CurtPalme.com Home Theater Forum

[Nashou66]

lol

[mp20748]

[overclkr]

MUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!



























Take care ladies!!!!!

[skippyar]

[Nashou66]

The Cliffster !!!!!!!!


Nashou

[skippyar]

[overclkr]

[overclkr]

[skippyar]

Phoebe Cates what a stunner likewise are the projector images.

[CxTurbo]

I was hoping that was where those shots were leading. My all time favorite part in that flick.

[stefuel]

He He, He He...........He said placebo...............or was it placenta?

[Nashou66]

Nashou

[perisoft]

You want to show off resolution? Post 'em at 1920. Good photography and
careful scene selection trumps crap PJ setup. I was lucky to be resolving
1920x1080 in the center, and the corner were total crap. Unretouched
shots - that show you how useless screenshots are for evaluating PJ setup.





...and non full size, for added fake sharpness:



Lies, damn lies, and screenshots. And those are unretouched and without
in-camera sharpening - so they're honest, and still lies!

If you're using anything other than a DSLR, there's a pretty good chance
it's throwing some unsharp masking on there by default, which is going to
make things look *dramatically* better as well.

The moral? Pick scenes with in-focus foreground and blurred background;
it makes the stuff in the foreground look far sharper. Pick scenes with all
the detail in the center and not much in the corners, which aren't focussed
at all. And pick scenes that are zoomed in shots of people; when we see
pores and sweat we think "detail" even if it's not really very detailed.


Edit: Oh, and one other thing - nyquist. Even a perfectly taken 1920x1080
screenshot won't show the full resolution of a perfectly resolved 1920x1080 image,
unless you line your sensor up exactly with the pixel output. Try taking
a screenshot of a digital PJ showing one-on-one-off lines: It'll be either grey
or have horrible moire. You might originally shoot a 5k wide image, but
when you downsample to 1920 wide, you slice the high frequencies off
way below the real pixel size. Even if those frequencies (ie, sharpness/detail
or whatever you want to call it) are there in the original, you flat out won't
see them in the reproduction.

If you've got your projector resolving 1920x1080 perfectly, imagine the kind
of image you'd have to post to show one-on-one-off pixels on the screen.
Huge, right? Well, that's what you need to show off the extra 20% in bandwidth
a super-high-end well-set-up projector achieves over my haphazard Barco.

[perisoft]

OK, so, I couldn't resist doing a quick check. I grabbed a couple of Cliff's shots and checked in photoshop.
Sure enough, unsharp masking - probably done automatically by the camera or whatever software he's using
to downscale to the res he posts at (photoshop recommends 'bicubic sharper' which throws some unsharp
masking on there, for example).

This isn't to disparage his shots, but it gives you an idea how hard it is to get a feel for what's on-screen from
screens. It's not obvious until you blow it up. I checked a few others and compared to mine to make sure it
wasn't a fluke, and it doesn't appear to be.



So, there's a bunch of EE going on there. I don't think it was in the movie originally, because as shown there
it would have been three pixels wide or so in the original; I can't believe they'd release a print like that.
And it shows up in the shots of other movies at the same level and size per output pixel - the
EE is scaled to the end size of the screenshot, not the original, which says to me that it got put in afterword.

I tried putting an equivalent unsharp mask on a couple of my shots, and it makes them pop out like hell.
But if you did the same when you watched the movie it'd be terrible. It's a funny business.

[mp20748]

It's getting time to dial things in...

Already started on the coils/focus last night. Will work on the geometry and finish things up next week. Should have everything finished by next weekend, and will wrap things up and finally put the covers back on the projector.

Blu Ray - Moome - Lumagen - Marquee 9500LC - 8' wide JB screen / Contrast 59


Still FULL 1080P @ 72hz - 100% RAW / un-touched.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[Nashou66]

Peri you are right about the resolution of screen shots, it means nothing. Also pausing a scene adds noise, and lots
of it with most BD players.
I'm not trying to show resolution here because with a blend it means nothing. Just want to show what a good
Color calibration does for shadow details in all shades of colors . The Camera will also play into this as well and the final
viewing monitor of the computer.

That close up of Cliffs shot could the the pause function or his Weaved SMX screen, if its the former then his cam
did a good job of showing it.

And your shots are not to bad for HD 8 lenses. Wait till you get the G70 into your theater!

And you right about what shots you choose.

Now back to proper calibration, Mike look at your shot of Leelou and her shirt on the right shoulder facing us. your shows no detail at all.
your camera or your calibration clips it.

I use night mode and 80 iso for my shots. Try it if you have it.

Athanasios
.

[mp20748]

[stefuel]

Screen shots are only good for apparent resolution/focus???
Calibration is only as good as the monitor you view it on???

How do you show a re-sized picture in a post without the frame around it like this

[Boilermaker]

[mp20748]