|
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 |
El Duderino
Joined: 23 Jan 2011
Posts: 4653
Location: Portland, OR
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mp20748 wrote: | | Because it is not showing black, it shows gray, which means auto exposure never saw black, or anything close enough to black to clamp total black |
I don't agree. It's doesn't matter if the darkest pixel is elevated. The darkest pixel gets clamped to 0,0,0 and becomes the 'black'. To the capture side, RGB 0,0,0 is irrespective of the display involved.
Last edited by El Duderino on Wed Mar 11, 2015 8:43 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Andreas21
Joined: 02 Oct 2013
Posts: 582
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | | Andreas21 wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | Andreas21 wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | Andreas21 wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | Andreas21 wrote: | | Here is what is looks like with e-shift off, and calibrated to the correct standards with a 2.35 power gamma. Mine is maby a tad dark compared to what is shown on screen. |
Cant you post a pic of the muddy face made like this one.? |
Why? I use e-shift on my JVC all the time as I find it to be best and all my screenshots except this is with e-shift on and I will not take another shot of the mud face. |
I dont understand why you resist so much making a high resolution shot of that muddy face, and show how it really looks like.
Its a very nice part to show details and naturalness, and the shot you have posted have no details and no naturalnes, so please lets see a high resolution picture with no artifacts that will do the JVC justice. |
So you think the CRT shot has more detail, do you really mean that?? Give me a break, it is easy to see the total opposite.  |
Try focus on the fine details/ high resolution parts.. not the low resolution parts of the image.
I can simply not understand that the artifacts and stuff going on around the eye dont bother you. |
What, so you actually mean the CRT shows more fine detail/high resolution?? The artifacts is there on the CRT as well, but theu are so soft it is difficult to see them. |
Try see the texture in the skin, the fine details in the mud, stuff not shown on the JVC.. Then when the resolution goes a bit down in the image, it looks like the details get pumped up on the JVC.
Do you think the JVC image looks the most natural.? Is that how skin look in real life, when you take a close look.? |
Blah, blah, blah.
To me skin in real life has a lot more detail than the CRT shot, the JVC is much closer but not as detailed as I see it in real life of corse. The skin and mud in the JVC shot has a lot more detail than the CRT picture, and if you donīt see that I think you need to find your glasses.
Now this is getting so stupiid and I donīt think I want to spend anymore of my valuable time on this.
_________________
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 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Andreas21 wrote: |
You donīt have the balls to post the Prometheus picture.
|
No, but I have the brains to not post it. because it would be a total waste of time from a technical perspective. You see, I get to spend tons of time using and setting up very large screen display systems, and do so using very unique software and techniques. And almost all the literature, it advises to never use a blured object or reference for focus or detail. It goes further and says to stay away from CGI. And that is why the pattern generators and test patterns are all now indication the method they use to make the pattern. so on a small sceen, this is not that big of a difference, but on a seriously large high resolution display system, the source is critical. And anything CGI is not a good reference for anything.
Last edited by mp20748 on Wed Mar 11, 2015 8:46 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Just so we look at the same area.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andreas21
Joined: 02 Oct 2013
Posts: 582
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jbmeyer13 wrote: | | Andreas21 wrote: | | 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.
|
Andreas,
Do you feel that from 3.7m away you could tell the difference between a round perforation on an AT Screen and diamond shaped perforation? Not being a smart ass, rather just curious. |
I will never use a perforated screen as it a compromize on both picture and audio quality. I have tested many different and none of them is even close to good enoug. And why do you ask, the detail I am talking about is much larger than any perforation shape.
_________________
http://www.minhembio.com/21Andreas
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andreas21
Joined: 02 Oct 2013
Posts: 582
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | | Just so we look at the same area. |
Do you actually think the CRT looks more like you would have seen this in real life?? 
The JVC is much closer to real life, but of corse quite far from how I would see it in real life. The CRT is very very far from how I would see it in real life and way to soft and has very little detail.
Can you please stop this now, it is obvious to see witch has the most clarity, detail and HD feel to it and if you dont see that I this is meaningless.
But now this is so stupid, I just waithing for you to say how my projector is clipping and having color resolution problems and yada yada. I am finished with this now and I leave you CRT forum.
Og stridsvognen, jeg tror du må ta deg en tur til optikeren.
Bye bye!
_________________
http://www.minhembio.com/21Andreas
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Andreas21 wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | Just so we look at the same area. |
Do you actually think the CRT looks more like you would have seen this in real life??
The JVC is much closer to real life, but of cors quite far from how I would see it in real life. The CRT is very very far from how I would see it in real life and way to soft and has very little detail.
Can you please stop this now, it is obvious to see witch has the most clarity, detail and HD feel to it and if you dont see that I this is meaningless. |
Define clarity..?
Is that those artifacts clearing up the part i cut out your talking about.?
Can you point out in this section the part who stands out as the best most natural over the crt image.?
|
|
| 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 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Andreas21 wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | Just so we look at the same area. |
Do you actually think the CRT looks more like you would have seen this in real life??
The JVC is much closer to real life, but of cors quite far from how I would see it in real life. The CRT is very very far from how I would see it in real life and way to soft and has very little detail.
Can you please stop this now, it is obvious to see witch has the most clarity, detail and HD feel to it and if you dont see that I this is meaningless. |
Look at the pupil edges. Is that the clarity and detail you speak of?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
El Duderino
Joined: 23 Jan 2011
Posts: 4653
Location: Portland, OR
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I guess my point is all these screen shots tell me more about your camera then your display. They aren't analog anymore so trying to convey the analog 'goodness' seems moot. Like using the digital internet to try to show how good an analog TT sounds.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
El Duderino
Joined: 23 Jan 2011
Posts: 4653
Location: Portland, OR
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mp20748 wrote: | | Look at the pupil edges. Is that the clarity and detail you speak of? |
Just defocus the digital a tad and I likely couldn't tell them apart. 
|
|
| 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 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jesus... You guys are arguing about amounts of detail in two completely different shots like you can tell anything from them... One shot is nice and smooth, but with most fine detail rolled off (in the projection, in the capture, or more likely a combination of both), and another image that's sharp, but is full of noise (probably some source image film grain, probably some LCoS noise, eShift noise, camera sensor noise, probably a little in-camera sharpening on top, and to finish it all off, definitely some JPEG compression noise.
The two shots are both bad and/or compromised, but for different reasons.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
El Duderino
Joined: 23 Jan 2011
Posts: 4653
Location: Portland, OR
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | | definitely some JPEG compression noise. |
I definitely agree with that. If one want's to scrutinized and compare details and RGB levels, then JPEG variables isn't what you'd want mucking about in the mix.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jbmeyer13
Joined: 03 Dec 2010
Posts: 1135
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Andreas21 wrote: |
I will never use a perforated screen as it a compromize on both picture and audio quality. I have tested many different and none of them is even close to good enoug. And why do you ask, the detail I am talking about is much larger than any perforation shape. |
I'm asking because the details around the space ship light bulbs in your shot (that you circled with red) are microscopic under normal viewing conditions. On a 100" screen one of those lights is approx. 6mm therefore some of those fine details are not much (if any bigger) than a screen perforation. While the JVC may technically display it better if the viewer can't differentiate something at that size then it's a moot point. Once you go beyond a certain level of perceptible sharpness you ascend into diminishing returns. This is where other image attributes become more important.
Obviously when you blow up the image these tiny details are more apparent but under normal viewing conditions you will not be able to differentiate details that are but 2-4mm in size from 3.7m away. The other part of this is that the ship is CGI where everything is technically in the foreground. By nature, the image is artificial and has no real depth which does not make it the best tool for evaluating a display.
_________________
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 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | Jesus... You guys are arguing about amounts of detail in two completely different shots like you can tell anything from them... One shot is nice and smooth, but with most fine detail rolled off (in the projection, in the capture, or more likely a combination of both), and another image that's sharp, but is full of noise (probably some source image film grain, probably some LCoS noise, eShift noise, camera sensor noise, probably a little in-camera sharpening on top, and to finish it all off, definitely some JPEG compression noise.
The two shots are both bad and/or compromised, but for different reasons.
SC |
This is so true!
As this is a movie shot on film so some of the noise is grain, and as I have said many many times e-shift does add some slight noise when activated, but stridscognen as always ignores this. The CRT shot is very soft and flat with no clarity and the digital is sharp has depth and clarity, but has qiute a bit of noise. And as I said none of them is like we would see this in real life if we got close up to the actor, but the JVC is much closer than the CRT. The noise is not visible from seating distance, but the sharpness, clarity, 3D depth and so on is.
I have said it before and I say it again, bye bye!
_________________
http://www.minhembio.com/21Andreas
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Andreas21 wrote: | | ecrabb wrote: | Jesus... You guys are arguing about amounts of detail in two completely different shots like you can tell anything from them... One shot is nice and smooth, but with most fine detail rolled off (in the projection, in the capture, or more likely a combination of both), and another image that's sharp, but is full of noise (probably some source image film grain, probably some LCoS noise, eShift noise, camera sensor noise, probably a little in-camera sharpening on top, and to finish it all off, definitely some JPEG compression noise.
The two shots are both bad and/or compromised, but for different reasons.
SC |
This is so true!
As this is a movie shot on film so some of the noise is grain, and as I have said many many times e-shift does add some slight noise when activated, but stridscognen as always ignores this. The CRT shot is very soft and flat with no clarity and the digital is sharp has depth and clarity, but has qiute a bit of noise. And as I said none of them is like we would see this in real life if we got close up to the actor, but the JVC is much closer than the CRT. The noise is not visible from seating distance, but the sharpness, clarity, 3D depth and so on is.
I have said it before and I say it again, bye bye! |
Try shoot a picture of that eye closeup with e sh*t turned off, then that is out of the game, and then crop the image so it will display in a quality that compares to other screenshots displayed here who dont show all that noise.
How are you feeding your JVC.. source..? what output, color space, any features in the player used.? and so on.?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andreas21
Joined: 02 Oct 2013
Posts: 582
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | | Andreas21 wrote: | | ecrabb wrote: | Jesus... You guys are arguing about amounts of detail in two completely different shots like you can tell anything from them... One shot is nice and smooth, but with most fine detail rolled off (in the projection, in the capture, or more likely a combination of both), and another image that's sharp, but is full of noise (probably some source image film grain, probably some LCoS noise, eShift noise, camera sensor noise, probably a little in-camera sharpening on top, and to finish it all off, definitely some JPEG compression noise.
The two shots are both bad and/or compromised, but for different reasons.
SC |
This is so true!
As this is a movie shot on film so some of the noise is grain, and as I have said many many times e-shift does add some slight noise when activated, but stridscognen as always ignores this. The CRT shot is very soft and flat with no clarity and the digital is sharp has depth and clarity, but has qiute a bit of noise. And as I said none of them is like we would see this in real life if we got close up to the actor, but the JVC is much closer than the CRT. The noise is not visible from seating distance, but the sharpness, clarity, 3D depth and so on is.
I have said it before and I say it again, bye bye! |
Try shoot a picture of that eye closeup with e sh*t turned off, then that is out of the game, and then crop the image so it will display in a quality that compares to other screenshots displayed here who dont show all that noise.
How are you feeding your JVC.. source..? what output, color space, any features in the player used.? and so on.? |
Why do you ask? Are you going to tell me how to setup my own setup? And I have said it before, I will not take another shot and let you try to draw different bull**** conclutions by zooming in and sh*t.
The noise is in the CRT picture also, but it is so soft and the softness hides it (fimgrain). The e-shift noise is only slightly shown in the picture.
_________________
http://www.minhembio.com/21Andreas
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tanwn1
Joined: 08 Dec 2014
Posts: 60
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
in actual fact the real pics on the screen are correct and not overexposed, it is because of my samsung note 4 phone which overexposed the pics. I merely wanted to show the diff in MTF and details but did not lower the camera exposure.
| Andreas21 wrote: | | tanwn1 wrote: | ok, below are the pics of my barco cinemax (no mods using moome v3 gamma) and jvc x700 below pics. As you can see, I do not expect barco analogue stage to compete with a digital jvc in area of MTF and details, its simply not possible, but you can see my barco is not too bad without mods. I can't see the pic posted, can someone help to upload here?
baroc cinemax
[img]http://www.curtpalme.com/forum/album_pic.php?pic_id=1304[/img]
jvc x700
[img]http://www.curtpalme.com/forum/album_pic.php?pic_id=1305[/img] |
These pictures are way to overexposed and if we use MPīs conclution your barco does not have any blacklevel at all.
But you are the first to admit a CRT can not compete with a digital in the area of MTF and details. Stridvognen and MP still belives the 3 million mhz Marquee to be better these areas.
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.
Here are your pictures: |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tanwn1
Joined: 08 Dec 2014
Posts: 60
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Not forgetting we are not even comparing the extreme edge or corner of the screen whereby CRT will not focus as well compare to JVC. So the actual screen clarity of the overall image is always superior on a JVC. If i view my barco alone it is quite exceptional by itself in terms of clarity, simply stunning for a 9incher one of the best if not the best 9inch. Truth is digital jvc is superior in clarity, but that does not make the barco soft in anyway. I would put it at 10% better for jvc in clarity. Can we move on from here? Let's admit since i own a jvc and barco that there is no way a CRT can compete in MTF and detail with a good digital. And to be fair no digital can compare 0IRE to a CRT, how's that?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thewolfman
Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 1311
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2015 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Deleted.
Last edited by thewolfman on Thu Mar 12, 2015 3:52 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HogPilot
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 2383
TV/Projector: Vizio P702ui-B3, Pioneer Elite Pro-151FD & 111FD
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2015 12:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | Jesus... You guys are arguing about amounts of detail in two completely different shots like you can tell anything from them... One shot is nice and smooth, but with most fine detail rolled off (in the projection, in the capture, or more likely a combination of both), and another image that's sharp, but is full of noise (probably some source image film grain, probably some LCoS noise, eShift noise, camera sensor noise, probably a little in-camera sharpening on top, and to finish it all off, definitely some JPEG compression noise.
The two shots are both bad and/or compromised, but for different reasons.
SC |
No, YOU don't get it Steve:
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
28.68 KB |
| Viewed: |
2495 Time(s) |
|
_________________
| 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
|
|
