CurtPalme.com Home Theater Forum

[mp20748]

The sharpness and ability to resolve can be clearly seen in the following shots after swapping the Blu Ray player.

However, because of the problems (2) with the Green CRT, the image will remain blurred. And even with the MAIN tube being defective in performance, you can still see the detail and depth in the image at far distance to include being able to see things on the wall in the submarine.

So with that, I can tell you that video chain is the best I've ever done, and it still shines with a weak main tube. Let's see another projector do that. So know that I don't use processing or anything to enhance the image.

[greg9518lc]

You want to go there with all that being said? I accept your challenge
and I use no processing as well. You may want to retake these last shots
and post again🤓🤓🤓

[mp20748]

Just thought I'd snap a shot after turning it on for a few minutes today. No warm up, but that shouldn't matter at all

[mp20748]

Too bright... Iphone 6

[cmjohnson]

I don't see how any of you can place any value on screenshots. Odds are that your computer monitor is running at 1920x1080 or not far from it, and these images you're posting aren't even full screen and 1 for 1 pixel mapped to the display. You're showing us data reduced images, reduced, resized, and compressed pictures which in many cases have not even been cropped to delete extraneous out-of-frame data.

What entirely rational person would place any value on "evidence" that is of such a low technical standard?


Here's how to do it:

GET YOURSELF A TRIPOD. I don't care if your camera has image stabilization or not, image stabilization reacts to movement
that has already happened so there WILL be some blurring even in a stabilized image if the stabilizer was active at the time the shot was taken.

After taking the image, using a high enough resolution that you can guarantee that there are more pixels in the picture of the displayed image than there are in the displayed image itself, edit the photo to crop out everything not in the image you are trying to display. Check its size. If it's not at least 1920x1080 pixels, throw it out, because it's WORTHLESS.

Save the image in your camera as RAW data.

Do your editing in raw.

Save the image as a truecolor bitmap.

Post THOSE images that conform to this standard.

THEN there will actually be a valid point of comparison for the viewers to see and judge for themselves.

Trying to use the vast majority of these screenshots to show how your new mod makes the image better is hardly any different
in concept than making a recording of your new 200,000 dollar stereo system and posting the recording of it here....in glorious 64K MP3 recorded on a 49 dollar microphone from Best Buy.

[greg9518lc]

Post on My link direct uploads not compressed. As for MP he should post
Shots over there as Voldemort is waiting😛😛😛😛

[mp20748]

[cmjohnson]

I have a Nikon D800 and a D810. Both are 36 MP cameras. The D810's max resolution is 7360x4912, the D800's is exactly the same. Both have HDR. There is absolutely no doubt that run maxed out, full frame FX format and outputting raw mode, with the proper exposure settings and a stable tripod, either of these cameras can capture every individual 1080p pixel on each of several pixels in the camera sensor. But there's not a monitor on the planet that can map the resulting outputted image to its display 1 for 1.

Yes, we can capture every nuance of the projected image with today's best cameras. But making the trip to our monitors on our computers at home is quite a different story.

[mp20748]

[cmjohnson]

I just want to note that these images are only 1280x960 and are at most only 1/4 megabyte.

They look good but their only real value is to show color rendition, which is also a matter that involves color calibration in every stage from the camera to my monitor.


I can't consider screenshots on a website to be very useful. I wish I could, but I can't. Not when the screenshots in question
are 1/4 megapixels and it takes 4 megapixels to reproduce 1 frame at 1080p. You aren't seriously expecting a picture that is literally 10 percent (or less) of the original to tell complete and true tales about the picture quality improvements made by the latest mods, are you?


I mean, yeah, I believe in your mods, Mike. But for these screenshots to have any real meaning they need to be zoomed in shots showing very specific small improvements vs. the same segment of the same picture shown with stock boards. For example, zoom in on just an eye. Or a nose ornament. Or something small that you can capture pixel by pixel, or better, over that small area of the picture.

[greg9518lc]

[mp20748]

[mp20748]

Forgot I have one of those cameras that's very difficult to figure out and setup. After a few hours today, I think I got something better than I've been using.


I Still have not touched anything on the Marquee, and are using the cheap and old Blu-Ray player. But I have decided to order the IceClaer tomorrow and change out the glycol. I have to find a better image hosting service because my images are being resized.

[mp20748]

Still learning this camera..

A lot to do and a ways to go. But won't do much more until after I change the glycol and dial this Marquee in, can't wait.

[mp20748]

[pj-toso]

Mike, the 2 last screenshots are starting to look good.

[mp20748]

[cmjohnson]

I can help you with the tube requirement.

The issue that I see with your photos is simply that there is NO WAY that a 1280x960 .JPG file can possibly reveal the finer
details of what's going on in your 1920x1080 original image.

That's a 4 megapixel original image and you're trying to show the fine details of the image with a 250K compressed file?

Seriously?

You, and EVERYONE involved in posting pictures of projected images for comparison's sake, need to up your game and
develop higher quality, consistent, repeatable methods for generating and capturing the imagery.


As a matter of fact....I'm part of a small group of people who are talking amongst ourselves with the intention of defining a simple,
low cost system of standards that we hope that all the tinkerers and modifiers can agree to use so they actually can put up some objective information that bears meaningful comparison, measurement, and analysis.

It's as simple as defining standard test patterns (Calman, most likely), standard means of generating the image, (PC with specific video card families at specific resolutions, etc), standards for cameras, setup of cameras, resolution, output format, use of a tripod, etc. All at low cost. We're not going to say everybody has to by a 3300 dollar camera, a 2400 dollar lens, and an 18,000 dollar video test generator system.

The idea is that if all those involved agree to adopt these standards for making their images, they'll actually be useful for qualitative analysis.

We will release a baseline suggested standards document after it's gone around the circle and everybody agrees it meets the objective.

If you want to be part of it, PM me. That goes for anyone.

[mp20748]

I agree CJ, and that is why I don't place much into these shots. And why I've never rolled my sleeves up to master screenshots. It simply is what it is, and should never be used as a reference of to establish anything technical.

I say all this because the same shots I post on a forum, are very different than what I see on my monitor. And very different from what's on the screen itself.

For the most part, I would say they can be used for a general idea only.

[greg9518lc]