|
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 |
redfox001
Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Posts: 2257
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2014 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Francisco wrote: | Guys don't fight. waste of energy. Tjeerd I didn't expect this from you. You'll never be able to compare apples to apples when you are this far away from each other. As said Case used a different SMPTE pattern 1920x800 and it looks the same on my machine as his pictures. By mistake he used this pattern. It's you that decided to see if you could reproduce his result on buying RG6 cables etc. I already warned you about it that it you would never get this result on 1080p60hz with the right pattern and that there would be some kind of mistake somewhere or different test settings. It turned out to be simple, just another pattern. You could have found out yourself as well.
I'm still not as obsessed about 1:1 as you guys are. I'm still convinced about the fact that in real video this high BW is used much. Also I still like narrow spot size from Lug's and very sharp image. Also a very low noise floor. The result of the Eisemann modified boards and the new Moome board come very close to resolve 1:1. At least enough close for my liking as I like different things from Barco split pack as well.
Tjeerd when you are ready and your 9500ultra is running well resolving 1:1 I hope you'll invite me to show it together with the cinemax. we'll have a shootout  |
So you are saying the 1920x800 scaled to 1920x1080 looks that way with better resolution? Ok I did not know that. If only Case would admit the mistake that would make it easier for everyone to start looking for real solutions.
If you say you did not expect that from me what did I do? State my opinion so others would not fall into the same trap? Is that wrong? I did not call him names or try to insult him like he did to me when he stated that I obvious don't know english and that I can't read and more of these attempts to make me look stupid. I showed respect to him I just think he should admit his mistake but you now give new information and by the way you did not warn me or anything. You might have thought about it but you kept silent. I did warn everyone here.
But I don't mind the few euro's. I even like the video card will one day build a pc around it.
Sleep well everyone not worth the trouble you might be dead tomorrow and face all the heavenly light much more beautifull than a barco/marquee.
_________________
701s->runco933->8500ultra->cinemax->9500mp->919 splitpack + cinemax
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2014 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If we all ignore Case and the documentation he has posted, let him rest and get well.
It would be interesting to see some in dept documentation of the 909 video chain performance.
ecrabb made a very nice test pattern to evaluate bandwidth, its good for a lot of parameters like noise, gain bandwidth, signal bandwidth and others.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
redfox001
Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Posts: 2257
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2014 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That is one incredible picture you show there. I still think people are really underestimating the MP modded Marquee. but to the defence of Barco I totally enjoyed some very good movie lately. One was recorded underground in Paris the story ws stupid but thanks to the incredible blacks everything that happened underground was very well visible. It takes CRT to show a real dark movie.
_________________
701s->runco933->8500ultra->cinemax->9500mp->919 splitpack + cinemax
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
redfox001
Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Posts: 2257
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2014 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What I like about the Marquee is the simplicity of the design. The video circuit with few steps has the potential to be much more transparent. The boards are closer together making short lines possible. There are no connections to in between boards in the video circuit. The MP mods make it even much more simple and transparent. That shows in the unbelievable bandwidth. I just believe I will get a much less deformed and noisy picture through a Marquee when everything is done.
_________________
701s->runco933->8500ultra->cinemax->9500mp->919 splitpack + cinemax
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gjaky
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Posts: 2802
Location: Budapest, Hungary
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2014 7:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: |
Ill claim that LUG tubes and sharp image is not super important when evaluating PQ.
|
Nor the bandwidth  While my opinion could be ignored as I don't own a high-end 9" machine, but switching from the PG xtra to the XG LC got me a huge step forward in picture quality. Both machine had about the same spot size, in my case the PG xtra had significantly higher bandwidth, still the XG with its current 30MHz bandwidth throws a lot better picture. You can say all 9" machine are LC, but the room you use also has an impact on contrast.
Also bandwith only affects the sharpness in the horizontal plane while spot size affects in both planes. if I'd only have one choice between an ES (spot size-wise) machine with 100MHz clean bandwith, and an EM machine with low bandwidth, I'd choose the EM machine...
_________________
projectors in the past : NEC 6-9PG xtra, Electrohome Marquee 6-7500, NEC XG 1351 LC ( with super modified Electrohome VNB neckboard !!!)
current: VDC Marquee 9500LC
The MOD: VNB-DB, VIM-DB
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
redfox001
Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Posts: 2257
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2014 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gjaky wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: |
Ill claim that LUG tubes and sharp image is not super important when evaluating PQ.
|
Nor the bandwidth While my opinion could be ignored as I don't own a high-end 9" machine, but switching from the PG xtra to the XG LC got me a huge step forward in picture quality. Both machine had about the same spot size, in my case the PG xtra had significantly higher bandwidth, still the XG with its current 30MHz bandwidth throws a lot better picture. You can say all 9" machine are LC, but the room you use also has an impact on contrast.
Also bandwith only affects the sharpness in the horizontal plane while spot size affects in both planes. if I'd only have one choice between an ES (spot size-wise) machine with 100MHz clean bandwith, and an EM machine with low bandwidth, I'd choose the EM machine... |
If I understand this well you say both machines have same spotsize but the XG has better contrast and worse bandwidth. So your experience is showing that contrast might be the most important feature of a CRT. I think you are right but I did not see the impact of bandwidth yet and the people that did see it where impressed what it did to CRT's with similar contrast and spotsize.
_________________
701s->runco933->8500ultra->cinemax->9500mp->919 splitpack + cinemax
Last edited by redfox001 on Sat Feb 14, 2015 6:09 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2014 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gjaky wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: |
Ill claim that LUG tubes and sharp image is not super important when evaluating PQ.
|
Nor the bandwidth While my opinion could be ignored as I don't own a high-end 9" machine, but switching from the PG xtra to the XG LC got me a huge step forward in picture quality. Both machine had about the same spot size, in my case the PG xtra had significantly higher bandwidth, still the XG with its current 30MHz bandwidth throws a lot better picture. You can say all 9" machine are LC, but the room you use also has an impact on contrast.
Also bandwith only affects the sharpness in the horizontal plane while spot size affects in both planes. if I'd only have one choice between an ES (spot size-wise) machine with 100MHz clean bandwith, and an EM machine with low bandwidth, I'd choose the EM machine... |
Sorry i should have specified that i was thinking about 9" LC machines with HD10E/ HD10F/GT17 lenses, and LUG vs LCP tubes.
And at that start point ill say noise level Bandwidth and DC clamping, have more importance than ultimate focus and spot size.
Have no intentions stating that a 8" AC machine with HD8 lenses will be able to compete with any good 9" LC machines.
I would like to tweak a Marquee 8500AC with HD145 lenses, and 16:9 tube masking, and 300Mhz bandwidth, and see how that looks.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jbmeyer13
Joined: 03 Dec 2010
Posts: 1135
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2014 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | | gjaky wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: |
Ill claim that LUG tubes and sharp image is not super important when evaluating PQ.
|
Nor the bandwidth While my opinion could be ignored as I don't own a high-end 9" machine, but switching from the PG xtra to the XG LC got me a huge step forward in picture quality. Both machine had about the same spot size, in my case the PG xtra had significantly higher bandwidth, still the XG with its current 30MHz bandwidth throws a lot better picture. You can say all 9" machine are LC, but the room you use also has an impact on contrast.
Also bandwith only affects the sharpness in the horizontal plane while spot size affects in both planes. if I'd only have one choice between an ES (spot size-wise) machine with 100MHz clean bandwith, and an EM machine with low bandwidth, I'd choose the EM machine... |
Sorry i should have specified that i was thinking about 9" LC machines with HD10E/ HD10F/GT17 lenses, and LUG vs LCP tubes.
And at that start point ill say noise level Bandwidth and DC clamping, have more importance than ultimate focus and spot size.
Have no intentions stating that a 8" AC machine with HD8 lenses will be able to compete with any good 9" LC machines.
I would like to tweak a Marquee 8500AC with HD145 lenses, and 16:9 tube masking, and 300Mhz bandwidth, and see how that looks. |
I would just add that having a low noise floor tightens the beam spot size so those two characteristics are intertwined.
This thread has gone on for 7 pages and aside from Case's 800p/60hz 1:1 shot there's nothing else of consequence. The 909 simply can not perform on the same level as the Marquee with respect to BW. It's strong point is optics.
_________________
Projector: Modded 9501LC ULtra- MP VIM, Vold VNB, ETECH LVPS, Silver VIM Cables, HD10F's & a V1 case!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stridsvognen
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2014 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jbmeyer13 wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | gjaky wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: |
Ill claim that LUG tubes and sharp image is not super important when evaluating PQ.
|
Nor the bandwidth While my opinion could be ignored as I don't own a high-end 9" machine, but switching from the PG xtra to the XG LC got me a huge step forward in picture quality. Both machine had about the same spot size, in my case the PG xtra had significantly higher bandwidth, still the XG with its current 30MHz bandwidth throws a lot better picture. You can say all 9" machine are LC, but the room you use also has an impact on contrast.
Also bandwith only affects the sharpness in the horizontal plane while spot size affects in both planes. if I'd only have one choice between an ES (spot size-wise) machine with 100MHz clean bandwith, and an EM machine with low bandwidth, I'd choose the EM machine... |
Sorry i should have specified that i was thinking about 9" LC machines with HD10E/ HD10F/GT17 lenses, and LUG vs LCP tubes.
And at that start point ill say noise level Bandwidth and DC clamping, have more importance than ultimate focus and spot size.
Have no intentions stating that a 8" AC machine with HD8 lenses will be able to compete with any good 9" LC machines.
I would like to tweak a Marquee 8500AC with HD145 lenses, and 16:9 tube masking, and 300Mhz bandwidth, and see how that looks. |
I would just add that having a low noise floor tightens the beam spot size so those two characteristics are intertwined.
This thread has gone on for 7 pages and aside from Case's 800p/60hz 1:1 shot there's nothing else of consequence. The 909 simply can not perform on the same level as the Marquee with respect to BW. It's strong point is optics. |
I have a feeling that noise and spot size is a Mostly a Marquee issue, i get the feeling that the 909 and G90 focus coils is compensating for the noise. If you put a Marquee focus coil in a 909 or a G90 i think it will start blooming 3 sec before you turn it on.
The G90 have very very good focus, and LUG tubes, but damn it looks lousy in regards of image details noise and contrast.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jbmeyer13
Joined: 03 Dec 2010
Posts: 1135
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2014 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | | jbmeyer13 wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: | | gjaky wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: |
Ill claim that LUG tubes and sharp image is not super important when evaluating PQ.
|
Nor the bandwidth While my opinion could be ignored as I don't own a high-end 9" machine, but switching from the PG xtra to the XG LC got me a huge step forward in picture quality. Both machine had about the same spot size, in my case the PG xtra had significantly higher bandwidth, still the XG with its current 30MHz bandwidth throws a lot better picture. You can say all 9" machine are LC, but the room you use also has an impact on contrast.
Also bandwith only affects the sharpness in the horizontal plane while spot size affects in both planes. if I'd only have one choice between an ES (spot size-wise) machine with 100MHz clean bandwith, and an EM machine with low bandwidth, I'd choose the EM machine... |
Sorry i should have specified that i was thinking about 9" LC machines with HD10E/ HD10F/GT17 lenses, and LUG vs LCP tubes.
And at that start point ill say noise level Bandwidth and DC clamping, have more importance than ultimate focus and spot size.
Have no intentions stating that a 8" AC machine with HD8 lenses will be able to compete with any good 9" LC machines.
I would like to tweak a Marquee 8500AC with HD145 lenses, and 16:9 tube masking, and 300Mhz bandwidth, and see how that looks. |
I would just add that having a low noise floor tightens the beam spot size so those two characteristics are intertwined.
This thread has gone on for 7 pages and aside from Case's 800p/60hz 1:1 shot there's nothing else of consequence. The 909 simply can not perform on the same level as the Marquee with respect to BW. It's strong point is optics. |
I have a feeling that noise and spot size is a Mostly a Marquee issue, i get the feeling that the 909 and G90 focus coils is compensating for the noise. If you put a Marquee focus coil in a 909 or a G90 i think it will start blooming 3 sec before you turn it on.
The G90 have very very good focus, and LUG tubes, but damn it looks lousy in regards of image details noise and contrast. |
Yeah, the focus coils are superior in both the Sony and Barco, no question about it. As you have seen on your own set up, you can achieve tight focus (with no blooming) using stock yokes with the MP chain. Once you resolve the focus issue, then it really comes down to BW and depth of image. Neither of those are as dependent on foreground 2D sharpness.
_________________
Projector: Modded 9501LC ULtra- MP VIM, Vold VNB, ETECH LVPS, Silver VIM Cables, HD10F's & a V1 case!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Francisco
Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 305
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2014 10:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| redfox001 wrote: | | Francisco wrote: | Guys don't fight. waste of energy. Tjeerd I didn't expect this from you. You'll never be able to compare apples to apples when you are this far away from each other. As said Case used a different SMPTE pattern 1920x800 and it looks the same on my machine as his pictures. By mistake he used this pattern. It's you that decided to see if you could reproduce his result on buying RG6 cables etc. I already warned you about it that it you would never get this result on 1080p60hz with the right pattern and that there would be some kind of mistake somewhere or different test settings. It turned out to be simple, just another pattern. You could have found out yourself as well.
I'm still not as obsessed about 1:1 as you guys are. I'm still convinced about the fact that in real video this high BW is used much. Also I still like narrow spot size from Lug's and very sharp image. Also a very low noise floor. The result of the Eisemann modified boards and the new Moome board come very close to resolve 1:1. At least enough close for my liking as I like different things from Barco split pack as well.
Tjeerd when you are ready and your 9500ultra is running well resolving 1:1 I hope you'll invite me to show it together with the cinemax. we'll have a shootout |
So you are saying the 1920x800 scaled to 1920x1080 looks that way with better resolution? Ok I did not know that. If only Case would admit the mistake that would make it easier for everyone to start looking for real solutions.
If you say you did not expect that from me what did I do? State my opinion so others would not fall into the same trap? Is that wrong? I did not call him names or try to insult him like he did to me when he stated that I obvious don't know english and that I can't read and more of these attempts to make me look stupid. I showed respect to him I just think he should admit his mistake but you now give new information and by the way you did not warn me or anything. You might have thought about it but you kept silent. I did warn everyone here.
But I don't mind the few euro's. I even like the video card will one day build a pc around it.
Sleep well everyone not worth the trouble you might be dead tomorrow and face all the heavenly light much more beautifull than a barco/marquee. |
No worries mate! But you know that. I stated a few times on this forum and on Case result with his RG6 cables that I never got the same result on 1080P60Hz. It's also so difficult to compare as everyone got a different setup and components. I think if I read all the threats about the Marquees it's even more difficult with all different boards and versions modifications from mike etc. etc.
You did video chain modifications on your Barco yourself so I'm very curious how well it will resolve 1:1 with the new moome Let us know!
_________________
Philips vacuum cleaner | Trystar double toaster | Car radio with orange plastic memory arrows | Class A Fridge
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diddern
Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2014 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stridsvognen wrote: | If we all ignore Case and the documentation he has posted, let him rest and get well.
It would be interesting to see some in dept documentation of the 909 video chain performance.
ecrabb made a very nice test pattern to evaluate bandwidth, its good for a lot of parameters like noise, gain bandwidth, signal bandwidth and others. |
Is it posible to Get a link to this picture.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
redfox001
Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Posts: 2257
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2014 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
removed
_________________
701s->runco933->8500ultra->cinemax->9500mp->919 splitpack + cinemax
Last edited by redfox001 on Sun Dec 28, 2014 5:18 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2014 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Diddern wrote: | | Is it posible to Get a link to this picture. |
Here's the most updated version of the pattern we put together:
Ecrabb's SMPTE Pattern
Cheers,
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diddern
Joined: 02 Jun 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2014 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | | Diddern wrote: | | Is it posible to Get a link to this picture. |
Here's the most updated version of the pattern we put together:
Ecrabb's SMPTE Pattern
Cheers,
SC |
Thanks Mr. for the quick response, I will try this out and see how it looks.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
redfox001
Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Posts: 2257
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2015 10:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Although Caseys shots where a bit over the top because of the wrong testpattern I do have to give Casey credit that the Barco looks a hell of a lot sharper when you do the zone astig and focus in all those zones right. From the pictures I see that Casey did it better than I did. Remember I am still a starter coming back to CRT and only recently understood the astig better. I am stunned by the sharpness all over the picture now. I did not see it before and did not know it was possible.
So I made another testpicture and yes it is a little better which shows that the astig has an effect on the 1:1. But to my feeling there is much more sharpness in the picture than the bandwidth picture shows.
I post the testpicture and a screenshot to give a feeling what it looks like.
I must say it was Huggy's work that inspired me to do better with the astig thanks for that. Of cause I do not want to say that another projector might not be much better but this is not bad at all 
_________________
701s->runco933->8500ultra->cinemax->9500mp->919 splitpack + cinemax
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CasetheCorvetteman
Joined: 09 Nov 2008
Posts: 6326
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2015 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So now youre coming round to saying there was nothing stopping me getting that sharpness at 1920x1080 or what is it youre trying to get at here?
_________________
Barco Cine 9, ,Sony VPL570ES 4K SXRD, 135" OZ Theatre Majestic 16:9 screen, Denon X6700in preamp mode, 2x 7ch Tonewinner amps, 2x Tonewinner 15" subs, 2x 10" subs, 7.2.6...
RUNCO DTV991 LC ( NEC XG 852 LC ) 100" 4:3 screen, H/K AVR 7.1...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
redfox001
Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Posts: 2257
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2015 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CasetheCorvetteman wrote: | | So now youre coming round to saying there was nothing stopping me getting that sharpness at 1920x1080 or what is it youre trying to get at here? |
HE just an apology for my own stupid mistake that I did not get the best out of the Max. Huggy's screenshots clearly showed I was doing something wrong and I guess your shots did that too.
_________________
701s->runco933->8500ultra->cinemax->9500mp->919 splitpack + cinemax
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
redfox001
Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Posts: 2257
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2015 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
On this page are Huggy's and my last 909 screenshots. I think they are similar in certain aspects.
https://www.curtpalme.com/forum_archived/viewtopic.php@t=5318.html
I have many more here just picked a few.
_________________
701s->runco933->8500ultra->cinemax->9500mp->919 splitpack + cinemax
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
redfox001
Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Posts: 2257
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2015 6:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gjaky wrote: | | stridsvognen wrote: |
Ill claim that LUG tubes and sharp image is not super important when evaluating PQ.
|
Nor the bandwidth While my opinion could be ignored as I don't own a high-end 9" machine, but switching from the PG xtra to the XG LC got me a huge step forward in picture quality. Both machine had about the same spot size, in my case the PG xtra had significantly higher bandwidth, still the XG with its current 30MHz bandwidth throws a lot better picture. You can say all 9" machine are LC, but the room you use also has an impact on contrast.
Also bandwith only affects the sharpness in the horizontal plane while spot size affects in both planes. if I'd only have one choice between an ES (spot size-wise) machine with 100MHz clean bandwith, and an EM machine with low bandwidth, I'd choose the EM machine... |
He I realise you say something true. Spotsize has a huge impact on sharpness. It clearly makes my desktop characters more readable yet it does only a little on MTF. I clearly see the lines in the 1:1 now but the contrast of the lines has not much changed. To judge sharpness do we have to look at both in the 1:1, the brightness and the separateness of the lines? I think spotsize brings out the details sharper and bandwidth makes them brighter.
_________________
701s->runco933->8500ultra->cinemax->9500mp->919 splitpack + cinemax
|
|
| 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
|
|
