTopo
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 1640
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2013 9:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
2048/1536 = 1.33 (4:3)
For a blend you need to feed that into each projector so you have a total of 8:3 (2 x 4:3) = 2.66 incl blend zone.
I'm sure a 9 incher can resolve this.
ElTopo
_________________
Barco Cine 9 the one and only
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CasetheCorvetteman
Joined: 09 Nov 2008
Posts: 6326
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2013 9:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Id be thinking more like 2000x2160i with a 160 line blend for 16:9
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
noos@xp37+
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 464
Location: Berlin/Munich
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2013 1:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CasetheCorvetteman wrote: | | 3840x2160 id Ultra HD, not 4k... |
????
UHD is 4K. And 3840x2160 is what consumers should get for Bluray.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
noos@xp37+
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 464
Location: Berlin/Munich
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2013 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CasetheCorvetteman wrote: | | Id be thinking more like 2000x2160i with a 160 line blend for 16:9 |
Sorry, tested this - interlaced gives you unwatchable scanlines on 9" (especially as you will use full raster in a blend.)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2013 2:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Do any of you Guys have bandwidth to resolve 1080P72hz with no softening, and no loss in color dept.?
And whos running a blend with native 4K source and capable scalers and blend unit.?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2013 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No, UHD isn't 4k. It's a misnomer. In the production industry, 4k has a very specific meaning: 4096x2160 for native DCI, and 4096x3112 for full-aperture 4k. There were a couple of variants, but 4k generally meant 4,096 pixels.
The CE industry then tried to use the term, until they realized it was confusing for professionals and consumers, and it made no sense anyway, so they coined the "Ultra HD" term and started calling Ultra HD "4k Ultra HD" or "4k UHD" in the short-term. Long-term, no doubt, everyone will just refer to the 3840x2160 CE format as Ultra HD or UHD.
UHD has no business being called 4k, as it offers 94% of the resolution of 4k, and requires scaling to display true 4k content.
Sorry to be a pedant, but as technical people, we should be aware of the history and intricacies and not just reference the wiki definitions.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2013 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| noos@xp37+ wrote: | | CasetheCorvetteman wrote: | | Id be thinking more like 2000x2160i with a 160 line blend for 16:9 |
Sorry, tested this - interlaced gives you unwatchable scanlines on 9" (especially as you will use full raster in a blend.) |
At what refresh rate?
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hal
Joined: 28 Nov 2012
Posts: 100
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2013 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I think that it was Case that recommended rotating the CRT tubes 90 degrees and then moving the yokes back. Has anyone tried this in other setups? We would then have enough raster to get the 2160?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Larry K
Joined: 08 May 2013
Posts: 16
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2013 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
So if rotating tubes is the way to go, then the new barco 919 projectors that Curt is selling would be perfect for a UHD blend? Lenses would still need to be reworked but
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2013 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hal wrote: | | I think that it was Case that recommended rotating the CRT tubes 90 degrees and then moving the yokes back. Has anyone tried this in other setups? We would then have enough raster to get the 2160? |
I don't see how rotating the tubes really nets you anything. You do get a touch more vertical resolution to make for a sharper 2160, but then you have less width resolution. With a 10% blend overlap on a 3840 signal, you'd need roughly 2112w x 2160h on each projector - practically square. What does turning the tubes really accomplish?
| ElTopo wrote: | | A 909 resolves Full HD (1080p) 100% ! |
"Resolves 1080p 100%" is somewhat useless in this context. When people bat that phrase around, they mean they can see scan lines or see vertical lines, but in terms of real MTF, it's nowhere near 100%, but a bit better than half that.
There are razor sharp DLP projectors that can display 1080p on/off line pairs (both horizontal and vertical) and their MTF is in the 90% MTF ballpark. The production JVC LCoS machines are in the 80% ballpark give or take, and have gotten better. CRT is probably in 50% ballpark. The lower MTF is one of the reasons people (myself included) love the silky-smooth "film-like" image of CRT.
I remember Scott (tse) saying the better CRT lenses are in the ballpark of 11 or 12 line pairs/mm at 50% MTF. By my calculation, that means that the best 9" CRT projectors are going to be running out of MTF steam in the 2k x 2k resolution ballpark. That makes them very good machines for 1080p, but going higher than that is going to mean diminishing returns.
Given that, I think 4k on a blend is probably doable for somebody who has really excellent setup skills and is willing to put the time and money into it. It won't be "sharp" by any means, but I think with good content, it would be a significant improvement over a 1080p blend.
A single projector on the other hand I think would be a waste of time. Between the electronics and lenses, MTF would certainly be below 25% in both directions, (but especially horizontal) nearly eliminating any of the advantage of running 4k in the first place.
Running 4k on a G90 would be like running 1080p on a 1272. You can certainly send the signal, and you may even be able to get the projector to display it, but you're only going to see about half the resolution, so what's the point? Not trying to be wet blanket; it's just my opinion from all the reading over the years.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
