|
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: Fri Mar 13, 2015 1:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mp20748 wrote: | | So those lines can appear, but they are not actually in the pattern itself? |
Try to measure them. You laughed at me a page ago along with something about too much pot or booze. 
Last edited by El Duderino on Fri Mar 13, 2015 1:20 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mp20748
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 5689
Location: Maryland
TV/Projector: 9500LC Ultra / Super 02 and 03 VIM
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2015 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| El Duderino wrote: |
| mp20748 wrote: | | Notice they show the line as being non-jagged or distorted. |
Yes, they draw it as a smooth transition, but it's not if one were to zoom in and slice it fine. It's a stepped (because it's digital after all) gradient and you can also measure the discrete, quantized nature of that with a picker as well. |
This is the part I was agreeing with you on. My point was against wide bars or steps. Finer gradient pixel (digital) sized - yes
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
El Duderino
Joined: 23 Jan 2011
Posts: 4653
Location: Portland, OR
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2015 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mp20748 wrote: | | My point was against wide bars or steps. |
OK then. Two 'plateaus' separated by a 'ramp'. No hard 'step'. Still has apparent bands. Can you measure them?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mp20748
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 5689
Location: Maryland
TV/Projector: 9500LC Ultra / Super 02 and 03 VIM
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2015 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
yeah, you got me on that one..
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thewolfman
Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 1311
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2015 1:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
I owe you an apology, Andreas and Diddern, for picking out the wrong close-up of Prometheus before!
You see; I moved the kick stand from right to left, and took some shots while doing it, and when I finished I just browsed through quickly and ignored the once that had discolouration in them, and without giving much thought about them at all, and I ultimately ended up with the worse one I could pick.
I feel stupid now for posting that, seeing how many pages was written about it because of it, but I'm new at photography so how am I suppose to know all that. And I honestly didn't see how bright the others were.
It wasn't until I posted the Das Bot shots yesterday I first noticed how dark they were. So it seems that by moving the camera around a bit one can make the shots look very differently.
However; Das bot shots were taken at seating distance so those shots may have yet another anomalie in them.
But I think you will see now, that my pj is far better at tiny details and/or showing them with a better light than those shown earlier. You and Diddern mat not change your mind about it, but it has for me.
If you like I can email you the originals and you'll see they were all shot at the same time. Right click and you get all the data needed. Or just take my word for it.
Have a look at the better once..
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
205.34 KB |
| Viewed: |
3176 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
190.2 KB |
| Viewed: |
3176 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
222.22 KB |
| Viewed: |
3176 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
144.48 KB |
| Viewed: |
3176 Time(s) |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2015 3:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting how a standard Marquee compares to the JVC. With this specially selected reference scene.
It should leave no doubt that CRT is sh*tty as the MTF is terrible, and it look distorted and artificial.
Last edited by stridsvognen on Fri Mar 13, 2015 3:15 am; edited 3 times in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tanwn1
Joined: 08 Dec 2014
Posts: 60
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2015 3:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
You should zoom your pic bigger to better match the jvc, you should use the shots which i originally posted. My original jvc pic was so much better than what you posted here. Still you need to know that crt is not able to match the MTF and details of a JVC. It is very very soft and lacking.
Last edited by tanwn1 on Fri Mar 13, 2015 3:20 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2015 3:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| tanwn1 wrote: | | You should zoom your pic bigger to better match the jvc, you are also not using the right jvc picture. My original jvc pic was so much better than what you posted. Do not mislead. You need to know that your crt is not able to match the MTF and details of a JVC. It is very very soft and lacking. |
Yeah i agree, every standard CRT projector looks soft boring and washed out, i wonder why anyone would still be running projectors with so bad MTF and low bandwidth.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tanwn1
Joined: 08 Dec 2014
Posts: 60
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2015 3:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Crt is not soft and lacking if you do not zoom in all the way to scrutinize. It's only when someone insist that it is better than a digital jvc and able to provide the same MTF and details that they need to be educated to know the facts.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2015 3:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| tanwn1 wrote: | | Crt is not soft and lacking if you do not zoom in all the way to scrutinize. It's only when someone insist that it is better than a digital jvc and able to provide the same MTF and details that they need to be educated to know the facts. |
Sure CRT is soft and lacking, your displaying a 148Mhz signal on a projector with less than 80Mhz bandwidth, that eats up resolution, together with the bad MTF, if thats not soft and lacking i dont know what to call it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Anyone like to post ramp pictures.. 
Maybe with different players and processors, and see what happens.?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jbmeyer13
Joined: 03 Dec 2010
Posts: 1135
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2015 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thewolfman wrote: | I owe you an apology, Andreas and Diddern, for picking out the wrong close-up of Prometheus before!
You see; I moved the kick stand from right to left, and took some shots while doing it, and when I finished I just browsed through quickly and ignored the once that had discolouration in them, and without giving much thought about them at all, and I ultimately ended up with the worse one I could pick.
I feel stupid now for posting that, seeing how many pages was written about it because of it, but I'm new at photography so how am I suppose to know all that. And I honestly didn't see how bright the others were.
It wasn't until I posted the Das Bot shots yesterday I first noticed how dark they were. So it seems that by moving the camera around a bit one can make the shots look very differently.
However; Das bot shots were taken at seating distance so those shots may have yet another anomalie in them.
But I think you will see now, that my pj is far better at tiny details and/or showing them with a better light than those shown earlier. You and Diddern mat not change your mind about it, but it has for me.
If you like I can email you the originals and you'll see they were all shot at the same time. Right click and you get all the data needed. Or just take my word for it.
Have a look at the better once.. |
Your experience is PRECISELY why there are a host of people on here saying that using screen shots to evaluate a PJ is an utter waste of time. All someone needs to do is play around with exposure, film speed settings, camera location, etc. and they will get wildly different results. At the end of the day none of them come close to accurately displaying what is really happening on screen.
_________________
Projector: Modded 9501LC ULtra- MP VIM, Vold VNB, ETECH LVPS, Silver VIM Cables, HD10F's & a V1 case!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thewolfman
Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 1311
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2015 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jbmeyer13 wrote: | | thewolfman wrote: | I owe you an apology, Andreas and Diddern, for picking out the wrong close-up of Prometheus before!
You see; I moved the kick stand from right to left, and took some shots while doing it, and when I finished I just browsed through quickly and ignored the once that had discolouration in them, and without giving much thought about them at all, and I ultimately ended up with the worse one I could pick.
I feel stupid now for posting that, seeing how many pages was written about it because of it, but I'm new at photography so how am I suppose to know all that. And I honestly didn't see how bright the others were.
It wasn't until I posted the Das Bot shots yesterday I first noticed how dark they were. So it seems that by moving the camera around a bit one can make the shots look very differently.
However; Das bot shots were taken at seating distance so those shots may have yet another anomalie in them.
But I think you will see now, that my pj is far better at tiny details and/or showing them with a better light than those shown earlier. You and Diddern mat not change your mind about it, but it has for me.
If you like I can email you the originals and you'll see they were all shot at the same time. Right click and you get all the data needed. Or just take my word for it.
Have a look at the better once.. |
Your experience is PRECISELY why there are a host of people on here saying that using screen shots to evaluate a PJ is an utter waste of time. All someone needs to do is play around with exposure, film speed settings, camera location, etc. and they will get wildly different results. At the end of the day none of them come close to accurately displaying what is really happening on screen. |
I Agree to a certain extent, but why my close-ups became lighter over the only one that became dark tells a story too, and that is that it's NOT that dark. I think we can agree on that and without having to prove it. And knowing that, one can narrow down the anomalies to a minimum and to get an idea of how it looks. That's all we can do really, but for everything else I'm with you.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Curt Palme
CRT Tech
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 24396
Location: Langley, BC
TV/Projector: All of them!
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2015 1:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Friday night, and you guys can`t take this thread over 2000? VERY disappointing!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tanwn1
Joined: 08 Dec 2014
Posts: 60
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2015 2:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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] |
I think my shots is still so far the most accurate representation between a Barco cinemax cine9 and jvc x700 comparing details and Mtf ignore the gamma and brightness. Stridsvognen shots do not reflect well sorry.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thewolfman
Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 1311
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2015 6:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
We mustn't forget to reach 100, he said.
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
42.9 KB |
| Viewed: |
2942 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
196.54 KB |
| Viewed: |
2945 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
222.22 KB |
| Viewed: |
2945 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
59.93 KB |
| Viewed: |
2945 Time(s) |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2015 9:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| tanwn1 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] |
I think my shots is still so far the most accurate representation between a Barco cinemax cine9 and jvc x700 comparing details and Mtf ignore the gamma and brightness. Stridsvognen shots do not reflect well sorry. |
I never made any shot..
I think your pictures show very well what the CRTs low bandwidth do to the image.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mp20748
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 5689
Location: Maryland
TV/Projector: 9500LC Ultra / Super 02 and 03 VIM
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2015 10:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2015 1:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jbmeyer13 wrote: | | thewolfman wrote: | I owe you an apology, Andreas and Diddern, for picking out the wrong close-up of Prometheus before!
You see; I moved the kick stand from right to left, and took some shots while doing it, and when I finished I just browsed through quickly and ignored the once that had discolouration in them, and without giving much thought about them at all, and I ultimately ended up with the worse one I could pick.
I feel stupid now for posting that, seeing how many pages was written about it because of it, but I'm new at photography so how am I suppose to know all that. And I honestly didn't see how bright the others were.
It wasn't until I posted the Das Bot shots yesterday I first noticed how dark they were. So it seems that by moving the camera around a bit one can make the shots look very differently.
However; Das bot shots were taken at seating distance so those shots may have yet another anomalie in them.
But I think you will see now, that my pj is far better at tiny details and/or showing them with a better light than those shown earlier. You and Diddern mat not change your mind about it, but it has for me.
If you like I can email you the originals and you'll see they were all shot at the same time. Right click and you get all the data needed. Or just take my word for it.
Have a look at the better once.. |
Your experience is PRECISELY why there are a host of people on here saying that using screen shots to evaluate a PJ is an utter waste of time. All someone needs to do is play around with exposure, film speed settings, camera location, etc. and they will get wildly different results. At the end of the day none of them come close to accurately displaying what is really happening on screen. |
It also shows how important it is too look at the pictures, and confirm if they compare to the information on screen before posting them.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CIR Engineering
Joined: 25 Aug 2008
Posts: 4269
Location: Chicago USA & Berlin Germany
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2015 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jbmeyer13 wrote: | | thewolfman wrote: | I owe you an apology, Andreas and Diddern, for picking out the wrong close-up of Prometheus before!
You see; I moved the kick stand from right to left, and took some shots while doing it, and when I finished I just browsed through quickly and ignored the once that had discolouration in them, and without giving much thought about them at all, and I ultimately ended up with the worse one I could pick.
I feel stupid now for posting that, seeing how many pages was written about it because of it, but I'm new at photography so how am I suppose to know all that. And I honestly didn't see how bright the others were.
It wasn't until I posted the Das Bot shots yesterday I first noticed how dark they were. So it seems that by moving the camera around a bit one can make the shots look very differently.
However; Das bot shots were taken at seating distance so those shots may have yet another anomalie in them.
But I think you will see now, that my pj is far better at tiny details and/or showing them with a better light than those shown earlier. You and Diddern mat not change your mind about it, but it has for me.
If you like I can email you the originals and you'll see they were all shot at the same time. Right click and you get all the data needed. Or just take my word for it.
Have a look at the better once.. |
Your experience is PRECISELY why there are a host of people on here saying that using screen shots to evaluate a PJ is an utter waste of time. All someone needs to do is play around with exposure, film speed settings, camera location, etc. and they will get wildly different results. At the end of the day none of them come close to accurately displaying what is really happening on screen. |
You can include me in that host. Unless you are looking at specific test patterns, screen shots provide nothing more than a fun or frustrating activity... depending on who you are. In my opinion screen shots are a waste of time and that's why I hardly ever look at them and never post them.
Flame on 
craigr
_________________
JETI 1501-HiRes 2nm Spectroradiometer
JETI 1211 Spectroradiometer
Photo Research PR-650 Spectroradiometer
Klein K10-A Colorimeter
Murideo Fresco SIX-G HDMI 2.x Multimedia Generator
Murideo Fresco SIX-A HDMI 2.x Analyzer
Light Illusion ColourSpace XPT Color Calibration Software
Light Illusion LightSpace XPT Pro Version 10.x Color Calibration Software
OMARDRIS JVC Software Patch to use K10-A and Jeti with JVC OEM AutoCal Software!
Sencore CR7000 CRT Tube Analyzer / Rejuvenater
Authorized Dealer for Lumagen & just about everything worth buying
www.CIR-Engineering.com - craigr@cir-engineering.com
Phone: 865-405-6892
|
|
| 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
|
|
