|
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 |
Andreas21
Joined: 02 Oct 2013
Posts: 582
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jbmeyer13 wrote: | | ecrabb wrote: | | ElTopo wrote: | | I usually do not watch 'zoomed in' movie fragments. |
I take it you don't watch quarter-scale zoomed-out still images of movies either, but that doesn't stop people from posting THOSE kinds of screenshots.
SC |
LMAO- was waiting for someone to point that out. From a normal viewing distance on say a 100" diagonal screen I doubt most people would be able to differentiate ultra fine detail in a cross section of 3"; especially when the image is moving rather than static. Zooming out these ultra tiny areas is quite comical but carry on because if nothing this thread sure is hilarious. |
The only reason we do this is because stridsvognen started zooming in on already posed images of around 200kb. This a much better way to do it if you want to go into the fine detail.
And what you say about the ultra fine detail is very wrong it is very noticeable on a 100" screen, and the bigger you go the bigger the difference. 
_________________
http://www.minhembio.com/21Andreas
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jbmeyer13 wrote: | | ecrabb wrote: | | ElTopo wrote: | | I usually do not watch 'zoomed in' movie fragments. |
I take it you don't watch quarter-scale zoomed-out still images of movies either, but that doesn't stop people from posting THOSE kinds of screenshots.
SC |
LMAO- was waiting for someone to point that out. From a normal viewing distance on say a 100" diagonal screen I doubt most people would be able to differentiate ultra fine detail in a cross section of 3"; especially when the image is moving rather than static. Zooming out these ultra tiny areas is quite comical but carry on because if nothing this thread sure is hilarious. |
If I'm interpreting your sentiment correctly Justin, you're saying you can't see the detail in the images they're posting anyway, and so the small, cropped shots are useless. I have to disagree on both counts.
First, as to whether the detail we're discussing in these shots is visible, it definitely is. In fact, I can say without any doubt at all that the differences in fine detail (subtle or not) in these cropped images is very noticeable at typical screen sizes and seating distances many of us use. If it weren't, there would be no noticeable improvement with 4k UHD as a source on a typical front-projection setup. Having seen UHD at large viewing angles like I like, and comparing it to 1080p, there is definitely a visible difference.
As for the cropped images, maybe I wasn't clear with my sarcastic retort, by my intention was actually to push back on the idea that because we don't watch small, cropped versions of movies, that those images were worthless. In fact, this type of screen shot at least has some value in that you can make some much more informed realistic judgements about how much of the resolution from the source is being resolved. This is in stark contrast (excuse the pun) to Mike's screenshots, which are essentially worthless for much of anything. They're fun, entertaining, and we all like to ooh and ahh over them, but with all due respect to Mike and others who like to post screen shots, it's impossible to make any truly informed judgements at all about the actual picture quality.
A screen shot capturing the entire screen is inherently flawed. In any high-contrast scene, it's essentially impossible to capture the contrast range of a projector with a camera - even a good one. Typical decent cameras have about 8 or 9 stops of dynamic range while really good full-frame DSLR's at low-ISO settings push that to 12 or 13. If you're not into photography, that means your typical camera can faithfully capture a contrast ratio of around 500:1. An expensive full-frame camera might muster 2000:1, but only if you're capturing to RAW - not JPG like we're posting here. To make matters worse, camera exposure systems are designed to capture highlights and sacrifice low-level detail to better mimic the way our eyes work and because over-exposing the highlights looks much less attractive than letting the dark end of the range go black. So, cameras fill the blacks in, or in home theater terms, they crush black. That's why Mike's screen shots always look the blacks are crushed, and it's what most CRT fans ooh and aah over. Look at those blacks!
None of what I just went over with respect to exposure even considers color temperature, anti-aliasing and low-pass filtering, color and brightness transfer functions, JPEG compression, lens distortion, and a host of other variables, all of which are different from camera model to camera model.
All this is why I've never bothered posting screen shots. I could literally take some of the best-looking screen shots that any of us have ever seen, and I could do it without post-processing, but there's no point in it. Kurt criticizes me for not posting screenshots and asserts I have no credibility on the issue, but the reality is that I know it's a colossal waste of time. Shooting zoomed-in pics of test material and/or on/off patterns at least has a little value in that you can make at least some cursory judgements about resolution and ballpark MTF, but other than that end, there's little to no value other than fun and entertainment. Personally, I'd much, much rather spend my time watching movies.
Cheers,
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Andreas21 wrote: | | If this is how you see it on screen you have to adjust your gamma and brightness, other than that there is easy to see the difference in detail ans sharpness. The JVC eats the CRT for breakfast! If you took the shot with a better camera your X700 would have shown the pixels very clear, I know this as I have taken this photo with my X500 with and without e-shift on. The difference with e-shift on and off is a difference in noise and sharpness (it is softer with the e-shift on), detail is about the same with it on or off. |
I know the natural reaction is to point out how great the JVC is and how bad the CRT is, but I'll just remind everyone AGAIN that screens shots are of relatively little value, especially when we start trying to evaluate objective measures like resolution and MTF.
Yes, I realize from the shots you posted, it looks like the JVC trounced the CRT. That confirms our suspicions since we all know the MTF of a good digital projector - even a JVC with eShift enabled - is superior to even a great nine-inch CRT. That's not even debatable.
However, you the differences may or may not be as great as the pair of screen shots you posted. Your screen shot may be ideal in that you're representing the JVC very well with your screen shot, while Mike's shot may not be showing the detail very well in at all in his shot. With all due respect to Mike, his screen shots aren't that great, so I have no doubt his CRT looks a little better in person than his screen shots portray, in terms of contrast, color, and sharpness.
That said, I much prefer a JVC at this point over a CRT. I've seen great CRT's, stacks, and I had a damn good 8" machine myself, but I've moved on. I love all the advantages of the JVC over a CRT: Ease of installation, impact on the room, quietness, size, weight, sharpness, brightness, lack of concern over tube wear or burn, zero maintenance, and really excellent overall picture quality. But, that's just me. Others have other priorities. I don't care what other people choose. Personally, I can't wait to build my second dedicated theater, which will no doubt feature JVC projection.
Cheers,
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, and in case I didn't make it crystal clear in my earlier post, I'm going to borrow mr_ro_co's posting method and reiterate one more time:
SCREEN SHOTS ARE OF ZERO VALUE AS AN OBJECTIVE MEASURE OF ANYTHING. THEY ARE COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY WORTHLESS FOR *ANY* PURPOSE OTHER THAN ENTERTAINMENT.
Feel free to continue using them to kick and elbow each other, though.
Cheers,
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeremy112
Joined: 28 Sep 2006
Posts: 2649
Location: Fond du Lac, WI
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | Oh, and in case I didn't make it crystal clear in my earlier post, I'm going to borrow mr_ro_co's posting method and reiterate one more time:
SCREEN SHOTS ARE OF ZERO VALUE AS AN OBJECTIVE MEASURE OF ANYTHING. THEY ARE COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY WORTHLESS FOR *ANY* PURPOSE OTHER THAN ENTERTAINMENT.
Feel free to continue using them to kick and elbow each other, though.
Cheers,
SC |
I THINK YOU MIGHT NEED TO MAKE YOUR TEXT BIGGER, THEY MIGHT SEE IT THEN
_________________
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 |
|
|
Andreas21
Joined: 02 Oct 2013
Posts: 582
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | | Andreas21 wrote: | | If this is how you see it on screen you have to adjust your gamma and brightness, other than that there is easy to see the difference in detail ans sharpness. The JVC eats the CRT for breakfast! If you took the shot with a better camera your X700 would have shown the pixels very clear, I know this as I have taken this photo with my X500 with and without e-shift on. The difference with e-shift on and off is a difference in noise and sharpness (it is softer with the e-shift on), detail is about the same with it on or off. |
I know the natural reaction is to point out how great the JVC is and how bad the CRT is, but I'll just remind everyone AGAIN that screens shots are of relatively little value, especially when we start trying to evaluate objective measures like resolution and MTF.
Yes, I realize from the shots you posted, it looks like the JVC trounced the CRT. That confirms our suspicions since we all know the MTF of a good digital projector - even a JVC with eShift enabled - is superior to even a great nine-inch CRT. That's not even debatable.
However, you the differences may or may not be as great as the pair of screen shots you posted. Your screen shot may be ideal in that you're representing the JVC very well with your screen shot, while Mike's shot may not be showing the detail very well in at all in his shot. With all due respect to Mike, his screen shots aren't that great, so I have no doubt his CRT looks a little better in person than his screen shots portray, in terms of contrast, color, and sharpness.
That said, I much prefer a JVC at this point over a CRT. I've seen great CRT's, stacks, and I had a damn good 8" machine myself, but I've moved on. I love all the advantages of the JVC over a CRT: Ease of installation, impact on the room, quietness, size, weight, sharpness, brightness, lack of concern over tube wear or burn, zero maintenance, and really excellent overall picture quality. But, that's just me. Others have other priorities. I don't care what other people choose. Personally, I can't wait to build my second dedicated theater, which will no doubt feature JVC projection.
Cheers,
SC |
I agree with you on everything you say, but like you said in your previous post and I quote:In fact, this type of screen shot at least has some value in that you can make some much more informed realistic judgements about how much of the resolution from the source is being resolved.
And I am also sure thet MPīs CRT does not look as bad as his screenshots, if it did he would not see many details in dark scenes. And I wonder why CRT guys is so impressed with these very dark shots, and it is like you say: Look at them blacks.
I have not owned a JVC for many years before I bought the X500 4 months ago, but if they keep up the good work my next 4K projector will be a JVC as I will keep my X500 until they come up with a good 4K machine. I know what you say about 4K to be true as I have owned a native 4K machine for 3 years. And the difference from 1080p is guite huge even with quite small screens. And when we get wider colorspace, 10-12 bits per color channel++ it will be an even bigger difference.
I do not take good screenshots, but I try to capture close to what is shown on screen and I have a Canon EOS 70D with different Canon L lenses and I always shoot in RAW, the problem here is you have to scale down to max 500kb and how much info is lost then? My RAWīs is around 20mb.
I have an ok understanding of photography, but I am no expert. And If I sat down and took my time I would be able to take a little better shots, but it is not necessary for posting this as you say idiotic screenshots. At least the zoomed in shots have some slight value.
_________________
http://www.minhembio.com/21Andreas
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andreas21
Joined: 02 Oct 2013
Posts: 582
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jeremy112 wrote: | | ecrabb wrote: | Oh, and in case I didn't make it crystal clear in my earlier post, I'm going to borrow mr_ro_co's posting method and reiterate one more time:
SCREEN SHOTS ARE OF ZERO VALUE AS AN OBJECTIVE MEASURE OF ANYTHING. THEY ARE COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY WORTHLESS FOR *ANY* PURPOSE OTHER THAN ENTERTAINMENT.
Feel free to continue using them to kick and elbow each other, though.
Cheers,
SC |
I THINK YOU MIGHT NEED TO MAKE YOUR TEXT BIGGER, THEY MIGHT SEE IT THEN |
I have said it at least 100 times that screenshots are worthless, and I think the message is more important to magnify for MP and stridsvognen who can draw detailed info on color, blacklevel, clipping++ from looking at screenshots.
At least the zoomed have some value, but not much.
_________________
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: Wed Mar 11, 2015 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | while Mike's shot may not be showing the detail very well in at all in his shot.
SC |
One of the main goals in my shots is to also show background detail, while at the same time have things clear in the foreground. Many have been following that, because it allows to see how well the projector is resolving the bandwidth.
My shots may not have proper color (un-calibrated), because I don't depend on the camera for that, nor do I trust the the camera for best sharpness. I use the camera for it's best virtues.
But again, on my shots, they will allow you to make out things in the backgrounds and see things on the wall or even wall material. A lot beyond that to me is nonsense. But if you've never really seen 1080P fully resolved in person on a CRT you would not know what to look for. And seeing it on a digital is different, because not all native rate digital's do well with background detail. And yes, the camera isn't perfect with this, but it still shows. And if the digital guys have the guts to post their images, maybe I'll get to see more digitals showing more background detail, which is also what HD is all about.
And to take a shot at something up close (or zoomed in) when that that item or image is not reference (a determined sharpness) is plain stupid. The goal to use a non sharp item to determine sharpness or detail makes how much sense?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jbmeyer13
Joined: 03 Dec 2010
Posts: 1135
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: |
If I'm interpreting your sentiment correctly Justin, you're saying you can't see the detail in the images they're posting anyway, and so the small, cropped shots are useless. I have to disagree on both counts.
SC |
I think of this like looking at a chart used for eye exams. Yes you can see something at the very bottom of the chart but can you really make it out?
I posted that comment after doing some quick measurements of that image. On my computer screen the image is 336.55mm wide and the width of one of the little lights on the spaceship is 1mm. I scaled that up so on my 87" wide screen that light would be 6.5mm (.25"). I'd think from 10' away it's going to be hard for many people to make out that difference; especially when the image is moving and your eyes are adjusting to contrast changes and such.
_________________
Projector: Modded 9501LC ULtra- MP VIM, Vold VNB, ETECH LVPS, Silver VIM Cables, HD10F's & a V1 case!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andreas21
Joined: 02 Oct 2013
Posts: 582
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mp20748 wrote: | | ecrabb wrote: | while Mike's shot may not be showing the detail very well in at all in his shot.
SC |
One of the main goals in my shots is to also show background detail, while at the same time have things clear in the foreground. Many have been following that, because it allows to see how well the projector is resolving the bandwidth.
My shots may not have proper color (un-calibrated), because I don't depend on the camera for that, nor do I trust the the camera for best sharpness. I use the camera for it's best virtues.
But again, on my shots, they will allow you to make out things in the backgrounds and see things on the wall or even wall material. A lot beyond that to me is nonsense. But if you've never really seen 1080P fully resolved in person on a CRT you would not know what to look for. And seeing it on a digital is different, because not all native rate digital's do well with background detail. And yes, the camera isn't perfect with this, but it still shows. And if the digital guys have the guts to post their images, maybe I'll get to see more digitals showing more background detail, which is also what HD is all about.
And to take a shot at something up close (or zoomed in) when that that item or image is not reference (a determined sharpness) is plain stupid. The goal to use a non sharp item to determine sharpness or detail makes how much sense? |
This is also nonsence and shows you have no understandig of photography and have not seen a well setup digital. And when you talk about detail, why do you take shots with so much black crush? And you are talking about what HD is all about background detail, what do you call the detail in the zoomed in shots?
I have posted many fullscren shots here even if I think it is meaningless, but only to get them zoomed in by stridsvognen and he is talking about this and that, bandig, color resolution, clipping and so on and this from a 300kb picture. But he has never commented on your black crush, and I know your CRT does not look like that if you set it up correct.
And I have asked you before and I ask you again. What gamma do you run on your CRT??
_________________
http://www.minhembio.com/21Andreas
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CSX
Joined: 11 Feb 2015
Posts: 142
Location: Ohio
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"What gamma do you run on your CRT??"
Looooooooooooooooooool. I think you are gonna have to be WAY more specific than that.
| Andreas21 wrote: | | mp20748 wrote: | | ecrabb wrote: | while Mike's shot may not be showing the detail very well in at all in his shot.
SC |
One of the main goals in my shots is to also show background detail, while at the same time have things clear in the foreground. Many have been following that, because it allows to see how well the projector is resolving the bandwidth.
My shots may not have proper color (un-calibrated), because I don't depend on the camera for that, nor do I trust the the camera for best sharpness. I use the camera for it's best virtues.
But again, on my shots, they will allow you to make out things in the backgrounds and see things on the wall or even wall material. A lot beyond that to me is nonsense. But if you've never really seen 1080P fully resolved in person on a CRT you would not know what to look for. And seeing it on a digital is different, because not all native rate digital's do well with background detail. And yes, the camera isn't perfect with this, but it still shows. And if the digital guys have the guts to post their images, maybe I'll get to see more digitals showing more background detail, which is also what HD is all about.
And to take a shot at something up close (or zoomed in) when that that item or image is not reference (a determined sharpness) is plain stupid. The goal to use a non sharp item to determine sharpness or detail makes how much sense? |
This is also nonsence and shows you have no understandig of photography and have not seen a well setup digital. And when you talk about detail, why do you take shots with so much black crush? And you are talking about what HD is all about background detail, what do you call the detail in the zoomed in shots?
I have posted many fullscren shots here even if I think it is meaningless, but only to get them zoomed in by stridsvognen and he is talking about this and that, bandig, color resolution, clipping and so on and this from a 300kb picture. But he has never commented on your black crush, and I know your CRT does not look like that if you set it up correct.
And I have asked you before and I ask you again. What gamma do you run on your CRT?? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andreas21
Joined: 02 Oct 2013
Posts: 582
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jbmeyer13 wrote: | | ecrabb wrote: |
If I'm interpreting your sentiment correctly Justin, you're saying you can't see the detail in the images they're posting anyway, and so the small, cropped shots are useless. I have to disagree on both counts.
SC |
I think of this like looking at a chart used for eye exams. Yes you can see something at the very bottom of the chart but can you really make it out?
I posted that comment after doing some quick measurements of that image. On my computer screen the image is 336.55mm wide and the width of one of the little lights on the spaceship is 1mm. I scaled that up so on my 87" wide screen that light would be 6.5mm (.25"). I'd think from 10' away it's going to be hard for many people to make out that difference; especially when the image is moving and your eyes are adjusting to contrast changes and such. |
I can see the detail just fine in my setup from 3.7m away, even when the movie is rolling. And this makes a huge difference in the HD feel of the picture.
Even if eCrabb comes up with a very good explenation here you guys still will not belive me when I say that you can not make out differences in deep black, black, blacklevel, color+++ from a screenshot.
_________________
http://www.minhembio.com/21Andreas
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andreas21
Joined: 02 Oct 2013
Posts: 582
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CSX wrote: | "What gamma do you run on your CRT??"
Looooooooooooooooooool. I think you are gonna have to be WAY more specific than that.
| Andreas21 wrote: | | mp20748 wrote: | | ecrabb wrote: | while Mike's shot may not be showing the detail very well in at all in his shot.
SC |
One of the main goals in my shots is to also show background detail, while at the same time have things clear in the foreground. Many have been following that, because it allows to see how well the projector is resolving the bandwidth.
My shots may not have proper color (un-calibrated), because I don't depend on the camera for that, nor do I trust the the camera for best sharpness. I use the camera for it's best virtues.
But again, on my shots, they will allow you to make out things in the backgrounds and see things on the wall or even wall material. A lot beyond that to me is nonsense. But if you've never really seen 1080P fully resolved in person on a CRT you would not know what to look for. And seeing it on a digital is different, because not all native rate digital's do well with background detail. And yes, the camera isn't perfect with this, but it still shows. And if the digital guys have the guts to post their images, maybe I'll get to see more digitals showing more background detail, which is also what HD is all about.
And to take a shot at something up close (or zoomed in) when that that item or image is not reference (a determined sharpness) is plain stupid. The goal to use a non sharp item to determine sharpness or detail makes how much sense? |
This is also nonsence and shows you have no understandig of photography and have not seen a well setup digital. And when you talk about detail, why do you take shots with so much black crush? And you are talking about what HD is all about background detail, what do you call the detail in the zoomed in shots?
I have posted many fullscren shots here even if I think it is meaningless, but only to get them zoomed in by stridsvognen and he is talking about this and that, bandig, color resolution, clipping and so on and this from a 300kb picture. But he has never commented on your black crush, and I know your CRT does not look like that if you set it up correct.
And I have asked you before and I ask you again. What gamma do you run on your CRT?? |
|
No, I donīt he has already said his CRT is uncalibrated. If he runs to high gamma over 2.4 he will get a lot of blackcrush, and he must alo check his brightness is set right to get all the correct detail in near black.
And I have also said it here many times, if you set yor CRT with "correct" gamma and brightness it will not shut completly down when showing 0 IRE. Maby this is why some of you set it up with some blackcrush as the shut down to 0 IRE is the most important to you?? My JVC does this very vell with a 2.35 gamma and perfect setup brightness.
_________________
http://www.minhembio.com/21Andreas
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CSX
Joined: 11 Feb 2015
Posts: 142
Location: Ohio
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jbmeyer13 wrote: | | ecrabb wrote: |
If I'm interpreting your sentiment correctly Justin, you're saying you can't see the detail in the images they're posting anyway, and so the small, cropped shots are useless. I have to disagree on both counts.
SC |
I think of this like looking at a chart used for eye exams. Yes you can see something at the very bottom of the chart but can you really make it out?
I posted that comment after doing some quick measurements of that image. On my computer screen the image is 336.55mm wide and the width of one of the little lights on the spaceship is 1mm. I scaled that up so on my 87" wide screen that light would be 6.5mm (.25"). I'd think from 10' away it's going to be hard for many people to make out that difference; especially when the image is moving and your eyes are adjusting to contrast changes and such. |
This.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CSX
Joined: 11 Feb 2015
Posts: 142
Location: Ohio
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Andreas21 wrote: | | CSX wrote: | "What gamma do you run on your CRT??"
Looooooooooooooooooool. I think you are gonna have to be WAY more specific than that.
| Andreas21 wrote: | | mp20748 wrote: | | ecrabb wrote: | while Mike's shot may not be showing the detail very well in at all in his shot.
SC |
One of the main goals in my shots is to also show background detail, while at the same time have things clear in the foreground. Many have been following that, because it allows to see how well the projector is resolving the bandwidth.
My shots may not have proper color (un-calibrated), because I don't depend on the camera for that, nor do I trust the the camera for best sharpness. I use the camera for it's best virtues.
But again, on my shots, they will allow you to make out things in the backgrounds and see things on the wall or even wall material. A lot beyond that to me is nonsense. But if you've never really seen 1080P fully resolved in person on a CRT you would not know what to look for. And seeing it on a digital is different, because not all native rate digital's do well with background detail. And yes, the camera isn't perfect with this, but it still shows. And if the digital guys have the guts to post their images, maybe I'll get to see more digitals showing more background detail, which is also what HD is all about.
And to take a shot at something up close (or zoomed in) when that that item or image is not reference (a determined sharpness) is plain stupid. The goal to use a non sharp item to determine sharpness or detail makes how much sense? |
This is also nonsence and shows you have no understandig of photography and have not seen a well setup digital. And when you talk about detail, why do you take shots with so much black crush? And you are talking about what HD is all about background detail, what do you call the detail in the zoomed in shots?
I have posted many fullscren shots here even if I think it is meaningless, but only to get them zoomed in by stridsvognen and he is talking about this and that, bandig, color resolution, clipping and so on and this from a 300kb picture. But he has never commented on your black crush, and I know your CRT does not look like that if you set it up correct.
And I have asked you before and I ask you again. What gamma do you run on your CRT?? |
|
No, I donīt he has already said his CRT is uncalibrated. If he runs to high gamma over 2.4 he will get a lot of blackcrush, and he must alo check his brightness is set right to get all the correct detail in near black.
And I have also said it here many times, if you set yor CRT with "correct" gamma and brightness it will not shut completly down when showing 0 IRE. Maby this is why some of you set it up with some blackcrush as the shut down to 0 IRE is the most important to you?? My JVC does this very vell with a 2.35 gamma and perfect setup brightness. |
Naw but that doesn't even make sense. Do you realize this?
Everything has so many variables. If I tried to tell you that I set everything to "Gamma 2.35", I'd be flat out lying to you. Everything and it's mother has a gamma setting, and it could differ somewhere along the video chain. It's an entirely speculative or assumed figure, unless you have access to calibration devices / video analysis tools.
I do not have such things.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andreas21
Joined: 02 Oct 2013
Posts: 582
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CSX wrote: | | Andreas21 wrote: | | CSX wrote: | "What gamma do you run on your CRT??"
Looooooooooooooooooool. I think you are gonna have to be WAY more specific than that.
| Andreas21 wrote: | | mp20748 wrote: | | ecrabb wrote: | while Mike's shot may not be showing the detail very well in at all in his shot.
SC |
One of the main goals in my shots is to also show background detail, while at the same time have things clear in the foreground. Many have been following that, because it allows to see how well the projector is resolving the bandwidth.
My shots may not have proper color (un-calibrated), because I don't depend on the camera for that, nor do I trust the the camera for best sharpness. I use the camera for it's best virtues.
But again, on my shots, they will allow you to make out things in the backgrounds and see things on the wall or even wall material. A lot beyond that to me is nonsense. But if you've never really seen 1080P fully resolved in person on a CRT you would not know what to look for. And seeing it on a digital is different, because not all native rate digital's do well with background detail. And yes, the camera isn't perfect with this, but it still shows. And if the digital guys have the guts to post their images, maybe I'll get to see more digitals showing more background detail, which is also what HD is all about.
And to take a shot at something up close (or zoomed in) when that that item or image is not reference (a determined sharpness) is plain stupid. The goal to use a non sharp item to determine sharpness or detail makes how much sense? |
This is also nonsence and shows you have no understandig of photography and have not seen a well setup digital. And when you talk about detail, why do you take shots with so much black crush? And you are talking about what HD is all about background detail, what do you call the detail in the zoomed in shots?
I have posted many fullscren shots here even if I think it is meaningless, but only to get them zoomed in by stridsvognen and he is talking about this and that, bandig, color resolution, clipping and so on and this from a 300kb picture. But he has never commented on your black crush, and I know your CRT does not look like that if you set it up correct.
And I have asked you before and I ask you again. What gamma do you run on your CRT?? |
|
No, I donīt he has already said his CRT is uncalibrated. If he runs to high gamma over 2.4 he will get a lot of blackcrush, and he must alo check his brightness is set right to get all the correct detail in near black.
And I have also said it here many times, if you set yor CRT with "correct" gamma and brightness it will not shut completly down when showing 0 IRE. Maby this is why some of you set it up with some blackcrush as the shut down to 0 IRE is the most important to you?? My JVC does this very vell with a 2.35 gamma and perfect setup brightness. |
Naw but that doesn't even make sense. Do you realize this?
Everything has so many variables. If I tried to tell you that I set everything to "Gamma 2.35", I'd be flat out lying to you. Everything and it's mother has a gamma setting, and it could differ somewhere along the video chain. It's an entirely speculative or assumed figure, unless you have access to calibration devices / video analysis tools.
I do not have such things. |
If you dont have the access to real calibration tools you can not set up a projector in the right way. And gamma and grayscale is impossible to set correct without high quality calibration tools. If you like oversaturated colors that is up to you, but if you dont have a linear gamma and grayscale (Dellta E under 3) your image will not look good.
When you calibrate a projector it is very imortand to try to gat a linear as possible gamma curve. I am not saying 2.35 is the perfect gamma for all HT but it is a good gamma if you have a projector with a very low black level and you have a room/screen that can hande it. And og corse it is important to calibrate your projector to rec 709, D65 and a liear gamma set from 2.2-2.4 some also prefer the bt 1886 gamma. I have not tried bt 1886 yet and donīt have a good feeling about it as BDīs is set at a linear gamma around 2.2. If you want to see what the director intend you to see when watching a blu ray you need to calibrate your projector to the correct standards. And that is a fact!
_________________
http://www.minhembio.com/21Andreas
Last edited by Andreas21 on Wed Mar 11, 2015 6:08 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jbmeyer13
Joined: 03 Dec 2010
Posts: 1135
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Andreas21 wrote: | | jbmeyer13 wrote: | | ecrabb wrote: |
If I'm interpreting your sentiment correctly Justin, you're saying you can't see the detail in the images they're posting anyway, and so the small, cropped shots are useless. I have to disagree on both counts.
SC |
I think of this like looking at a chart used for eye exams. Yes you can see something at the very bottom of the chart but can you really make it out?
I posted that comment after doing some quick measurements of that image. On my computer screen the image is 336.55mm wide and the width of one of the little lights on the spaceship is 1mm. I scaled that up so on my 87" wide screen that light would be 6.5mm (.25"). I'd think from 10' away it's going to be hard for many people to make out that difference; especially when the image is moving and your eyes are adjusting to contrast changes and such. |
I can see the detail just fine in my setup from 3.7m away, even when the movie is rolling. And this makes a huge difference in the HD feel of the picture.
|
You'd need to have both the digital and the CRT in the same room to see what discernible difference there is for something at that size (6.5mm) from 300cm away. It's obvious that the digitals are sharper but when you use something that tiny to support your theory of utter superiority it's downright silly. It's like saying you can tell the difference in diagonal shaped screen perforations vs. round perforations..lol
There's a whole host of other attributes that contribute to the "HD feel" of a picture and you're using a rather poor example to support your argument.
_________________
Projector: Modded 9501LC ULtra- MP VIM, Vold VNB, ETECH LVPS, Silver VIM Cables, HD10F's & a V1 case!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andreas21
Joined: 02 Oct 2013
Posts: 582
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jbmeyer13 wrote: | | Andreas21 wrote: | | jbmeyer13 wrote: | | ecrabb wrote: |
If I'm interpreting your sentiment correctly Justin, you're saying you can't see the detail in the images they're posting anyway, and so the small, cropped shots are useless. I have to disagree on both counts.
SC |
I think of this like looking at a chart used for eye exams. Yes you can see something at the very bottom of the chart but can you really make it out?
I posted that comment after doing some quick measurements of that image. On my computer screen the image is 336.55mm wide and the width of one of the little lights on the spaceship is 1mm. I scaled that up so on my 87" wide screen that light would be 6.5mm (.25"). I'd think from 10' away it's going to be hard for many people to make out that difference; especially when the image is moving and your eyes are adjusting to contrast changes and such. |
I can see the detail just fine in my setup from 3.7m away, even when the movie is rolling. And this makes a huge difference in the HD feel of the picture.
|
You'd need to have both the digital and the CRT in the same room to see what discernible difference there is for something at that size (6.5mm) from 300cm away. It's obvious that the digitals are sharper but when you use something that tiny to support your theory of utter superiority it's downright silly. There's a whole host of other attributes that contribute to the "HD feel" of a picture and you're using a rather poor example to support your argument. |
To get the HD feel in rhe picture one of the most important thing is to be able to show 1080p as close to 100% as possible, but of corse all the other different aspects need to be in place also. But i donīt have to go in detail there do I?
And no, the difference is so big between a CRT and a good digital that you donīt have to see them side by side to see the difference. I have done both many times and know what I am talking about.I have not seen a 300mhz Marquee, but I doubt the difference between that and a vell setup Barco 909 to be very big.
Even if you guys donīt think so I have quite some experience with projectors and I am a hobby photographer and know some things about photo. I have owned 30+ projectors the last decade (I always have more than one, sometimes 3 at once) and I side by side test many different projectors each year, amd take my hobby quite serious. I always get my projectors calibrated by pros (I know a few) and make sure they are recalibrated at a regular basis to make sure the perform at their best at all times. But the most important thing for me with HT is to watch movies and I try to watch at least a couple of movies each week.
_________________
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: Wed Mar 11, 2015 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Andreas21 wrote: |
This is also nonsence and shows you have no understandig of photography and have not seen a well setup digital. And when you talk about detail |
Believe it or not, we're talking about two different things. I was as I've mentioned it before referencing BACKGROUND detail, also meaning intrinsic details. Your mind is always so stuck (narrow minded) on shadow detail.
And let me try this once more.. the use of point and shoot cameras will NOT allow for proper capturing of shadow detail. That's why it not something I mention with the shots. And since I don't do post processing to doctor up my shots I leave them as-is...now I want you to write this down and try and remember it so you don't piss me off again mentioning the same stupid %&^
A Point and Shoot camera is not good for the following:
- proper color capture
- proper shadow detail
- proper gamma
- etc
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andreas21
Joined: 02 Oct 2013
Posts: 582
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mp20748 wrote: | | Andreas21 wrote: |
This is also nonsence and shows you have no understandig of photography and have not seen a well setup digital. And when you talk about detail |
Believe it or not, we're talking about two different things. I was as I've mentioned it before referencing BACKGROUND detail, also meaning intrinsic details. Your mind is always so stuck (narrow minded) on shadow detail.
And let me try this once more.. the use of point and shoot cameras will NOT allow for proper capturing of shadow detail. That's why it not something I mention with the shots. And since I don't do post processing to doctor up my shots I leave them as-is...now I want you to write this down and try and remember it so you don't piss me off again mentioning the same stupid %&^
A Point and Shoot camera is not good for the following:
- proper color capture
- proper shadow detail
- proper gamma
- etc |
No we are not talking about two different things!
I am talking about detail and resolution and sharpness, and the closeup shots can show this in a way, but of corse not perfect. And I know what BACKGROUD detail is! And if you think your projector is so good at showing BACKGROUND detail why donīt you show it to us then? And you can not show that with a fullscreen shot resized to 300kb and watched on a 20-30 inch computer screens and the picture is maby 10" on screen. I only comment on your pictures to have a lot of black crush and look soft and with poor detai and oversaturated colors, I know I can not see this from screenshot, but it sure looks like it in your shots. But this is maby because you use a sh*tty camere to shoot them and in real life your projector is actually showing 1080p at 4K detail level and perfect detail in black and a natural infinite sharpness beyond what our eyes can behold. I have never post prosessed of doctored up my screenshots posted on this site and this is the only site I have posted more than one shot on ever. I only point and shoot with different shutterspeeds and ISO to get a close to true picture, then I resize it and post it here. But with my sh*tty deep black it is near to impossible to get the blacks right...
When you mention all this why do you say you can see the deep black and black from screenshots? You also comment on the colors in your shots to be better than mine and so on. You are speaking against your self all the time. If your point and shoot camera is so bad why do you post screenshots here all the time and think they look so good.
And finally, what gamma do you use on your CRT or is that uncalibrated also??
_________________
http://www.minhembio.com/21Andreas
|
|
| 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
|
|
