|
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 |
mp20748
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 5689
Location: Maryland
TV/Projector: 9500LC Ultra / Super 02 and 03 VIM
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 1:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Andreas21 wrote: |
These guys would never admit a digital to have better total picture quality than a CRT even if it was so clear a 3 year old could see it. I on the other hand would have no problem admitting a CRT to be better if someone showed it to me, but it has not happened yet |
The experts won't admit it either.
Well, If you would have no problem admitting CRT to better when you've not seen all things CRT, then why claim that Digital is better than CRT when you have not seen all things CRT?
| Quote: | And I am open mided and no fanboy of any tech or brand and I am only after the best my money can buy, and that is why I test on a regular basis with different digitals and even CRT`s when I get the chance. All this because I am curious and want to see as much as I can to know what looks best to me and my wallet.  |
Now this is clearly BS..
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Andreas21
Joined: 02 Oct 2013
Posts: 582
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mp20748 wrote: | | Diddern wrote: | | mp20748 wrote: | You're missing the point. I'm saying why does your image NOT show true and deep black. The crush issue is most likely the camera. You can't depend on these cheap cameras to get that right.
Sometime you can capture all the detail and sometime you can't. The point in capturing the shot is to show how well you're able to reveal the true Black in the mud. The Mud is not gray. And if you look in the shot, you'll notice on the right of the guy, an area that is more gray than black. let that be your reference that true black does exist in that image |
Do someone need to KNOKL this in your head its a screenshot..... |
Tell that to your side kick, that's who posted the two shots in comparison |
Am I Didderns sidekick or is he mine, this is so confusing...
And who is relying on screenshots here (you have posted a whole lot here and in the screenshot tread) and can tell witch projector has the best blacklevel, color, bandwith+++ from looking at a highly compressed screenshot. My screenshots are comressed from 20mb RAW to around 200kb jpg, how much info is left then??
I have only posted screenshots here because people asked for them, and I have made my point really clear, I find screenshots worthless for comparizon. Unless they are taken in the same room with the same screen, camera and settings then they could have some value for comparizon.
_________________
http://www.minhembio.com/21Andreas
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mp20748
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 5689
Location: Maryland
TV/Projector: 9500LC Ultra / Super 02 and 03 VIM
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 1:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Andreas21 wrote: | | mp20748 wrote: | | Diddern wrote: | | mp20748 wrote: | You're missing the point. I'm saying why does your image NOT show true and deep black. The crush issue is most likely the camera. You can't depend on these cheap cameras to get that right.
Sometime you can capture all the detail and sometime you can't. The point in capturing the shot is to show how well you're able to reveal the true Black in the mud. The Mud is not gray. And if you look in the shot, you'll notice on the right of the guy, an area that is more gray than black. let that be your reference that true black does exist in that image |
Do someone need to KNOKL this in your head its a screenshot..... |
Tell that to your side kick, that's who posted the two shots in comparison |
Am I Didderns sidekick or is he mine, this is so confusing...
And who is relying on screenshots here (you have posted a whole lot here and in the screenshot tread) and can tell witch projector has the best blacklevel, color, bandwith+++ from looking at a highly compressed screenshot. My screenshots are comressed from 20mb RAW to around 200kb jpg, how much info is left then??
I have only posted screenshots here because people asked for them, and I have made my point really clear, I find screenshots worthless for comparizon. Unless they are taken in the same room with the same screen, camera and settings then they could have some value for comparizon. |
Dude, you compared the shots. yes, I posted them, but you took it to another level and then went on pointing out where your projector out performed mine. I only asked questions and pointed out a few things to you.
So now I'm at fault for posting a few screenshots, that somehow compelled you to do a comparison. Did I also make you take the same shot of your projector.....if so I truly should be ashamed at myself for exercising such control over you, especially considering what you think about screenshots..
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andreas21
Joined: 02 Oct 2013
Posts: 582
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mp20748 wrote: | | Andreas21 wrote: |
These guys would never admit a digital to have better total picture quality than a CRT even if it was so clear a 3 year old could see it. I on the other hand would have no problem admitting a CRT to be better if someone showed it to me, but it has not happened yet |
The experts won't admit it either.
Well, If you would have no problem admitting CRT to better when you've not seen all things CRT, then why claim that Digital is better than CRT when you have not seen all things CRT?
| Quote: | | And I am open mided and no fanboy of any tech or brand and I am only after the best my money can buy, and that is why I test on a regular basis with different digitals and even CRT`s when I get the chance. All this because I am curious and want to see as much as I can to know what looks best to me and my wallet. |
Now this is clearly BS.. |
What experts??
As I say, if someone shows me a CRT with the capabilities you claim and it shows a better picture I would gladly admit it. You also admit you have not seen the new JVC´s, but you are 100% sure your CRT would wipe the floor with them. You would never admit them to be better even if you saw it with your own eyes and that is called fanboyism I am afraid.
And when I say I am open minded I mean it and it is not BS.
If you invite me and Diddern to Maryland we will do everything in our power to come, you just have to show us your CRT and provide a new generation JVC X500/700/900 for side by side comparison as I will not bring mine to the US. And if your miracle machine is as good as you claim I will admit it here and apologise for all my sins...
_________________
http://www.minhembio.com/21Andreas
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andreas21
Joined: 02 Oct 2013
Posts: 582
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 1:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mp20748 wrote: | | Andreas21 wrote: | | mp20748 wrote: | | Diddern wrote: | | mp20748 wrote: | You're missing the point. I'm saying why does your image NOT show true and deep black. The crush issue is most likely the camera. You can't depend on these cheap cameras to get that right.
Sometime you can capture all the detail and sometime you can't. The point in capturing the shot is to show how well you're able to reveal the true Black in the mud. The Mud is not gray. And if you look in the shot, you'll notice on the right of the guy, an area that is more gray than black. let that be your reference that true black does exist in that image |
Do someone need to KNOKL this in your head its a screenshot..... |
Tell that to your side kick, that's who posted the two shots in comparison |
Am I Didderns sidekick or is he mine, this is so confusing...
And who is relying on screenshots here (you have posted a whole lot here and in the screenshot tread) and can tell witch projector has the best blacklevel, color, bandwith+++ from looking at a highly compressed screenshot. My screenshots are comressed from 20mb RAW to around 200kb jpg, how much info is left then??
I have only posted screenshots here because people asked for them, and I have made my point really clear, I find screenshots worthless for comparizon. Unless they are taken in the same room with the same screen, camera and settings then they could have some value for comparizon. |
Dude, you compared the shots. yes, I posted them, but you took it to another level and then went on pointing out where your projector out performed mine. I only asked questions and pointed out a few things to you.
So now I'm at fault for posting a few screenshots, that somehow compelled you to do a comparison. Did I also make you take the same shot of your projector.....if so I truly should be ashamed at myself for exercising such control over you, especially considering what you think about screenshots.. |
You have clearly stated earlier that screenshots is great for comparisons and I have clearly stated the opposite, but with all this nagging about screenshots from different users here I posted and yes commented on them even if I think it is worthless. And I have only said mine look better (and they do), but you and stridvognen can draw advanced conclutions like low color resolution, banding problems, bad blacklevels and so on. And that is quite funny. 
_________________
http://www.minhembio.com/21Andreas
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mp20748
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 5689
Location: Maryland
TV/Projector: 9500LC Ultra / Super 02 and 03 VIM
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 1:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Andreas21 wrote: |
What experts??
|
That would be the manufactures reps of the display technology. I've yet to hear one say otherwise.
| Quote: | As I say, if someone shows me a CRT with the capabilities you claim and it shows a better picture I would gladly admit it. You also admit you have not seen the new JVC´s, but you are 100% sure your CRT would wipe the floor with them. You would never admit them to be better even if you saw it with your own eyes and that is called fanboyism I am afraid.
And when I say I am open minded I mean it and it is not BS |
Why are you guys so bent on proving what projector is better. Also be mindful that I would NEVER go to a digital forum trashing the technology and arguing to prove anything. They are different, and as such have different people liking them. And that should be OK and for the most part it was, until two digital fanboys came to town wanting the star trouble in the camp.
| Quote: | | If you invite me and Diddern to Maryland we will do everything in our power to come, you just have to show us your CRT and provide a new generation JVC X500/700/900 for side by side comparison as I will not bring mine to the US. And if your miracle machine is as good as you claim I will admit it here and apologise for all my sins... |
If you would have presented this a few years ago, I may be in favor of it. But to be honest with you. I don't care which one is better. It's not really worth wasting time to find out. if you like your JVC so enjoy. And likewise let us in CRT land also enjoy our aged hobby
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mp20748
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 5689
Location: Maryland
TV/Projector: 9500LC Ultra / Super 02 and 03 VIM
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 1:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Andreas21 wrote: |
You have clearly stated earlier that screenshots is great for comparisons and I have clearly stated the opposite, but with all this nagging about screenshots from different users here I posted and yes commented on them even if I think it is worthless. And I have only said mine look better (and they do), but you and stridvognen can draw advanced conclutions like low color resolution, banding problems, bad blacklevels and so on. And that is quite funny. |
Funny how that comparison got you all riled up..
Why waste your time spinning wheels that's going no where. Find something constructive to do, because you're not going to win when there's nothing to win.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diddern
Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 8:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mp20748 wrote: | | Andreas21 wrote: |
You have clearly stated earlier that screenshots is great for comparisons and I have clearly stated the opposite, but with all this nagging about screenshots from different users here I posted and yes commented on them even if I think it is worthless. And I have only said mine look better (and they do), but you and stridvognen can draw advanced conclutions like low color resolution, banding problems, bad blacklevels and so on. And that is quite funny. |
Funny how that comparison got you all riled up..
Why waste your time spinning wheels that's going no where. Find something constructive to do, because you're not going to win when there's nothing to win. |
True nothing to win, but point the absolute fact nothing more.
And when people are stupid enough to write and believe it without any proof like this thred and many others.
To me that is like saying a old Lada is better than a new Ferrari.
Not that the old Lada is bad, just that it's not better in any way.
And also manage to say stuff about CRT that are so off from fact like MTF, that it's only sharpness and bla bla bla.
I still like CRT because I have watched so manny movies on different CRTs. And owned many through the years. But still I know it's limitations.even today 2015. And have no problem saying it, because that don't matter if you don't do a side-by-side test. Because then you see it clearly.
And that someone can say that the jvc x500 in anyway has bad black level from a picture. Is absolutely fantastic and tell me much.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 8:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Diddern wrote: | To me that is like saying a old Lada is better than a new Ferrari.
Not that the old Lada is bad, just that it's not better in any way. |
Well, the old Lada is a heck of a lot cheaper than the new Ferrari, Lada parts are easily located so it's cheaper and easier to repair than the new Ferrari, and the Lada is way simpler for an old guy to wrench on in his garage. Plus, the gauges and ignition are all analog in the Lada - none of that new-fangled digital stuff or flappy-paddle transmissions, so the driving experience is much more pure. So, the Lada is better.
Sound familiar?
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diddern
Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 9:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | | Diddern wrote: | To me that is like saying a old Lada is better than a new Ferrari.
Not that the old Lada is bad, just that it's not better in any way. |
Well, the old Lada is a heck of a lot cheaper than the new Ferrari, Lada parts are easily located so it's cheaper and easier to repair than the new Ferrari, and the Lada is way simpler for an old guy to wrench on in his garage. Plus, the gauges and ignition are all analog in the Lada - none of that new-fangled digital stuff or flappy-paddle transmissions, so the driving experience is much more pure. So, the Lada is better.
Sound familiar?
SC |
Jepp hehe
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andreas21
Joined: 02 Oct 2013
Posts: 582
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mp20748 wrote: | | Andreas21 wrote: |
What experts??
|
That would be the manufactures reps of the display technology. I've yet to hear one say otherwise.
| Quote: | As I say, if someone shows me a CRT with the capabilities you claim and it shows a better picture I would gladly admit it. You also admit you have not seen the new JVC´s, but you are 100% sure your CRT would wipe the floor with them. You would never admit them to be better even if you saw it with your own eyes and that is called fanboyism I am afraid.
And when I say I am open minded I mean it and it is not BS |
Why are you guys so bent on proving what projector is better. Also be mindful that I would NEVER go to a digital forum trashing the technology and arguing to prove anything. They are different, and as such have different people liking them. And that should be OK and for the most part it was, until two digital fanboys came to town wanting the star trouble in the camp.
| Quote: | | If you invite me and Diddern to Maryland we will do everything in our power to come, you just have to show us your CRT and provide a new generation JVC X500/700/900 for side by side comparison as I will not bring mine to the US. And if your miracle machine is as good as you claim I will admit it here and apologise for all my sins... |
If you would have presented this a few years ago, I may be in favor of it. But to be honest with you. I don't care which one is better. It's not really worth wasting time to find out. if you like your JVC so enjoy. And likewise let us in CRT land also enjoy our aged hobby |
So you have spoken with all the engineers (working with CRT´s before) working with digitals inn all the manufacturers?? Ok, I´m impressed. I have actually spoken with some engineers (but not all of corse) and they say wery different things. So I don´t see your statements as proof of anything.
I am not the one who said my CRT will wipe the floor with any digital. If you don´t care witch one is better why do you write all the stuff you do? I care witch one is better, but I am open minded and would love to see your 300mhz Marquee as I have never seen one. But none of you gyus are willing to show us one and I am not willing to buy one to find out for my self. I don´t understand why you won´t invite us, it is not you traveling overseas and spending thousands of $ to see and Diddern and I only need a couple of hour of your time. But I understand what lies behind...
_________________
http://www.minhembio.com/21Andreas
Last edited by Andreas21 on Sun Mar 08, 2015 10:00 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andreas21
Joined: 02 Oct 2013
Posts: 582
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | | Diddern wrote: | To me that is like saying a old Lada is better than a new Ferrari.
Not that the old Lada is bad, just that it's not better in any way. |
Well, the old Lada is a heck of a lot cheaper than the new Ferrari, Lada parts are easily located so it's cheaper and easier to repair than the new Ferrari, and the Lada is way simpler for an old guy to wrench on in his garage. Plus, the gauges and ignition are all analog in the Lada - none of that new-fangled digital stuff or flappy-paddle transmissions, so the driving experience is much more pure. So, the Lada is better.
Sound familiar?
SC |
+1
_________________
http://www.minhembio.com/21Andreas
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
What picture shows the most details.?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andreas21
Joined: 02 Oct 2013
Posts: 582
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | | What picture shows the most details.? |
What is your point?
You are the one who can draw advanced conclutions from screenshots.
_________________
http://www.minhembio.com/21Andreas
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 10:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Andreas21 wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | What picture shows the most details.? |
What is your point?
You are the one who can draw advanced conclutions from screenshots. |
Its a simple question, and anyone is welcome to redo the shot if they feel it can be done better.
""Mine is closer to how it looks on screen. """ <--- Remember that conclusion..?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andreas21
Joined: 02 Oct 2013
Posts: 582
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 10:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | | Andreas21 wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | What picture shows the most details.? |
What is your point?
You are the one who can draw advanced conclutions from screenshots. |
Its a simple question, and anyone is welcome to redo the shot if they feel it can be done better.
""Mine is closer to how it looks on screen. """ <--- Remember that conclusion..? |
Then I was talking about the light in the picture not the detail. And if you think the detail level is better on a CRT with 30-50% MTF against a digital with 90+% MTF you need to think again.
_________________
http://www.minhembio.com/21Andreas
Last edited by Andreas21 on Sun Mar 08, 2015 10:18 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andreas21
Joined: 02 Oct 2013
Posts: 582
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 10:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
But since you are so obsessed with this I ask the same question. What picture has the most detail??
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
224.22 KB |
| Viewed: |
1812 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
185.8 KB |
| Viewed: |
1812 Time(s) |
|
_________________
http://www.minhembio.com/21Andreas
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Andreas21 wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | Andreas21 wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | What picture shows the most details.? |
What is your point?
You are the one who can draw advanced conclutions from screenshots. |
Its a simple question, and anyone is welcome to redo the shot if they feel it can be done better.
""Mine is closer to how it looks on screen. """ <--- Remember that conclusion..? |
Then I was talking about the light in the picture not the detail. And if you think de detail level is better on a CRT with 30-50% MTF against a digital with 90+% MTF you need to think again. |
Why is the details washed out in your image.?
Can you take a new picture who show the detail level on your screen better.?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 10:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Andreas21 wrote: | | But since you are so obsessed with this I ask the same question. What picture has the most detail?? |
Yours have, i also think we should ask Mike to take a new shot of that.
So lets take a look on both animated and natural content, and see how far we can push the pictures on both CRT and digital.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diddern
Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2015 10:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | | Andreas21 wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | Andreas21 wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | What picture shows the most details.? |
What is your point?
You are the one who can draw advanced conclutions from screenshots. |
Its a simple question, and anyone is welcome to redo the shot if they feel it can be done better.
""Mine is closer to how it looks on screen. """ <--- Remember that conclusion..? |
Then I was talking about the light in the picture not the detail. And if you think de detail level is better on a CRT with 30-50% MTF against a digital with 90+% MTF you need to think again. |
Why is the details washed out in your image.?
Can you take a new picture who show the detail level on your screen better.? |
Hey stridsvognen now you really must stop.
Like sayed before 30mtf will NEVER beat this in any way whatsoever. And not ever in detail debth and so on. And screanshots do not prove sh*t. Hehe.
|
|
| 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
|
|
