Besides light out-put and of course price, assuming the RS2 would be paired with a VP to correct color (either RSVP2 or Randiance XP), what are the differences in picture quality, black level, contrast, detail, between a JVC RS2 and a Sim2 C3X 1080?

RS-2
http://www.projectorcentral.com/JVC-DLA-RS2.htm

C3X
http://www.projectorcentral.com/SIM2_Multimedia-Grand_Cinema_C3X_1080.htm

The C3X has better ANSI contrast. RS2 has better native contrrast.
RS2 has blacker black. C3X has a much better internal VP.
C3X has a better lens and lens options. RS2 has screwy primaries.
Both are awesome. RS2 costs less.
DLP looks different than LCOS.

C3X has a much better internal VP.


You'd probably get some argument on this. The Gennum is top of the heap.

Bottom line...they are both excellent

How about if we assume the RS2 will be paired with a VP, either the RSVP2 or Radiance XP.

Tryg,

The Gennum is great, but the RS1/RS2 implementation doesn't have a CMS or the flexibility in aspect ratio control etc. that the SIM2 projector has.

rsbeck,

Yes if you pair the RS2 with one of the above VP, the RS2 + VP would be better than the C3X in the VP department IMHO.

Besides light out-put and of course price, assuming the RS2 would be paired with a VP to correct color (either RSVP2 or Randiance XP), what are the differences in picture quality, black level, contrast, detail, between a JVC RS2 and a Sim2 C3X 1080?

You really need to see the PJ's with your own eyes. Some people perceive motion smear with D-ILA particularly with high refersh material. I'm not really sure what causes it but it's been suggested that it's related to blanking between frames. I'm not sure if this is the same thing as sample and hold effect. It may not bother you but it bugs some people hence see it with your own eyes.

D

The C3X has better ANSI contrast. RS2 has better native contrrast.
RS2 has blacker black. C3X has a much better internal VP.
C3X has a better lens and lens options. RS2 has screwy primaries.
Both are awesome. RS2 costs less.
DLP looks different than LCOS.

C3X should be much brighter also.

I'm staying out of this one because I can't imagine that someone is considering these two very different projectors for the same application.

The application is 110" Diagonal perforated Firehawk, projector about 18' from screen, some light reflection expected from less than ideal wall and ceiling colors, would be nice to be able to watch sports with some ambient light, but ambient light can be eliminated with black-out shades.

Does this dictate one projector over the other?

The screen is not very bright. Either go with the brighter projector or get a brighter screen. Unless you can control your light

You know, I changed my mind. The C3X 1080 apparently only outputs about 500 lumens from what I can tell has been reported. I know the 720p C3X was much brighter.

It seems like the C3X is much less popular with the $20,000+ crowd than it predecessor and I suspect that lumens are the isssue. Most seem to go with the HT 5000 now.

If you are prepared to spend that much money, get some demos and choose for yourself.

As a C3X1080 owner and fan, my advice is not to waste your money on one. Even fully dimmed you will get 28fL on that screen and near 45fL undimmed. It obvious attributes are wasted in a less than ideal room. Save yourself $20k

You know, I changed my mind. The C3X 1080 apparently only outputs about 500 lumens from what I can tell has been reported. I know the 720p C3X was much brighter.

It seems like the C3X is much less popular with the $20,000+ crowd than it predecessor and I suspect that lumens are the isssue. Most seem to go with the HT 5000 now.

If you are prepared to spend that much money, get some demos and choose for yourself.

LG, It puts out around 1100 D65 undimmed and around 700 dimmed. The old C3X put out 1200-1400D65 undimmed

Most dont go with the HT5000, there are far more C3X1080 owners on the $20k forum.

LG, It puts out around 1100 D65 undimmed and around 700 dimmed. The old C3X put out 1200-1400D65 undimmed

I did some searches in the 20K forum and that was the measurment that I found.

I did some searches in the 20K forum and that was the measurment that I found.

I think you'll find that they are aged, dimmed, end stopped, and possibly irised down (10%) for that number. 1100 is the undimmed average. Theres been a 950 and a 1250.

I think you'll find that they are aged, dimmed, end stopped, and possibly irised down (10%) for that number. 1100 is the undimmed average.

As I am sure you know, I have been wrong from time to time.

As I am sure you know, I have been wrong from time to time.

As have I, LG.:)

1100 is the norm across the board. Most on the $20k forum dim it as its too bright then increase the power as the lamp ages.

For ambient light you can make a preset off D65, say 8500 and you' get around 1300lumen.

Getting back OT, I think the OP should save himself the money as his app is not really suited to that PJ.

his app is not really suited to that PJ.


Less than ideal wall & ceiling colors? Screen size too small?

Less than ideal wall & ceiling colors? Screen size too small?

TBH, both.

Coldmachine what is better for a110 screen (54 by 96) from 21 ft the 3000e or C3X 1080? Thanks Greg

Getting back OT, I think the OP should save himself the money as his app is not really suited to that PJ.

What if the OP prefers DLP to LCOS? Would you recomend something like a good single chip machine like the Marantz 15S2 or 11S2?

For the OP's application, I might argue that the C3X is far better suited for his application. I calculate that the C3x undimmed would give him 30 ft lamberts and around 20 ft lamberts when dimmed. After bulb aging you can count on 15 ft lamberts in undimmed.

The RS2 on the other hand will start at 14 to 15 ft lamberts when new at best. After bulb ageing (and I hear the bulbs on these dim quickly) he will be down to 7 ft lamberts.

I couldn't find the gain on the perf Firehawk so I assumed a gain of 1.0.

If I ignore price as the author of the thread suggested and it were me I would get the C3X. I prefer DLP to LCOS, and enjoy having a brighter picture especially in a room that is not perfectly light controlled. Having 15 to 16 ft lamberts over the life of the bulb is ideal if you ask me.

My understanding is that a perforated Firehawk has a gain of approximately 1.1

I am relatively new to projectors, so I do not know if I prefer DLP to LCos.

I am trying to get a demo of an RS2 and I want a back-up plan in case I am not satisfied with it.

Things that concern me;

Starting, as dangc mentioned, with around 14 to 15 ft Lamberts with a new bulb.

Some have mentioned motion smear with RS2 -- I can be very sensitive to this.

I understand that the C3X 1080 is more expensive and is brighter.

For the extra $$$, I understand the C3X 1080 can eliminate luminance shortage as an issue (some on the forum do not feel the RS2 will have a luminance shortage, others have expressed concern).

I also understand that if one adds a VP like the RSVP2 or Radiance XP, the RS2's color issues can be resolved (I understand some are happy with the colors, some are not).

After adding a VP to the RS2, the C3X would still cost another 15 to 20k more.

So, I am curious about what, besides more lumens, I could expect to get with a C3X 1080 -- and what I might have to give up.

Is a three chip DLP less susceptible to motion smear?

Are black levels less satisfying with the C3X 1080?

Assuming the Rs2's colors are corrected with an outboard VP, how do you suppose the picture -- in my application -- would compare/contrast with an RS2 versus a C3X 1080?

What are the subtle and/or not so subtle differences?

I wouldn't listen to all the BS here. Just go see them yourself

Any idea where I can see these projectors in the SF Bay Area?

I wouldn't listen to all the BS here. Just go see them yourself

An thats the best advice possible.

Coldmachine what is better for a110 screen (54 by 96) from 21 ft the 3000e or C3X 1080? Thanks Greg

Greg, I know you've been dancing around this one for a while.:)

They're very close to the same lumen output. I imagine you'll need to dim the initially.

You'd need to demo to decide if the 3 chip image superiority is worth the extra money.

I think you'd need the T2 lens for the long throw, which is $1k extra, but is a better lens.

Some have mentioned motion smear with RS2 -- I can be very sensitive to this.

Is a three chip DLP less susceptible to motion smear?

Are black levels less satisfying with the C3X 1080?



As an RS2 owner, I confirm there is some motion blurring and judder on the RS2 and unfortunatly I am sensitive to that. I am ready to give up the blacks (Even if they are marevelous on the JVC) and move out of DILA.
I have been contemplating the purchase of 1 chip or 3chip DLP but am really concerned about dithering. The Last DLP I had 3-4 years ago had dithering and pixel "twinkles" in dark materials, and the tonal gradience at the dark end wasn't as smooth as my current DILA. Oviously more bits in the TI chip was needed to render a smooth greyscale.

I recently saw a lot of pulse width modulation displays like plasma and noticed they still exhibit dithering and dancing pixels(even the latest ones from panasonic and pionners 8G)

I am asking the ones who shares similar experiences with the plasma to
tell if these artifacts have been resolved with the current DLPs and if a 3 Chip DLP such as the Sim 720p or C3X 1080p is better then a single chip one in this regards.

As an RS2 owner, I confirm there is some motion blurring and judder on the RS2 and unfortunatly I am sensitive to that. I am ready to give up the blacks (Even if they are marevelous on the JVC) and move out of DILA....

Have you seen a Sony VPL-VW60? If so, did you see the same on that too? I'm very sensitive to motion blurring too. I didn't notice it on the VW60 at the Sony Store. But, I only spent about 20 min with it, and the environment wasn't very dark. I'd hate to all of a sudden notice it while watching say fast motion from baseball with the room darkened. The only technology that I can't see motion blurring on is a CRT, so far. If motion blur is as bad on the VW60 as on the RS2, I might have to switch to a DLP that I don't see rainbows, and one which doesn't show the dithering, especially those dark scene "twinklies" as you put it. I HATE that!

Alas!

There still is no prefect projector.

Alas!

There still is no prefect projector.

And if there were, we probably couldn't (or wouldn't want to) afford it.

Alas!

There still is no prefect projector.

or perfect one either. :p

Any idea where I can see these projectors in the SF Bay Area?


There is a home theater store in Walnut Creek that is a SIM dealer. Go to SIM's website and I believe you will find them.

As an RS2 owner, I confirm there is some motion blurring and judder on the RS2 and unfortunatly I am sensitive to that. I am ready to give up the blacks (Even if they are marevelous on the JVC) and move out of DILA.

As an RS1 owner, I sure wish I could see the motion blurring that people are talking about because I've looked carefully for it and so far I haven't seen any signs of it. I'm using a VP50Pro though so any blurring that people are seeing might be due to the internal gennum that I'm not using. Judder is also heavily dependent upon the input chain and I've had very good judder results using the 1080p24 mode of the VP50 Pro (although the deinterlacing mode has to be set properly on the VP50 Pro and also the source settings). Any mpeg decoding errors are magnified with 1080p24 though so sometimes there is the occassional glitch where judder can be terrible with this mode.

As far as the OP's original question. This is about an extreme comparison as one can get. Once a person gets used to really good blacks and low APL performance from high native on/off I think it's difficult to go back. I know what my choice would be, although if I put higher importance on a bright picture I would probably be swayed the other direction.

As an RS1 owner, I sure wish I could see the motion blurring that people are talking about because I've looked carefully for it and so far I haven't seen any signs of it. I'm using a VP50Pro though so any blurring that people are seeing might be due to the internal gennum that I'm not using. Judder is also heavily dependent upon the input chain and I've had very good judder results using the 1080p24 mode of the VP50 Pro (although the deinterlacing mode has to be set properly on the VP50 Pro and also the source settings). Any mpeg decoding errors are magnified with 1080p24 though so sometimes there is the occassional glitch where judder can be terrible with this mode.

I've watched 1000+ hours on the JVC with source direct and via an external video processor and I do see subtle smearing compared to the same material on different display tech. Even with 1080p source input any of the supported freqs I notice it.

Some people may be more sensitive to the smear than others just as with RBE. :)

D

or perfect one either. :p

oops

I have been contemplating the purchase of 1 chip or 3chip DLP but am really concerned about dithering. The Last DLP I had 3-4 years ago had dithering and pixel "twinkles" in dark materials, and the tonal gradience at the dark end wasn't as smooth as my current DILA. Oviously more bits in the TI chip was needed to render a smooth greyscale.

I recently saw a lot of pulse width modulation displays like plasma and noticed they still exhibit dithering and dancing pixels(even the latest ones from panasonic and pionners 8G)

I am asking the ones who shares similar experiences with the plasma to
tell if these artifacts have been resolved with the current DLPs and if a 3 Chip DLP such as the Sim 720p or C3X 1080p is better then a single chip one in this regards.

The current 1080p single chip DLPs have made a dramatic improvement in dithering. The twin driver chips for the DMD are thought to be the source of the improvement. I cannot see dithering from any reasonable viewing distance on the new 1080p DLPs, and I see it all the time on plasmas (yuck!).

The 3 chip DLPs are even better than the single chips.

The current 1080p single chip DLPs have made a dramatic improvement in dithering. The twin driver chips for the DMD are thought to be the source of the improvement. I cannot see dithering from any reasonable viewing distance on the new 1080p DLPs, and I see it all the time on plasmas (yuck!).

The 3 chip DLPs are even better than the single chips.

Which PJs are using "The twin driver chips" and where can I find more info on this.

Have you seen a Sony VPL-VW60? If so, did you see the same on that too? I'm very sensitive to motion blurring too. I didn't notice it on the VW60 at the Sony Store. But, I only spent about 20 min with it, and the environment wasn't very dark. I'd hate to all of a sudden notice it while watching say fast motion from baseball with the room darkened. The only technology that I can't see motion blurring on is a CRT, so far. If motion blur is as bad on the VW60 as on the RS2, I might have to switch to a DLP that I don't see rainbows, and one which doesn't show the dithering, especially those dark scene "twinklies" as you put it. I HATE that!

I also did not see it or it did not bother me on the VW50 or VW60. It is a bit bothersome on the RS1 and has kept me from upgrading to the RS2.

Oh I don't like hearing about the motion smear issue. I'm sensitive to that kind of thing - hate it on LCDs. I never noticed it when auditioning the RS1 at all...except last week when I saw the Bond movie on Blu Ray and I noticed some smearing on the actor's faces. I don't know the picture settings used on the projector.

Egads...here I am planning my HT around the RS2 (just received a hushbox I had especially built for it) and now this. This is one of those cases where reading these forums may do more harm (high-lighting image artifacts) than good. It would kill me if I experience motion artifact issues with D-ILA as I am going to D-ILA to get away from motion artifact issues in DLP (very sensitive to rainbows).

Right now I'm using a very old (probably around 6 or 7 years) borrowed boardroom LCD projector and I don't find myself bothered by motion issues. Would the JVC likely perform better than an old LCD projector for motion? Or is this really a LCOS D-ILA thing?

There is a home theater store in Walnut Creek that is a SIM dealer. Go to SIM's website and I believe you will find them.

Any idea of what they have on display? I have trying to view a Sim2 but can't find any on display. :(

I went to the SIM web-site, they don't list a dealer in Walnut Creek. If there is a dealer in the SF Bay Area that has the C3X 1080 on display, I would love to know.

I went to the SIM web-site, they don't list a dealer in Walnut Creek. If there is a dealer in the SF Bay Area that has the C3X 1080 on display, I would love to know.

Try posting on the $20K forum, someone may accommodate you.

Will do. Thanks.

Don't know if you can wait a couple of years but you'll pay thru the nose in depreciation on a c3x right now. May be better off with a JVC for a couple years then get the C3X imho.

Will do. Thanks.

Glad to see you got sorted so quickly. Some seriously good guys over there.

Any idea of what they have on display? I have trying to view a Sim2 but can't find any on display. :(

There is a place on the West San Jose/Saratoga border that is a Sim2 dealer and last time I went there a few months ago they had a 720p 3-chip Sim2. They were redesigning a room and planning to install a 1080p machine, not sure if it would be a Sim2 or Runco. The place is big and has some very nicely done theater rooms. They are also a D-Box dealer, make sure you get a demo of that!

The store is called Century Stereo and is located at:

450 El Paseo de Saratoga
San Jose, CA 95130

Audio High in Mountain view has a HT5000 on display, I believe. Have not been there since they put it up though.

Oh I don't like hearing about the motion smear issue. I'm sensitive to that kind of thing - hate it on LCDs. I never noticed it when auditioning the RS1 at all...except last week when I saw the Bond movie on Blu Ray and I noticed some smearing on the actor's faces. I don't know the picture settings used on the projector.

Egads...here I am planning my HT around the RS2 (just received a hushbox I had especially built for it) and now this. This is one of those cases where reading these forums may do more harm (high-lighting image artifacts) than good. It would kill me if I experience motion artifact issues with D-ILA as I am going to D-ILA to get away from motion artifact issues in DLP (very sensitive to rainbows).

Right now I'm using a very old (probably around 6 or 7 years) borrowed boardroom LCD projector and I don't find myself bothered by motion issues. Would the JVC likely perform better than an old LCD projector for motion? Or is this really a LCOS D-ILA thing?

Dude,

I think you should buy your RS2 now. While you are building stuff, tinker around with it shining on a wall or whatever. If you don't like it, you can sell it used and you won't be out that much. By the time you are ready to install in your HT/Living room, you will be a RS2 pro.

You could spend time playing with the machine instead of worrying based off posts around here.

You are going to drive yourself crazy. :D

I've watched 1000+ hours on the JVC with source direct and via an external video processor and I do see subtle smearing compared to the same material on different display tech. Even with 1080p source input any of the supported freqs I notice it.

Some people may be more sensitive to the smear than others just as with RBE. :)

D

Interesting. When you see "smearing" is it a trail/ghosting or just a temporary loss of detail? By loss of detail I mean to say that if there is a slow pan that stops is there less detail in the pan (compared to other technologies) and then when it stops do you see full detail?

Also when you see smearing is it primarily with film sources or video sources? The reason I ask is that with video sources the deinterlacing algorithm will play a huge role. Doing a comparison with direct 1080p24 should rule out deinterlacing as the cause although denoise and sharpen filters can still play a huge role.

Dude,

I think you should buy your RS2 now. While you are building stuff, tinker around with it shining on a wall or whatever. If you don't like it, you can sell it used and you won't be out that much. By the time you are ready to install in your HT/Living room, you will be a RS2 pro.

You could spend time playing with the machine instead of worrying based off posts around here.

You are going to drive yourself crazy. :D

Definitely something to be said for pulling the trigger.

Part of the plan, if I were to go with the RS2, would be to pair it with the RSVP2 Video Processor, which -- as I'm sure you guys know -- is a DVDO VP50pro that JVC has tweaked so that it includes a Color Management System to correct the colors in the RS! and RS2 projectors. Aside from color correction, can I expect the RSVP2 to help deal with motion smearing?

Well first of all, this is the first I have heard of motion smearing which I consider different than the loss of resolution during movement.

I am not seeing any smearing at all on my RS2 with or without my Radiance.

Interesting. When you see "smearing" is it a trail/ghosting or just a temporary loss of detail? By loss of detail I mean to say that if there is a slow pan that stops is there less detail in the pan (compared to other technologies) and then when it stops do you see full detail?

Also when you see smearing is it primarily with film sources or video sources? The reason I ask is that with video sources the deinterlacing algorithm will play a huge role. Doing a comparison with direct 1080p24 should rule out deinterlacing as the cause although denoise and sharpen filters can still play a huge role.

Mark

It's not as pronouced as trails/ghosting that I associate with LCD panels and I'm not sure what words best describe the phenomenon. It's subtle compared to LCD but it's something I notice. The main material I watch is Blu-ray and HD DVD. I also notice it more when I've spent time with other displays techs that don't exhibit the same phenomenon.

I don't want this to turn into the old RBE type arguments where people who don't see it try convince people who do it's not an issue and vice versa. :)

AVI

Part of the plan, if I were to go with the RS2, would be to pair it with the RSVP2 Video Processor, which -- as I'm sure you guys know -- is a DVDO VP50pro that JVC has tweaked so that it includes a Color Management System to correct the colors in the RS! and RS2 projectors. Aside from color correction, can I expect the RSVP2 to help deal with motion smearing?

I have a Radiance and prior to that the HPD that I used with the JVC. I don't think the smearing is due to poor video processing. There may be other artefacts that are but this is something different. I think it's more related to the sample-and-hold effect that it is inherent to the way the tech works. Some people appear to be more sensitive to the phenomenon and it may not be an issue for you. :)

D

Dude,

I think you should buy your RS2 now. While you are building stuff, tinker around with it shining on a wall or whatever. If you don't like it, you can sell it used and you won't be out that much. By the time you are ready to install in your HT/Living room, you will be a RS2 pro.

You could spend time playing with the machine instead of worrying based off posts around here.

You are going to drive yourself crazy. :D

There is something to be said for that.

But then there is the other view. This whole process of re-doing my room for projection is nutty and taking forever. I think having a machine like the RS2 and only being able to project it in an unfinished room on the wall for God knows how long could drive me just as nuts as not owning one. Meanwhile, by the time I'm finally ready for the projector with the room finished and the screen up, a new model may have come out and I'll have the old version...all to have watched it projected on a cruddy wall.

Then there is the phenomanon many have pointed out that when they were doing their room and "made the mistake" of getting the projector early, the impetus for getting their room done quickly dropped away as they just got into watching movies on the wall or whatever. The projector acts as the carrot on the end of the stick to keep the whole project motivated. And I do like the idea of the room being finished and firing up a new projector for that Big Reward.

I dunno.

That said, I'm dealing with some technical issues that may force me to buy the projector sooner than I would have liked. For instance I need to know about whether I'll really need to adjust the image shift or whether I can just use the zoom (the design of the projector cabinet may depend on that)...also how big an image I can get on my wall when zoomed all the way out...or will I need an anamorphic lens to get the big image I want...

The issues are endless. It's driving me insane either way....(and I swear, picking decor has been if anything more difficult than deciding on a projector and screen).

It's also imp, I think, to project an image on the wall for at least several weeks to decide precisely what size screen you want. I did this with a borrowed business pj, though, and I would go along with the notion of not getting your 'real' pj until you are ready for it, for as Rich says above, something later and greater is always on the horizon.

I have faith that you will still finish your room even though you have an RS2. Heck you seem about as obsessed as any of us can get on your room so I don't think you will fall into that problem.

If you don't like it, you can still sell it without difficulty. You already have a custom enclosure etc. so you have already made the committment.

If you get one you can answer all of the questions that have come up that would force you to purchase anyway. You would also get peace of mind on your projector purchase. If you did it now, you would have time to sell the projector if you didn't like it prior to Cedia where the "next big thing" could possibly be announced.

The rumblings sound like the next JVC would be quite a bit more money as it has a nicer lens and will probably have some other incremental upgrades.

I also have some time before my theater will be finished. Construction being what it is, it could very well take awhile. What are the rumblings and -- hypothetically, of course --when would the new model -- the RS3 -- be available for sale?

Dazz and Cam -- do you feel the Radiance makes a substantial difference with the RS2? If you don't mind, could you describe the differences you see with the Radiance employed? Any chance either of you have had a chance to see the RS2 with the RSVP2 for a comparison with the Radiance?

I also have some time before my theater will be finished. Construction being what it is, it could very well take awhile. What are the rumblings and -- hypothetically, of course --when would the new model -- the RS3 -- be available for sale?

When the RS1 was shown at CEDIA (September), it was not available until Feb/March IIRC. The RS3 should make it out more quickly, though, since it will presumably only be an evolutionary change from the RS2.

Dazz and Cam -- do you feel the Radiance makes a substantial difference with the RS2? If you don't mind, could you describe the differences you see with the Radiance employed? Any chance either of you have had a chance to see the RS2 with the RSVP2 for a comparison with the Radiance?

Well I am a fan of the radiance and it does make a substantial difference in my setup. Here are some examples.

-I use it with an Anamorphic lens and I feel that the Anamorphic scaling is visibly better than the VStretch mode in the RS2.

-The standard scaling/deinterlacing is visibly better than the RS2 scaling. It is a touch better than my Toshiba XA2 if you closely scrutinize it.

-The ability to correct the color with a full CMS makes a substantial difference and is a life or death issue to some people :D

-It does a great job with HDMI switching and has multiple memories for each input that can be easily selected.

-It is easy to setup each of these memories to custimize the VP output according to what you are watching.

-It has a ton of HDMI inputs and other inputs.

-I think its processing of 480i is much better than the RS2.

-It has a bunch of internal test patterns which is nice.

-It can handle a permanant in-place anamorphic lens.

-It can do pretty much anything you want with aspect ratio and image geometry.

-It has a nice NLS (still not fully baked yet)

That is what I can think of off the top of my head.
I haven't heard of anybody that has a production RSVP2 yet. You can go research the differences between the VP50pro and the Radiance over in the VP forum.

Cameron,

I seem to remember some comments in the VP forum that the trade off for all the good stuff is that Lumagen softened the image slightly. Do you find this too?

Mark

It's not as pronouced as trails/ghosting that I associate with LCD panels and I'm not sure what words best describe the phenomenon. It's subtle compared to LCD but it's something I notice. The main material I watch is Blu-ray and HD DVD. I also notice it more when I've spent time with other displays techs that don't exhibit the same phenomenon.

I don't want this to turn into the old RBE type arguments where people who don't see it try convince people who do it's not an issue and vice versa. :)

AVI

Thanks for the info, I'm not trying to dismiss what you and others see but rather trying to get more information on what to look for so that I can see it myself. Spotting artifacts is one of those things where it takes awhile to recognize it but once you see it you can easily see it thereafter. I'd like to learn more about what to look for. I assume a slow pan that stops is where it would show up the most. For what it's worth, I'm also a long time LCOS viewer so I may have been conditioned to not see it, although as I mentioned I do have a DLP RPTV (and flat panel LCD) that I also use. For my HT though it's always been LCOS.

I assume a slow pan that stops is where it would show up the most.

I think it's much more complicated. Slow pans do not look any different on an RS2/HD100 than on a DLP. It's a certain pan velocity (neither to slow, nor too fast) where some DLPs (or CRTs for that matter) might be better than LCoS. However, many of those motion artefacts are already present in the source material so it is really difficult to differentiate where the artefacts come from or even whether they can be blamed on a certain projector.

Anyone see this motion smear while watching sports?

Thanks for the info, I'm not trying to dismiss what you and others see but rather trying to get more information on what to look for so that I can see it myself.

Mark

Understood and it wasn't aimed at you but more of a general comment to try and avoid the usual flurry of posts and pointless agruments that can sometimes ensue. :)

I think someone made the point about the phenomenon being more noticeable on parts of the image that the eye tracks. Facial close-ups are often a place that hightlights the issue for me. When the face stops for a short while - moves just a little - stops the image appears to be in two places at the same time very briefly and I perceive smear. I ran another display alongside my JVC and didn't see the same effect with the same 1080p material/source. Once I noticed the effect I saw it more often across a range of different material/source. :(

D

Dazz and Cam -- do you feel the Radiance makes a substantial difference with the RS2? If you don't mind, could you describe the differences you see with the Radiance employed? Any chance either of you have had a chance to see the RS2 with the RSVP2 for a comparison with the Radiance?

I haven't seen the RSVP2 so can't comment. Cam's post is a pretty good summary but I would also add the ability to process 1080i/60 film material to eliminate 3:2 judder that is noticeable with this signal direct to the JVC. Whilst this feature isn't in its completed state at this point it works very well with my 1080i/60 HD DVD source.

D

Anyone see this motion smear while watching sports?

Yes. Its with sports that I found this to be the most problematic.

Cameron,

I seem to remember some comments in the VP forum that the trade off for all the good stuff is that Lumagen softened the image slightly

The image softening caused by the Radiance, and being addressed by the company, does not show as well on the RS1 and RS2 due to the softer image of LC based machines.

The image softening caused by the Radiance, and being addressed by the company, does not show as well on the RS1 and RS2 due to the softer image of LC based machines.

There is currently a "unplanned feature" :o that in yet to be determined circumstances sets 480 vertical res scaling with 1080 source. The effect is a softening of the image with 1080 input. It also appears that some settings changed from 0 (crop settings) following an update and again this caused softening unless you spotted this and reset. This does not happen in all cirumstances and may explain why some report softness and some don't even using FW that enables bypass scaling. There is temporary fix and a full fix enroute. :)

D

Yes. Its with sports that I found this to be the most problematic.

Yes, but sports (with fast movement) is always problematic, with every kind of equipment and PJ technology.

There is currently a "unplanned feature" :o that in yet to be determined circumstances sets 480 vertical res scaling with 1080 source. The effect is a softening of the image with 1080 input. It also appears that some settings changed from 0 (crop settings) following an update and again this caused softening unless you spotted this and reset. This does not happen in all cirumstances and may explain why some report softness and some don't even using FW that enables bypass scaling. There is temporary fix and a full fix enroute. :)

D

D,
I think were talking about slightly different issues. The softness that myself and others have noticed is always there.

I would have a use for 2 Radiance units my C3X1080s, and have arranged to borrow one again soon with a view to helping resolve this issue, with the help of a number of other users.

D,
I think were talking about slightly different issues. The softness that myself and others have noticed is always there.

I would have a use for 2 Radiance units my C3X1080s, and have arranged to borrow one again soon with a view to helping resolve this issue, with the help of a number of other users.


CM

It may be unrelated but as I said it may have always been an underlying issue from the start.

D

Get a VW200 and call it a day... :D

CM;

Did you also notice motion blur with sports on the HT5000, I have not

Is there motion smear while watching sports with a C3X 1080?

CM;

Did you also notice motion blur with sports on the HT5000, I have not

No. Its an LC issue, it bothers some and not others.

Is there motion smear while watching sports with a C3X 1080?

No. Its an LC issue, it bothers some and not others. It may not bother you, so get a demo before spending the cash. Im sure OB will be able to show you sports on his.

As a dealer for both I do not like to get into debates like this but I do own an RS2 and love the on/off. To my surprise I took a 1080 C3X and through a neutral density filter on it "8x" it has more then enough light output and bottom end with this filter was just as dark & rich with shadow detail and color as the RS2 but with tons of additional ANSI punch. Without the filter the C3X is known for having one of the best DLP images.

That's an interesting option. Any downside to using the filter?

Another question; Would using something like a Firehawk screen have a similar affect to the ND Filter?

That's an interesting option. Any downside to using the filter?

You lose a little bit of ANSI contrast.

Another question; Would using something like a Firehawk screen have a similar affect to the ND Filter?



I think Mark Haflich has suggested this as an alternative to using a ND filter. It would work and not cause any lose of ANSI.

Is there a difference in gray scale performance between the RS2 and C3X 1080?

Is there a difference in gray scale performance between the RS2 and C3X 1080?

The C3X has a full CMS system. I have read it tracks very well top/bottom once calibrated using its own on board adjustments from some of the reputable calibrators on this board. You will need an external video processor with gray scale adjustment to calibrate the RS2 but it will track well also.

So, in theory then, if one employs a video processor such as an RSVP2 or RadianceXP with the RS2, would the two projectors exhibit similar gray scale performance? Also, excluding color management, which we've already discussed, what other enhancements could I expect from pairing an RS2 with an outboard VP like two mentioned here?

Cameron,

I seem to remember some comments in the VP forum that the trade off for all the good stuff is that Lumagen softened the image slightly. Do you find this too?

Haven't seen any softening on HD DVD, Blu Ray, or SD DVD, but
I do have some problems with direct PC connection. I think it is a timing issue more than anything else. I haven't gotten around to trying to figure out why I am having an issue with the PC with the Lumagen yet, but it is a minor thing in my book. (for now).

I have tested my sources direct to the RS2 and then through the VP. I can't do an instant A/B test because all of the cable changes etc.

As a C3X1080 owner and fan, my advice is not to waste your money on one. Even fully dimmed you will get 28fL on that screen and near 45fL undimmed. It obvious attributes are wasted in a less than ideal room. Save yourself $20k

I'm wondering about this;

Someone point out the flaws if I have this wrong.

The RS2's ANSI Contrast is around 200:1, while the C3X's is around 700:1

The RS2 puts out around 500 Lumens, the C3X 1080 around 800.

If the C3X 1080 were paired with a 110" Diagonal Perforated GrayHawk, which has a .9 gain, you'd start with 20fL -- AND -- the gray screen would actually help reject stray reflections from less than ideal paint colors on walls and ceilings, lowering black levels substantially, while helping to maintain the C3X 1080's 700:1 Ansi Contrast.

It would seem like the C3X's superiority could be made more obvious in a less than ideal room.

In addition -- the goal of watching sports with some ambient light might be much easier to achieve with the C3X 1080 than with the RS2.

With a C3X and GrayHawk screen, it might be possible to approximate the RS2's black levels, but with vastly superior ANSI Contrast -- and -- over a lot longer life of the bulb.

I'm wondering about this;

Someone point out the flaws if I have this wrong.

The RS2's ANSI Contrast is around 200:1, while the C3X's is around 700:1

The RS2 puts out around 500 Lumens, the C3X 1080 around 800.

If the C3X 1080 were paired with a 110" Diagonal Perforated GrayHawk, which has a .9 gain, you'd start with 20fL -- AND -- the gray screen would actually help reject stray reflections from less than ideal paint colors on walls and ceilings, lowering black levels substantially, while helping to maintain the C3X 1080's 700:1 Ansi Contrast.

It would seem like the C3X's superiority could be made more obvious in a less than ideal room.

Is the C3X ANSI CR really that high? The ANSI champ was the 1-chip Sharp 20K which some people have measured as high as ~700:1. I've always assumed that 3-chip DLP has lower ANSI because of the more complicated optical system. I'm sure it has higher ANSI CR than the RS2 (which is really around 300:1 rather than 200:1).

With a C3X and GrayHawk screen, it might be possible to approximate the RS2's black levels, but with vastly superior ANSI Contrast -- and -- over a lot longer life of the bulb.


Black levels? how?

Vastly superior ANSI? 99.99% of the population wouldn't even notice the difference. It's only the other .01% of geeks with a light meter that could even make such a discovery.

:confused:

Black levels? how?

Vastly superior ANSI? 99.99% of the population wouldn't even notice the difference. It's only the other .01% of geeks with a light meter that could even make such a discovery.

:confused:

That's not true. I'm not even a proponent of ANSI, but even I can see a difference. So can anyone else. Just go to a Best Buy, look at the Pioneer Kuro plasmas. They have a 3,450+ ANSI CR. Put on Sports Center on ESPN. It'll look amazing. But try Bladerunner on it, A G90 will smoke it. But, for me, the difference in vastly superior on/off is better than ANSI. I just don't buy into this whole ANSI CR compensates for lesser on/off. I call BS. The whole experiments done like on cine4home, "the plasticity" garbage. Bah. I know what I see, and what ANSI gurus spout, I just don't see it as the holy grail like they do. I guess it's a matter of what you want. The ANSI gurus spouting the plasticity mantra are probably only watching Sports Center.

You really need to see the PJ's with your own eyes.

I am going to OB's to see the C3X 1080 on Tuesday. It should be interesting because he has light colored walls, ceiling and carpet and is using a Firehawk screen.

I haven't been able to find anywhere in the SF Bay Area to audition an RS2, much less an RS2 with Radiance XP or RSVP2. An e-mail to JVC has drawn no response as yet.

The screen is not very bright. Either go with the brighter projector or get a brighter screen. Unless you can control your light

And....

Black levels? how?

Vastly superior ANSI? 99.99% of the population wouldn't even notice the difference. It's only the other .01% of geeks with a light meter that could even make such a discovery.

:confused:

Let me guess; you'd rather see me go with a higher gain screen? :-)

That's not true. I'm not even a proponent of ANSI, but even I can see a difference. So can anyone else. Just go to a Best Buy, look at the Pioneer Kuro plasmas. They have a 3,450+ ANSI CR.

I'm not sure what your argument is but the difference between 300:1 and 800:1 is not that clear without a meter. I'm confident you can see the difference between 80:1 (G90) and 3450:1(Kuro).

But really who cares. Is the point of this forum to make everyone into a neurotic AV sociopath that focuses so much on the minutia that the placebo affect rules their life from power cords to technological theory?

Let me guess; you'd rather see me go with a higher gain screen? :-)


No, like I said in post #24. Stop listening to all the bull*hit here and just go see for yourself.

I guess it's a matter of what you want.

I don't know, but I think I want the proverbial inky blacks plus high ANSI Contrast and excellent grayscale performance -- and I don't want a black box theater. I would even like to watch sports sometimes without having to roll down all of the black-out shades.

No, like I said in post #24. Stop listening to all the bull*hit here and just go see for yourself.

Well, I took most of your advice. I still listen to all of the bull*hit, but I only pay attention to the pearls of wisdom. This helps kill the time while I am waiting to audition these projectors.

And, when I say, "kill time," I do not mean to cast judgment and no time is actually harmed in the process.

Tryg -- do you dispute what Alan says here -----

I took a 1080 C3X and through a neutral density filter on it "8x" it has more then enough light output and bottom end with this filter was just as dark & rich with shadow detail and color as the RS2 but with tons of additional ANSI punch.

I'm thinking you can do the same thing with a GrayHawk screen, but with the GrayHawk, you'd get the added benefit of ambient and stray light rejection (absorption?) while also lowering (!) the fL coming from the screen to acceptable levels.

Tryg -- do you dispute what Alan says here -----

do you know what a 8x filter is?

This would be the equivalent to a gray screen that's .2 gain. There is no such thing. The firehawk is 1.27 or something and the greyhawk is .9 gain I think.

You dont even know Alan's setup. do you know what size screen he uses?

If you want to kill time pontificating all the potentials then fine. You are wasting your time in my opinion. I recommend you just go see the projectors for yourself.

do you know what a 8x filter is? This would be the equivalent to a gray screen that's .2 gain. There is no such thing. The firehawk is 1.27 or something and the greyhawk is .9 gain I think.

Yep, my understanding is that a GrayHawk is .95 gain. I'm assuming a perforated GrayHawk is around .9 gain.

do you know what a 8x filter is? This would be the equivalent to a gray screen that's .2 gain.

Okay, point taken. So, I shouldn't have said, "the same thing." I should have said, "along similar lines," or some such. I guess I could have been more clear.

While it might be possible to reduce blacks to lower levels with an 8x ND Filter, I don't believe the ND Filter has the benefit of helping to deal with stray and ambient light.

Is the C3X ANSI CR really that high? The ANSI champ was the 1-chip Sharp 20K which some people have measured as high as ~700:1. I've always assumed that 3-chip DLP has lower ANSI because of the more complicated optical system. I'm sure it has higher ANSI CR than the RS2 (which is really around 300:1 rather than 200:1).

Re: C3X 1080

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=951096&highlight=c3x+1080&page=13

Scroll to post #375



Here are the 100% accurate, independent and blind test verified figures. Hope this clears up any confusion. Lens is T2. T1 performance is basically the same.

CR max=7020@1100 lumen
ANSI= 695
Max Lumen= 1250


From another source...

"the RS2 measured 209:1 ANSI contrast, which is the lowest ANSI reading we have found among the high performance 1080p models we've tested."

http://www.projectorcentral.com/contrast_ratios.htm

I was going to lookup what Greg Rogers came up with for the RS2 ANSI as I would take his measurement over Projector Central any day, but alas, WSR won't let me log in. I know that my subscription hasn't expired so I am not sure what is going on. I'm pretty sure I am not the 1st to have this happen. :D

I was going to lookup what Greg Rogers came up with for the RS2 ANSI as I would take his measurement over Projector Central any day, but alas, WSR won't let me log in. I know that my subscription hasn't expired so I am not sure what is going on. I'm pretty sure I am not the 1st to have this happen. :D

His 'modified ANSI' for the RS2 is 310:1.

Re: C3X 1080

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=951096&highlight=c3x+1080&page=13

Scroll to post #375


Pretty impressive for a 3-chip.



From another source...

"the RS2 measured 209:1 ANSI contrast, which is the lowest ANSI reading we have found among the high performance 1080p models we've tested."

http://www.projectorcentral.com/contrast_ratios.htm

Something is seriously wrong with that measurement. Pretty much everyone has measured right around 300:1 plus or minus about 5% with the RS-1 and I assume the RS-2 is exactly the same in ANSI CR performance.

As I said earlier though these are pretty much the two extremes of projector performance. I would be happy with either one. High ANSI and high On/Off both have their plusses. It's too bad that we can't get both in the same projector.

I'm wondering about this;

Someone point out the flaws if I have this wrong.

The RS2's ANSI Contrast is around 200:1, while the C3X's is around 700:1

The RS2 puts out around 500 Lumens, the C3X 1080 around 800.

If the C3X 1080 were paired with a 110" Diagonal Perforated GrayHawk, which has a .9 gain, you'd start with 20fL -- AND -- the gray screen would actually help reject stray reflections from less than ideal paint colors on walls and ceilings, lowering black levels substantially, while helping to maintain the C3X 1080's 700:1 Ansi Contrast.

It would seem like the C3X's superiority could be made more obvious in a less than ideal room.

A C3X will give 1100 lumen and around 700 at minimum power. That will give you 18-28fl in steps as you wish. Be careful when searching for numbers on the $20k forum, as many users are running in various lamp power settings.

The AVS numbers were "a smidge shy of 700:1 ANSI, and just about 1100 lumens"

Granted, I have yet to audition the RS2, but it seems like what must be satisfying about that projector is the black levels. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but On/Off contrast is not really experienced while watching a film, but black level and ANSI can be (all relative, of course).

So, I am hypothesizing that if one could push the C3X 1080's black levels down through the use of gray screen and/or ND Filter and if the high lumen output of the C3X 1080 combined with a high contrast screen like the Grayhawk can -- at the same time -- help safeguard the C3X's high ANSI contrast, you might get the best of both worlds -- excellent blacks AND high ANSI contrast -- and do this far better than an RS2 --*especially* given a room with stray and/or ambient light.

I will get a chance to test this at least a little bit when I visit OB's theater because he is using a C3X 1080 with a Firehawk screen and he's got white walls, ceiling and carpet in his room, so I can get some sense of what can be achieved with High Lumen/High ANSI/Gray Screen in a less than ideal room.

A C3X will give 1100 lumen and around 700 at minimum power. That will give you 18-28fl in steps as you wish. Be careful when searching for numbers on the $20k forum, as many users are running in various lamp power settings.

Thank you.

Pretty impressive for a 3-chip.

Something is seriously wrong with that measurement. Pretty much everyone has measured right around 300:1 plus or minus about 5% with the RS-1 and I assume the RS-2 is exactly the same in ANSI CR performance.

As I said earlier though these are pretty much the two extremes of projector performance. I would be happy with either one. High ANSI and high On/Off both have their plusses. It's too bad that we can't get both in the same projector.

700 is actually pretty standard for 3 chip DLP. Not sure why you think they would be lower. The HT5000 is higher again.

Regarding the RS1, 3 units ive seen tested were below 200. A magazine review, that was actually used on JVCs own site as advertising, measured it at 150. It seems to have been removed after about a year.:confused: A while back on the forum an AVS staff member confirmed that most they'd installed were under 200.

I totally agree with the sentiment of your last paragraph. We wont have long to wait to get both.:)

Hope this helps.

We wont have long to wait to get both.:)

What do you mean by that? You know about something on the way?

Thank you.

Dont forget that there is far more to the differences than black levels and ANSI CR. If thats all it were, then you should just look at the RS2 and a single chip DLP. The image from 3 chip DLP is different to that of a single chip or an LC based machine. Its very obvious where the money is being spent.

Whether its worth it is a judgment call only you can make.

Whether its worth it is a judgment call only you can make.

I appreciate that and I appreciate all of the info and help -- It'll definitely come in handy as I go out to audition these projectors -- AVS is such a great site!

I appreciate that and I appreciate all of the info and help -- It'll definitely come in handy as I go out to audition these projectors -- AVS is such a great site!

No problem. I sure you'll be happy which ever way you go. You also seem to share some common ground, audio wise, with OB. :)

Good luck.

The ANSI champ was the 1-chip Sharp 20K which some people have measured as high as ~700:1.
I think Greg measured it at ~850:1.
I'm not sure what your argument is but the difference between 300:1 and 800:1 is not that clear without a meter.
You can't see the difference? To me the difference between 300:1 and even 600:1 is night and day, but then again I can see the difference between correct colors and oversaturated ones while other people can't...or just don't care.

I can defintely see the difference in ANSI contrast between a LCOS and a good DLP.

I can also see oversaturated colors too. It is starting to bug me in some material so I had better get off my but and put my Radiance to use. :)

Pretty impressive for a 3-chip.



Something is seriously wrong with that measurement. Pretty much everyone has measured right around 300:1 plus or minus about 5% with the RS-1 and I assume the RS-2 is exactly the same in ANSI CR performance.

As I said earlier though these are pretty much the two extremes of projector performance. I would be happy with either one. High ANSI and high On/Off both have their plusses. It's too bad that we can't get both in the same projector.

It is too bad. I hope that soon we can get both with some good high brightness, great black levels without iris tricks soon. :)

Regarding the RS1, 3 units ive seen tested were below 200. A magazine review, that was actually used on JVCs own site as advertising, measured it at 150. It seems to have been removed after about a year.:confused: A while back on the forum an AVS staff member confirmed that most they'd installed were under 200.


When the RS-1 was first released pretty much everyone in the first batch here at AVS tested their ANSI and ended up right around 300:1. Throw plays a role, for example my RS-1 measured 264:1 at longest throw and 304:1 at shortest throw (probe distance unchanged). I've measured several other RS-1s that were also right around this number. Gregr also measured right around this number and so did William Phelps.

For every projector ANSI measurements differ quite a bit and a lot of this has to do with the luck of the draw and also measurement technique. As Bob S. mentioned the Sharp 20K had a gregr measured MANSI of 850:1 although many AVS members were never able to measure close to this. I think Tom Huffman measured a maximum of 580:1 on his. The point that I'm making here is that ANSI numbers vary a lot and it's important to try and accurately reflect something representing the norm and I think telling people that the RS-1 and RS-2 are 200:1 or less doesn't accurately depict the norm and it comes across as disingenuous. If as many people measured the C3X as have measured the RS-1/RS-2 we would also see a huge deviation in numbers and I wouldn't think it's fair to pick the low numbers and try to pass that off as being representative of the whole.


I think Greg measured it at ~850:1.


Bob, thanks for reminding me what Sharp 20K measured.


700 is actually pretty standard for 3 chip DLP. Not sure why you think they would be lower. The HT5000 is higher again.


My original point was that I've yet to see a 3-chip DLP with the same ANSI as the best 1-chip DLP. I forgot that the Sharp 20K was measured at 850:1 and was thinking that it was closer to 700:1 which would have put the C3X into this same category which is where my post was coming from.

My original point was that I've yet to see a 3-chip DLP with the same ANSI as the best 1-chip DLP. I forgot that the Sharp 20K was measured at 850:1 and was thinking that it was closer to 700:1 which would have put the C3X into this same category which is where my post was coming from.

Which 3 chippers have you tested?

The HT5000, C3X and C3X1080 are right up there. The DPI and PD units Ive looked at are up there too

It is too bad. I hope that soon we can get both with some good high brightness, great black levels without iris tricks soon. :)

At reasonably low cost too :)

What has amazed me most about all of these competing display technologies is that as the market has matured and competition has become increasingly stiffer, one technology hasn't really come out that has a natural performance edge over the others. Usually in a mature market there is a technology fallout and one technology ends up with some atrributes that give it a natural edge over the competition. A person could argue that if cost is included that LCOS and LCD have started to take this edge and I think that there is some truth to this, but I think it's far from settled.

We currently have 3 radically different projection display technologies (transmissive LCD, Reflective LCD and DLP) and none of them have a clear PQ vs cost advantage over the others. They all seem to be converging towards the same place which is something that seems unusual as far as technology wars go. Each technology seems to have it's own strengths and weaknesses and each excels in it's own area.

Once (if) 3-chip DLP can achieve the same on/off as LCOS then it will have a clear image quality edge but the price differential will likely continue to be huge. I think before that happens though there will probably be a jump in illumination technology for 1-chip DLP that will eliminate the color wheel. If that happens 1-chip DLP will have a lot going for it as far as being the technology to beat. I think the big surprise in the technology mix is the huge leapfrog that JVC was able to achieve as far as on/off. For LCOS to compete from a purely PQ and not cost standpoint ANSI CR performance needs to be improved. Most people seem to think that the odds of this happening are pretty small, but nobody really saw the huge on/off improvements coming down the pipe either.

If I were to place my bet I would think that 1-chip DLP without a color wheel has the biggest potential to be a front-runner, but it's only a guess. Maybe we'll see Olson's laser LCOS become dominate.. who knows. One thing is certain though, it should be interesting to see what happens.

Which 3 chippers have you tested?

The HT5000, C3X and C3X1080 are right up there. The DPI and PD units Ive looked at are up there too

I've never tested 3-chip DLPs and never said that I have. Is the point that you're trying to make here that 3-chip DLP has the same or better ANSI as 1-chip? If so please post me to a respected reviewer who has measured over 850:1 on any 3-chip and I'll believe you.

I have no doubts that the HT5000 and C3X have excellent ANSI performance but your posts seem to want to minimize the ANSI performance of LCOS and maximize the performance of 3-chip DLP. It gives the perception of some sort of hidden agenda or bias towards 3-chip DLP and this is supposed to be a thread comparing the RS2 vs C3X rather than a thread designed to hype the C3X.

Im saying that 3 chip DLP machine produce as much ANSI as the best of the I chip machines. There is no fundamental difference.

If you want to single out the Sharp, thats not representative of the best 1 chip machines, then single out the very best 3 chip numbers and you'll find that Barco have a couple of machines that will hit or exceed that number. There is one on the other forum as we speak.

I was merely responding to your assertion that 3 chip DLPs have lower ANSI than 1 chip, thats simply not the case.

The current best single chip ANSI figures are around 700-750, and not all can hit that number, all current 3 chippers will be up there

I only assumed you had tested them as you said that you hadn't seen one that was as good as single chip, and at the time the number you were using was 700.

There is no inherent difference between the two in terms of ANSI.

Theres no bias, just simple fact. Just as the LCOS having higher CR is a simple fact, thats not bias either.

No one is hyping anything, but as was said earlier by Lawguy, its a very unusual pair to compare. A comparison is actually unfair as they belong to different forums and market segments.

I hope that clarifies my earlier post.

In addition -- the goal of watching sports with some ambient light might be much easier to achieve with the C3X 1080 than with the RS2.

I missed this post earlier. It may also be worth asking these questions on the other forum too, as many on there have direct experience and ownership of both types of machine.

For sports and ambient light,and thus non critical viewing, its easy to adjust the C3X1080 to push out 1300 lumen and setting a user memory specifically for that. Its fairly common practice.

Im saying that 3 chip DLP machine produce as much ANSI as the best of the I chip machines.



I was merely responding to your assertion that 3 chip DLPs have lower ANSI than 1 chip, thats simply not the case.


Interesting premise. Can you provide links that back this up? I think the only way that this premise can be validated is if you or someone else can show a measured ANSI from a reputable third party source that bests the 850:1 number measured on the Sharp. 700:1 is an awesome number, but it's not 850:1. I'm not even sure that 700:1 is representative of most current 3-chip DLP projectors but I'll take your word on that.

Much of ANSI performance comes from the complexity of the optical system and the number of lens elements and filters between the display chip and the screen. 3-chip is inherently more complex and requires more elements which translates to more opportunities for light scatter and less ANSI. This assumption has been born out in all of the reviewer numbers that I've seen over the years. It would be surprising if this has changed and it would seem to defy the law of optics.


I only assumed you had tested them as you said that you hadn't seen one that was as good as single chip, and at the time the number you were using was 700.


What I meant is that I hadn't seen reviewer numbers as high as the best 1-chip. Fwiw, I was scheduled to do extensive contrast testing with a HT5000e last year that I was going to add to the AVS Contrast project but I had to cancel these plans due to changes in my vacation plans. Unfortunately I don't have time to do these sorts of measurements now. One of the difficulties with 3-chip projectors is getting a large number of reputable 3rd party measurements. This can create an environment where deliberate disinformation can exist. I'm not saying that this applies to you but after the Ruby and then the RS-1 were released there was a ground swell shift in sales towards LCOS and there were a few shameless and poorly executed attempts to cast the RS-1 in a bad light while pushing much more expensive alternatives. Most of these attempts were pretty obvious and involved newly registered accounts with 1 post.


There is no inherent difference between the two in terms of ANSI.


There "should" be an inherent difference between the two stemming from the fact that there is an inherent difference in the optical design and complexity of the two variations. People on this forum (and I'm not singling out you but a general mix of people on AVS) tend to think that the chip itself is the sole determiner of many important areas of PQ such as MTF and ANSI but the optical system itself also plays a large role.

I'm not saying that there is a vast ANSI difference between 1 and 3 chip projectors but in the past a 1-chipper with excellent optics has always yielded stratospheric ANSI numbers that have never been matched by 3-chip. If this gap has closed to where 3-chip is within 20% of 1-chip (700:1 vs 850:1) then that's great but there should be an inherent difference between the two nonetheless.

Let me jump in as a total non-expert: but from much that I have read from persons who I DO consider to be experts, in most rooms and most viewing situations O/F CR is much more important to PQ than ANSI CR. So I don't understand all the discussion about the latter.

Mark,
most good single chippers and 3 chippers are currently at around 700.

The HT5000 can hit 750, some are over 800. Barco DP1500 and DP2000 can achieve well over 800.

Check the high end forum and you'll see units that have been calibrated by the very best independent calibrators in the industry that achieve those numbers.

The highest ever on a single chip is 850 from one unit. Barco units have been clocked at over 850, theres actually an install thats just been calibrated at 860 being discussed atm.

Im not aware of anyone who would think the chip is the sole determinant of ANSI or, even more preposterously MTF.:confused:

Were getting well into a cul-de-sac now anyway, lets get back OT.

Let me jump in as a total non-expert: but from much that I have read from persons who I DO consider to be experts, in most rooms and most viewing situations O/F CR is much more important to PQ than ANSI CR. So I don't understand all the discussion about the latter.

Bill,
It just not that simple at all. It will depend on the relative differences between the separate CR types. Also the amount of very low APL material is IMHO nowhere near as much as some people like to portray. The actual APL threshold number where it does matter is actually undefined. Much of that advantage is destroyed anyway when a single light source is introduced and the blacks get washed out.

Oh, nearly forgot Bill.........all IMHO, of course;)

Speak soon, take care.

Let me jump in as a total non-expert: but from much that I have read from persons who I DO consider to be experts, in most rooms and most viewing situations O/F CR is much more important to PQ than ANSI CR. So I don't understand all the discussion about the latter.

I think that depends from where you're coming from. The current bottleneck in the projector will decide whats more important to improve. Maybe in RS2 it's the ANSI CR (or the color...) and in DLPs the on/off?

Just went to the commercial cinema yesterday watching Iron man and I was appalled by the poor intrascene contrast. It was really, really bad. Whites were light grey and blacks were a little darker grey making everthing a milky haze. On top of that the picture looked really unfocused. I would estimate it to correspond to a resolution somewhere in between SDTV and 720p, and that is not nice when the screen is 20m wide.

I'm not happy with my own PJ (BenQ w9000), mostly due to lack of contrast and brightness, but the cinema looked like a roadkill in comparison. The only thing that looked better at the theater was its higher on/off CR, which you only would notice in fade to black scenes...

Drex,
Don't forget that a lot of the problem with cinema, but by no means all, is due to the legal safety requirements for minimum light levels. you are also not seeing fresh print.

Seeing film, as was discussed here recently, with a fresh print on a 12ft screen in a domestic blackout situation, with a well maintained PJ is a startling revelation. Color, gamma, lighting...amazing.
.
It lays to rest the "film like" claims one hears all too often, as it can also be razor sharp if that was the intention with way more detail. Its in no way soft unless shot that way.

Alan Gouger pushed me to try this on a private screening.........WOW

Alan, if your reading this, im still in your debt for turning me on to this.

Hope this helps.

CM, I certainly agree it's not all so simple, esp since every room is different and will react to ANSI and O/F CR in different ways. Yes, I do understand that ambient light will harm O/F CR, but I also thought that a less than batcave room (i.e., one not lined with black velvet) would specifically harm ultra high ANSI CR but not O/F CR.

What is clear, is that there is no ultimate way to know which pj works best for you is to try it out in your own room. And when I do finally make a choice on an upgrade, I may in fact try to do this if it's agreeable with the seller, i.e., buy the 2 pj's that are highest on my list, and return one of them.



Bill,
It just not that simple at all. It will depend on the relative differences between the separate CR types. Also the amount of very low APL material is IMHO nowhere near as much as some people like to portray. The actual APL threshold number where it does matter is actually undefined. Much of that advantage is destroyed anyway when a single light source is introduced and the blacks get washed out.

Oh, nearly forgot Bill.........all IMHO, of course;)

Speak soon, take care.

Seeing film, as was discussed here recently, with a fresh print on a 12ft screen in a domestic blackout situation, with a well maintained PJ is a startling revelation. Color, gamma, lighting...amazing.
.
It lays to rest the "film like" claims one hears all too often, as it can also be razor sharp if that was the intention with way more detail. Its in no way soft unless shot that way.

Alan Gouger pushed me to try this on a private screening.........WOW



That's actually one reason I think I'm getting into a projection-based home theater just now. I've kept my eye on consumer projectors for many years, but I was also coming not only from avid film-going, but from working in the film industry for many years (shooting, lighting, editing, assisting etc)
and I guess I was spoiled by seeing how film actually looks when projected professionally. For too many years movies projected from DVD looked too much like video "trying" to pass as film and it was hard for me to not see how crude it looked. So I passed on front projection and went with smaller displays, like my plasma, for home viewing.

It wasn't until the combination of the excellent strides in front projection ,1080p resolution, great upconverting and finally HD film media for home use that made me feel projection would no longer feel so second rate.

Now I'm very excited by the quality I'll be able to achieve in my home (even if it won't match the best film projection in some ways).

CM, I certainly agree it's not all so simple, esp since every room is different and will react to ANSI and O/F CR in different ways. Yes, I do understand that ambient light will harm O/F CR, but I also thought that a less than batcave room (i.e., one not lined with black velvet) would specifically harm ultra high ANSI CR but not O/F CR.

What is clear, is that there is no ultimate way to know which pj works best for you is to try it out in your own room. And when I do finally make a choice on an upgrade, I may in fact try to do this if it's agreeable with the seller, i.e., buy the 2 pj's that are highest on my list, and return one of them.

Bill,
For sake of clarity and completeness, I was referring to the actual PJ performance as well.

Any expert, real or self appointed, who leads anyone to believe that on/off is much more important than ANSI is wrong, just as any expert who leads anyone to believe that ANSI is much more important is also wrong. One may indeed be more important than the the other in certain circumstances, but only so long as that other meets a reasonable performance level. There needs to be a balance. Its no good being sky high with one and in the gutter with the other. I have my own minima for both.

As for your earlier comment........ "So I don't understand all the discussion about the latter.".......It was being discussed purely because people chose to discuss it, I thought that was what forums were for. Also its plainly not, despite the claims of some supposed expert, an open and shut case.

We wouldn't want to stifle academic exploration, would we? God forbid we should ever advocate that in our finer teaching and research establishments;) Fiat Lux, Bill, Fiat Lux

Just yanking your chain on the last bit:D

Speak soon, take care.

That's actually one reason I think I'm getting into a projection-based home theater just now. I've kept my eye on consumer projectors for many years, but I was also coming not only from avid film-going, but from working in the film industry for many years (shooting, lighting, editing, assisting etc)
and I guess I was spoiled by seeing how film actually looks when projected professionally. For too many years movies projected from DVD looked too much like video "trying" to pass as film and it was hard for me to not see how crude it looked. So I passed on front projection and went with smaller displays, like my plasma, for home viewing.

It wasn't until the combination of the excellent strides in front projection ,1080p resolution, great upconverting and finally HD film media for home use that made me feel projection would no longer feel so second rate.

Now I'm very excited by the quality I'll be able to achieve in my home (even if it won't match the best film projection in some ways).

I agree totally, its just a fact. It amazes me when people say that certain PJs are "film like" due to the soft image, and nothing could be further from the truth.

I suspect that the time when domestic PJs can truly compete with film, in terms of the parameters i mentioned above, is very close indeed.:)

Bill,
For sake of clarity and completeness, I was referring to the actual PJ performance as well.

Any expert, real or self appointed, who leads anyone to believe that on/off is much more important than ANSI is wrong, just as any expert who leads anyone to believe that ANSI is much more important is also wrong. One may indeed be more important than the the other in certain circumstances, but only so long as that other meets a reasonable performance level. There needs to be a balance. Its no good being sky high with one and in the gutter with the other. I have my own minima for both.

As for your earlier comment........ "So I don't understand all the discussion about the latter.".......It was being discussed purely because people chose to discuss it, I thought that was what forums were for. Also its plainly not, despite the claims of some supposed expert, an open and shut case.

We wouldn't want to stifle academic exploration, would we? God forbid we should ever advocate that in our finer teaching and research establishments;) Fiat Lux, Bill, Fiat Lux

Just yanking your chain on the last bit:D

Speak soon, take care.

CM, No arguments against any of your comments. One certainly does need a minimum level of performance in all the various PQ parameters, would like to see improvements in all them. (And yes, I'm all for research in all directions at our 'finest' research and teaching establishments!)

And although I have been thoroughly pleased with my RS1, it is the first pj I've had and thus don't have much basis of comparison (though I have seen a number of other good pj's, at the CES, and at the homes of some generous AVSForum friends). I'm looking forward to having more time to see some of the good dlp pj's over the next 6 months to see whether I like the 'dlp look' more or less than that of lcos. I quite open to whatever looks best to me.

I quite open to whatever looks best to me.

Thats the only mandatory specification. Anything else is a philosophy for fools.

Need to dash, dinner and good company await, not that i'm insinuating you not good company.:D

To me the difference between 300:1 and even 600:1 is night and day ...What testing have you done to decide that? You would have to make other things the same (like sharpness not due to the ANSI) in order to do a real test of this. Testing 300:1 on a 3 chip LCOS and 600:1 on a single chip DLP that is very sharp isn't really going to tell you definitely that it was the ANSI CR that made the difference.

I haven't taken the time to do a test I figured would help answer this. Basically, in room that has very dark walls and no other lighting, use a projector with say 600:1 ANSI CR and put something white behind the viewers, like a white screen that you can pull down. Measure to figure out how much white stuff you have to add to the room (like how far to pull the screen down) in order to lower the ANSI CR off the main screen as far as you want to for the test. Of course, you have to know the ANSI CR off the main screen to begin with. And you wouldn't want the viewers to know whether the white has been added at the back of the room (behind them) or not. They should be able to tell you whether it has or not based on how the images look different for each phase. This way the sharpness of the pixels other than the way that is affected by lower ANSI CR and the on/off CR isn't changed. Just the ANSI CR.

--Darin

I'm wondering about this;

Someone point out the flaws if I have this wrong.

The RS2's ANSI Contrast is around 200:1, while the C3X's is around 700:1

The RS2 puts out around 500 Lumens, the C3X 1080 around 800.

If the C3X 1080 were paired with a 110" Diagonal Perforated GrayHawk, which has a .9 gain, you'd start with 20fL -- AND -- the gray screen would actually help reject stray reflections from less than ideal paint colors on walls and ceilings, lowering black levels substantially, while helping to maintain the C3X 1080's 700:1 Ansi Contrast.

It would seem like the C3X's superiority could be made more obvious in a less than ideal room.Just wanted to say I think you are on the right track here as far as your thinking that the advantage of high lumens can be used to help ANSI CR retention (by using a gray screen). High lumens can also be used to help both ANSI CR and on/off CR retention with other lighting. This is whether the screen is gray or not, but if somebody doesn't want the images too bright then a projector with lots of light combined with a darker screen can do that and fight both other lighting and reflections around the room. With directionality it gets a little complicated, but one thing to keep in mind with both the Firehawk and Grayhawk is that those are pretty much peak gains. The average gains can be much lower (like the center having the rated gain and falling off quite a bit to the corners).

--Darin

Thank you.

With directionality it gets a little complicated, but one thing to keep in mind with both the Firehawk and Grayhawk is that those are pretty much peak gains. The average gains can be much lower (like the center having the rated gain and falling off quite a bit to the corners).

--Darin

Can you expound on this a little more?

Can you expound on this a little more?I did some measurements with my 8' wide Firehawk and I was probably at about 1.5x the screen width with the projector a little further than that. I believe I came up with about 1.2 gain in the brightest spot on the screen with somewhere around half that (.6 gain or so) in the corners. It has been a while since I did this so the numbers might be somewhat off, but the main point is to not assume that the whole screen will be the brightness of the rated gain, especially with a screen that is angular-reflective (spot with highest gain is same spot it would be for a mirror in the place of the screen) and with a directional layer with high gain. IIRC, somebody told me that the Firehawk has a directional layer like the 1.8 gain white and the Grayhawk a directional layer like the 1.5 gain white. So, their uniformity (falloff toward the corners) should be like those. They just have gray also, which lowers the overall gain rating.

With the Grayhawk being about .92 rated gain it could look quite a bit dimmer than a 1.0 gain screen all else being equal just because the average gain you are seeing is quite a bit less than .92.

Does that help?

--Darin

Yes, thank you!

Any expert, real or self appointed, who leads anyone to believe that on/off is much more important than ANSI is wrong, just as any expert who leads anyone to believe that ANSI is much more important is also wrong. One may indeed be more important than the the other in certain circumstances, but only so long as that other meets a reasonable performance level. There needs to be a balance. Its no good being sky high with one and in the gutter with the other. I have my own minima for both.I have fairly recently changed my mind on this subject. I now think that ANSI CR is less important, and I'll explain why.

1) For all its other faults, a lack of depth, realism, or good blacks were never weaknesses of CRT technology. Yet, CRTs have notoriously poor ANSI contrast. Typically, not much more than 100:1.

2) The Pioneer Kuro plasmas have INCREDIBLY high ANSI CR. I measured one with around 3500:1. Yet I saw no obvious advantage in terms of image quality that was not otherwise explainable by their also very high on/off CR.

So, here are two high on/off CR technologies, but one has very low ANSI CR and another has very high ANSI CR. Yet it seems to make very little difference to perceived image quality.

I could also add the fact that the latest generation of Panasonic plasmas look significantly improved from last years' to my eyes. An interesting fact: they have about twice the on/off CR compared to last year's models, but the ANSI CR has hardly changed at all.

Intellectually, it seems like high ANSI CR should be really important. I know all of the arguments because I used to make them. However, it just doesn't seem reflected in what my eyes see.

I have fairly recently changed my mind on this subject. I now think that ANSI CR is less important, and I'll explain why.

1) For all its other faults, a lack of depth, realism, or good blacks were never weaknesses of CRT technology. Yet, CRTs have notoriously poor ANSI contrast. Typically, not much more than 100:1.

2) The Pioneer Kuro plasmas have INCREDIBLY high ANSI CR. I measured one with around 3500:1. Yet I saw no obvious advantage in terms of image quality that was not otherwise explainable by their also very high on/off CR.

So, here are two high on/off CR technologies, but one has very low ANSI CR and another has very high ANSI CR. Yet it seems to make very little difference to perceived image quality.

I could also add the fact that the latest generation of Panasonic plasmas look significantly improved from last years' to my eyes. An interesting fact: they have about twice the on/off CR compared to last year's models, but the ANSI CR has hardly changed at all.

Intellectually, it seems like high ANSI CR should be really important. I know all of the arguments because I used to make them. However, it just doesn't seem reflected in what my eyes see.

Tom,

Thanks for your measured reply. I have recently had a number of 1080p Kuros installed and calibrated and personally find their PQ to be superior to, not only CRTs but all but the best digital PJs.

A number of people here have jumped ship from CRT and cite the ANSI difference as a major factor.

I also feel there is far more to the difference between CRT and plasma than a simple subjective assumption that its one parameter. They are radically different in other ways, brightness for example, and they look totally different.

Just to be clear, the quote you used never stated that either was more important, but that a balance was needed, for me at least. I have, as have we all, minima which i feel must be met for met to find an image engaging and impactful. Low ANSI doesnt cut it for me

I respect your opinion and the points you make.I full endorse your right to prefer whatever you wish. I see far too many posts based on defense of a purchase, which I suppose I understand at a certain level, but its still an invalid and flawed standpoint.Yours is not one of those.

If I felt that on/off was the answer I would have that type of machine installed today and would have done so before now.

I agree with Tom. I used to think that ANSI contrast was very important but nowadays I would not trade higher ANSI contrast for higher On/Off Contrast.

I have found that insufficient On/Off CR looks veiled and washed out. There are many movies with dark scenes and some with many dark scenes. Some of these movies include Batman Begins, U-571, The Descent etc.

I own a Kuro Plasma with exceptionally high Ansi CR and with the right type of material it looks truly 3D but anytime a dark scene appears, the background haze is evident, especially if you watch a movie in a dark room.

My own conclusion is that with most real world material, i.e movies shot with either film or digital video have very few scenes with high intra scene CR. In a real life scene, a dark region next to a bright region is rarely exhibits high CR between both dark and light. The dark areas are never that dark, hence a projector with higher Ansi CR is rarely needed.

I have found that there is a class of video material which can have very high intra scene CR. This material is animation and any computer generated digital video. In animation, the creator can make a single scene with very bright and very dark regions. This is also the case with computer generated graphics. If you want to see the Kuro Plasmas pop, try watching the graphical animated screen menus of Mission Impossible 3. This is one of those scenes where high Ansi CR really shows itself well.

So, if I had to chosse, I would pick high Ansi CR for animation and high On/Off CR for everything else. It happens that I like watching "real" movies more hence, On/Off CR is much more important to me. There are many movies with dark scenes and any compromise in On/Off CR really shows these movies poorly.

the advantage of high lumens can be used to help ANSI CR retention (by using a gray screen). High lumens can also be used to help both ANSI CR and on/off CR retention with other lighting.

very well said.
rsbeck: IMHO honestly the RS2 and c3x1080 are not even on the same level. I'm not sure how many rooms have a "native" CR of 20k. Any little light will render the 30k CR of RS2 to 10k. For the 3 chip DLP, there is this totally different dynamic "look" to it, and that is simply more "intense". ANSI/MTR/lens whatever reason, the look is just different. You should take a look 1st. All the numbers don explain the picture well.

very well said.
Any little light will render the 30k CR of RS2 to 10k.

Yes, but that can be said for projectors with high Ansi as well. Ambient light is not good.

Ambient light is not good.

Many rooms I see here will be lucky to yield 100 ANSI. To get the best you need all surfaces to be darkened and non reflective. An equipment room is also a great help as it eliminates all pointy sources such as LEDs. A basic HT rack in the same room will drop your CR by a long way even in a darkened room. There are a number done this way by AVS members

Done properly in that manner, the sheer slam and impact of a 3 chip is like a sledgehammer.

Many rooms I see here will be lucky to yield 100 ANSI. To get the best you need all surfaces to be darkened and non reflective. An equipment room is also a great help as it eliminates all pointy sources such as LEDs. A basic HT rack in the same room will drop your ANSI by a long way even in a darkened room. There are a number done this way by AVS members

Done properly in that manner, the sheer slam and impact of a 3 chip is like a sledgehammer.

LEDs from a HT rack will predominantly affect your on/off CR, not your ANSI CR.

Also, using a brighter projector helps to maintain ANSI CR as well as on/off. Yes, the increased brightness of the screen increases reflections from the walls and ceiling. However, not all light is reflected back at the screen even in a full white room, so the gain in brightness is higher than the loss of black due to reflections.

I was getting carried away there.

I was reading recently that 1 lux ( ie a single candle)can reduce a 10K CR to under 500.

30 lux (dim lit room) can take you down to as low as 50.

Many people quote thier PJs specs but will never be even close to realizing them.

The room is by far the most effective and cheapest upgrade that most people on AVS could make.

the other angle of this is, if u have no choice on the room, then the better option for you will have to be a PJ with 1000 lumens than a PJ with 30k CR (to achieve at least a reasonable CR).

and I also think lights affect On/Off more than ANSI.

The room is going to be optimized for acoustics, with treatments hidden behind stretched fabric, etc. Working with a top-notch acoustic consultant on that. As far as the stray reflections, my understanding is that there can be stray light reflections even in a room painted flat black. If it were simply up to me, I am sure most of you understand this, I might have a black room, but there is some WAF to take into consideration and she is very understanding of my hobby so I am cool with striking some compromise on the room colors. Having said that, it will not be a white room, either. The idea is to strike some balance between colors and materials that are not black or gray, but that can look attractive enough to my wife and -- though not ideal -- help cut down stray reflections. Other than that, for critical viewing, I will have the ability to completely block all light coming from windows, all equipment will be in another room, so there will be no light from gear in room. My hope is that with the use of a gray screen -- either the Firehawk or Grayhawk and "pretty good" color selection for walls, floor, and ceiling, and with sufficient lumens (along with all the other things, sharpness, CR, accurate colors, gray scale, etc) I will end up with a great picture.

Tomorrow, I am going to see OB's C3X 1080 and that should be instructive because his room has white walls, ceiling, and carpet, he has light from gear in his room -- and he is using a gray screen -- the Firehawk. From his comments, he is ecstatic about the picture he is getting from his C3X 1080. As you can imagine, I feel very fortunate to have been invited -- it should be very instructive.

Now, I need to find someplace in the Bay Area to see a JVC RS2.

Oddly enough, I have not been as lucky in that regard.

Im sure you'll have a good time. His audio is not too shabby either, i think thats his main vice tbh.

I am also very much looking forward to hearing his Wilson speakers, his Gotham Subs, and his Lamms...

I agree with Tom. I used to think that ANSI contrast was very important but nowadays I would not trade higher ANSI contrast for higher On/Off Contrast.

I have found that insufficient On/Off CR looks veiled and washed out. There are many movies with dark scenes and some with many dark scenes. Some of these movies include Batman Begins, U-571, The Descent etc.


This is similar to my perspective. Bad (low) on/off is not just apparent but it gives a kind of "ugh" response when you see it. High ANSI helps an image but low ANSI isn't as big of a flaw as low on/off and it doesn't give the same kind of "ugh" response. One is critical to have and the other is more of a "nicety". That's why I view on/off as a critical spec and ANSI CR as an added bonus. Although I think the on/off on the RS-2 is good enough now that it's on/off is less critical and having higher ANSI would be a big plus.


My own conclusion is that with most real world material, i.e movies shot with either film or digital video have very few scenes with high inter scene CR. In a real life scene, a dark region next to a bright region is rarely exhibits high CR between both dark and light. The dark areas are never that dark, hence a projector with higher Ansi CR is rarely needed.

I have found that there is a class of video material which can have very high inter scene CR. This material is animation and any computer generated digital video. In animation, the creator can make a single scene with very bright and very dark regions. This is also the case with computer generated graphics. If you want to see the Kuro Plasmas pop, try watching the graphical animated screen menus of Mission Impossible 3. This is one of those scenes where high Ansi CR really shows itself well.


I think you're absolutely right that the source material plays a big role in seeing differences in ANSI performance. You're also dead on that viewing animation is a great way to see these differences (not just ANSI but also on/off). I saw a demo of the animated movie Ice Age on a Plasma and it was jaw dropping. Some of the scenes were truly mesmerizing. With the right content differences in ANSI can be seen.

Film seems to compress intra-image contrast and it's hard to find scenes that have the same contrasty dynamic range that some animated movies have. Even scenes of star fields that people use to show off contrast differences in projectors often lack full black and full white in the same scene. Movies using digital cameras seem to have even worse dynamic range than film in this regard. But animated movies really allow the director access to the full contrast canvas to work with. In addition to MI3 that you mentioned, check out the intro to the Hulk and any of the short intro's to Marvel based movies like the Spiderman series. Talk about pop.

Film seems to compress intra-image contrast and it's hard to find scenes that have the same contrasty dynamic range that some animated movies have. Even scenes of star fields that people use to show off contrast differences in projectors often lack full black and full white in the same scene. Movies using digital cameras seem to have even worse dynamic range than film in this regard. But animated movies really allow the director access to the full contrast canvas to work with. In addition to MI3 that you mentioned, check out the intro to the Hulk and any of the short intro's to Marvel based movies like the Spiderman series. Talk about pop.

I think film or digital video faithfully captures the real world. It is just that there aren't that many real world scenes with a huge amount of intra scene contrast. A scene of a person walking out of a dark tunnel may be one such scene.

Animated source material can have extremely large intra scene CR because the director does not have to create anything which looks real. The computer generated graphics of MI III is not real.

I suppose one scene with high intra scene CR is a scene inside a Best Buy walking down an aisle displaying a bunch of Plasma TVs showing an animated feature ;)

There just isn't that much pop in the real world.

I think you're absolutely right that the source material plays a big role in seeing differences in ANSI performance. You're also dead on that viewing animation is a great way to see these differences (not just ANSI but also on/off). I saw a demo of the animated movie Ice Age on a Plasma and it was jaw dropping. Some of the scenes were truly mesmerizing. With the right content differences in ANSI can be seen.

Film seems to compress intra-image contrast and it's hard to find scenes that have the same contrasty dynamic range that some animated movies have. That makes some sense to me given what some of us were shown on the high dynamic range display at Brightside. They used tone mapping with 3 different shots composited together in order to get close to the full range of real life. Basically, one shot for the highlights, one for the mids, and one for the lowlights. It was really incredible to see some of this stuff shown on their display. It really did look more like real life. Cameras tend to have much less range with a single shot. While mastering a person can still encode the blacks as video 16, but getting the detail in the highs and lows at the same time with very large CR in the images as shown really helps.

--Darin

I was getting carried away there.

I was reading recently that 1 lux ( ie a single candle)can reduce a 10K CR to under 500. If it is the article I am thinking of then please be careful about believing the stuff in there. The writer has a lack of understanding of a lot of stuff. He originally used the Contrast Sensitivity Function to say we can't see more than 100:1 CR, when the CSF measures how little CR we can see (like 1.01:1 for a score of 100), not how much CR we can see. When I pointed out the mistake he added something about some people disagreeing. And he uses that the human eye can take a half hour or more to adjust to the lowest levels in order to argue that CRs above like 2k:1 don't really matter. I wonder if this person has ever done any real and proper testing. It is easy to show in just a few minutes that we can see across a range of over a million:1 in just a couple of minutes (and probably less) with the half hour thing being for even more incredible CRs. He throws a lot of stuff out that he doesn't quite grasp IMO.

For instance, on the single candle thing, how is that 1 lux? He doesn't say anything about how far the candle is from the screen or other relevant information (like where it is placed). The relevant part is how bright the light is when it hits the screen. A lux is one lumen per square meter, so what matters here is how many lumens from that light get to the screen per square meter of screen.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, with my mostly black velvet room with the floor fairly light at part of the back of the room (so I can see) and 2 40 watt lamps pointed down in light fixtures that are black on the sides, so that the lamps don't shine any light directly on the screen (it stops a few feet in front of the screen) I figure I can get over 1k:1 on/off off the screen even with those 2 lights on. I don't know exactly since my measurement equipment isn't very accurate down there and it indicated about 2k:1, but there is a big margin of error and so I figured I would be conservative with the 1k:1.

As far as the equipment rack and how much it washes out the images, it depends on multiple things. For instance, along with my mostly black velvet walls, floor and ceiling I have the equipment rack sideways at the back of the room. I could have something reasonably bright on there pointed toward the opposite side wall and still not be able to see the screen with the projector off, as long as that light isn't hitting other lighter colored objects and reflecting to the screen. By comparison, with 16x worth of ND filters on my RS1 and the RS1 on hide I don't have any trouble making out the screen and seeing shadow puppets. And equipment rack pointed straight at the screen could definitely kill the CR like you said. Depends somewhat on how bright the equipment on it is. I put ND filter material over some lights in my equipment rack mostly because I don't want them lighting up the back of the room or being visible out of my peripheral vision, but if the rack was pointed toward the screen this could matter much more. Especially with some equipment that has really bright blue lights (like my DIRECTV DVR).

--Darin

That makes some sense to me given what some of us were shown on the high dynamic range display at Brightside. They used tone mapping with 3 different shots composited together in order to get close to the full range of real life. Basically, one shot for the highlights, one for the mids, and one for the lowlights. It was really incredible to see some of this stuff shown on their display. It really did look more like real life. Cameras tend to have much less range with a single shot. While mastering a person can still encode the blacks as video 16, but getting the detail in the highs and lows at the same time with very large CR in the images as shown really helps.

--Darin

It is not the cameras which have limited dynamic range, it is our eyes. Some CCD sensors have 16 bit ADCs with true 14 bit dynamic range. Our eyes have a lot less than this. The iris in our eyes act like an automatic gain control to give you wider dynamic range but not simultaneously.

It is common thing to process 16 bit digital images with a non-linear reverse stretch to bring the dynamic range down for our viewing.

Film can even have higher dynamic range depending on how it is processed and what film is used. An old B&W film called Technical Pan can have extremely wide dynamic range if it was process with Technidol.

Of course, the source material has the highest dynamic range for example a shot of a star field in the night sky.

It is not the cameras which have limited dynamic range, it is our eyes. Some CCD sensors have 16 bit ADCs with true 14 bit dynamic range. Our eyes have a lot less than this.How did you determine that? Have you seen a high dynamic range display like the Brightside with tone mapped material? I asked the VP at Brightside about the dynamic range limits of our eyes and he said the PHDs they worked with estimated that the human eye could do close to 100k:1 in a single scene, with more like a billion to one overall.
The iris in our eyes act like an automatic gain control to give you wider dynamic range but not simultaneously.Yes, we are in agreement that what we can see at one time is not the same as what we can see with some adjustment. The question is how small the smaller range is. And the fact that the user gets to decide where in the image they want to look needs to be taken into account. We're not tied down like Malcolm McDowell in A Clockwork Orange. :)

If the film had had all the dynamic range a person could see then Brightside wouldn't have needed to do the tone mapping of 3 images. Digitals may be getting there and it would be interesting to see if single shots would look as good on the Brightside as if they tone mapped 2 or 3 images at different levels. I'm guessing that tone mapping with something like the Red camera (the 4k one) would still provide visible improvement on the right display. One that could do the huge range like those Brightside displays with both huge ANSI CR and huge on/off CR.

--Darin

How did you determine that? Have you seen a high dynamic range display like the Brightside with tone mapped material? I asked the VP at Brightside about the dynamic range limits of our eyes and he said the PHDs they worked with estimated that the human eye could do close to 100k:1 in a single scene, with more like a billion to one overall.
Yes, we are in agreement that the what you can see at one time is not the same as what we can see with some adjustment. The question is how small the smaller range is.

--Darin

I am familiar with the cameras because I use them. I also apply dynamic range compression to my images to reduce the dynamic range. Please see some of the specs of the Kodak CCDs.

Kai-04022 has 72dB of dynamic range or ~12 bits
http://www.kodak.com/ezpres/business/ccd/global/plugins/acrobat/en/datasheet/interline/KAI-04022LongSpec.pdf

Kai-4301 has 87dB of dynamic range or ~14.5 bits
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/business/ISS/Products/Fullframe/KAF-4301/specs.jhtml?pq-path=11937/11938/12138/12235/12147

Here is a more complete list of CCDs made by them. You can browse thru them. The CCDs with the largest well capacity also has the highest dynamic range. The dynamic range of these imagers are much higher than our eyes.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/business/ISS/Products/index.jhtml?pq-path=11937/11938

p.s. I am also a Ph.D, not that you should listen to one :)

I am not familiar with Brightside. One reason you might want to display 3 versions of an image is because the display has limited dynamic range. You can take the 14 bit of range of a CCD linear data and do either of the following.

1. Compress the dynamic range down to the level which can be displayed by the monitor.
2. In the 14 bit example, if you have a 12 bit monitor, you can display the original 14 bit linear image with four such monitors to show the entire dynamic range. That is 2^14/2^12=4.

The dynamic range of these imagers are much higher than our eyes.I'm still wondering how you came to that conclusion. I see one of them says 12 bit. I can show that within a single image I can see differences in steps that are outside a couple thousand:1 in the images. Haven't figured out where the limits are where I couldn't see further though. I could use ND filters to check for bigger ranges, but haven't done this in a while. As I mentioned, we can look where-ever we want in the images, so the cameras have to be able to do what we can see by looking around, but in that one image, in order to exceed what our eyes can do. It is also the CR in the images that I see as important here and far as what the cameras and displays need to be able to do. Basically, if 1000:1 got reported to our brain as 80:1, but an improvement in the images to 2000:1 got reported as 120:1 and we could tell there was an improvement, then our eyes wouldn't be limited to only seeing improvements beyond the limited range that got reported to our brains since we would have perceived that improvement beyond 1000:1.

Brightside got sold to Dolby, but before that they had a display with somewhat less than 2000 LEDs behind an LCD panel. Not sure how high the on/off CR was, but probably over a million:1. Being a flat panel with enough zones behind, the ANSI CR could also be very high.

--Darin

I'm still wondering how you came to that conclusion. I see one of them says 12 bit. I can show that within a single image I can see differences in steps that are outside a couple thousand:1 in the images. Haven't figured out where the limits are where I couldn't see further though. I could use ND filters to check for bigger ranges, but haven't done this in a while. As I mentioned, we can look where-ever we want in the images, so the cameras have to be able to do what we can see by looking around, but in that one image, in order to exceed what our eyes can do.

Brightside got sold to Dolby, but before that they had a display with somewhat less than 2000 LEDs behind an LCD panel. Not sure how high the on/off CR was, but probably over a million:1. Being a flat panel with enough zones behind, the ANSI CR could also be very high.

--Darin

The PDFs of the CCDs list dynamic range in dB. You can convert this to bit by dividing by 6 approximately. So 87dB is ~ 14.5 bits.

When you look at different areas of an image you must also "filter out" the other areas by blocking out light from other areas. Otherwise the iris will still get overwhelmed. Furthermore, this is not simultaneous dynamic range. You have to wait for the iris to adjust. The dynamic iris of the Sony projectors are like that of our eyes. You do not get true simultaneous dynamic range.

When I say the CCDs have a much wider dynamic range than our eyes, I am only referring to simultaneous dynamic range.

When I say the CCDs have a much wider dynamic range than our eyes, I am only referring to simultaneous dynamic range.Thanks. So, that still leaves open the possibility that both they and the displays need to get better before a person couldn't see improvement from those improvements (since we choose where to look).

BTW: SIM2 is licensing the Brightside technology through Dolby for their own flat panel with huge on/off and ANSI CR. Hopefully it won't be too long before people can see what it is capable of with different material.

--Darin

One more thing about the limited range of our eyes. Pioneer did a demonstration at CES of some future technology that could do huge CR at once. I didn't go, but a friend did. Using a current Pioneer plasma (which is capable of quite a bit of CR at once) they had a brighter object in the center of the screen surrounded by black. Or at least as black as the display could do (unless they rigged it, but somebody reported that the level seemed about like they saw on their Kuro). The outline of the display was obvious from what I understand. With the future technology the same kind of thing looked like an object in space, with the 16:9 outline of the display part not even visible, according to a friend who saw it. A person can simulate a similar kind of thing with projectors in dark rooms. Put something up with a somewhat small bright object surrounded by video black. Multiple projectors should be capable of thousands to one in such a scene. Now cover part of the video black part with black velvet, go back to your seat and see how visible the difference between video black and the black velvet is. People can look at the difference between the video black and the screen frame too, but the black velvet inside the frame seems like a good test.

--Darin

Thanks. So, that still leaves open the possibility that both they and the displays need to get better before a person couldn't see improvement from those improvements (since we choose where to look).

BTW: SIM2 is licensing the Brightside technology through Dolby for their own flat panel with huge on/off and ANSI CR. Hopefully it won't be too long before people can see what it is capable of with different material.

--Darin

We do choose where to look but it can take a while for our iris to adapt. Take for example a fade to black. It takes a bit of time (1-3 secs) for the iris to open up to notice that the black is not that black (assuming a typical digital PJ). This depends on the brightness of the prior scenes. If you had shone a bright flashlight in your eyes prior to the fade to black, you would think the black is very black. But wait a few minutes and as your eyes adapt to the darkness, it does not look so black after all. I do agree that displays still need to get better.

We do choose where to look but it can take a while for our iris to adapt. Take for example a fade to black. It takes a bit of time (1-3 secs) for the iris to open up to notice that the black is not that black (assuming a typical digital PJ). This depends on the brightness of the prior scenes.It can take a while and it does depend on the brightness of the prior scenes, but I don't think it necessarily takes a while for our eyes to adapt to much more than they can do in an instant. With most fade to blacks and most digital projectors my eyes don't see black for even a second though. A jump to black from pretty bright scene yes, but not most fade to blacks. Even with my RS1 at maybe 8k:1 to 10k:1 on/off CR. Even with some jumps to black in Lost from medium lit indoor scenes I wasn't seeing black held for any noticeable time to my eyes when I tested the other day. I do have a High Power screen, so don't have the falloff to the corners many people with angular-reflective screens have though.

As an example I put into my article about CR, with a CRT setup to around 700k:1 on/off CR and the fade to black in the chapter called The Abyss in Finding Nemo where there is a fade to video black that lasts for quite a while, for a friend and I the blackout only held for a few seconds (maybe 3-4 from memory) before we could see the outline of the screen. I'm pretty sure no digital I've seen comes close to that for that scene, including the RS2.

--Darin

I think this is depends on the age of your eyes :) As I get older I seem to have lost a bit of that speed.

Update: Just spoke to Magnolia Hifi in Santa Rosa -- they were just putting the finishing touches on a HD100 they were installing in their demo room with a 130" wide CineCurve screen. So, I will make my way up there at some point in the next few days to take a look.

BTW: SIM2 is licensing the Brightside technology through Dolby for their own flat panel with huge on/off and ANSI CR. Hopefully it won't be too long before people can see what it is capable of with different material.

--Darin

I saw this demo at the Sim2 exhibition of the Dolby lcdtv at the CES this past Jan (they call it HDR = high dynamic range). It was shown next to a std lcdtv (Westinghouse, I believe), and the difference was indeed astounding, the contrast of the Sim-Dolby being so much greater.

That makes some sense to me given what some of us were shown on the high dynamic range display at Brightside. They used tone mapping with 3 different shots composited together in order to get close to the full range of real life. Basically, one shot for the highlights, one for the mids, and one for the lowlights. It was really incredible to see some of this stuff shown on their display. It really did look more like real life.

--Darin

So left out of the equation at the moment seems to be: What kind of ANSI is one getting with a Brightside display as well? Did they tell you any figures for ANSI contrast?

I've mentioned this before but the Brightside displays certainly intrigue me in terms of the increased realism of the contrast/brightness. The main downside I see for such a display, at least for myself, is the consequences for viewing movies on such a display. It seems to me a display of such amazing contrast, and contrast changes, would be all the more fatiguing to watch in lights out conditions. And it's just those type of conditions under which I like watching movies - why I enjoy movies at the theater and it's one of the attractions for me of going the projection route for my HT. Watching with the lights out encourages a better sense of focus and immersion with the picture.

I suppose with a Brightside-type display you can always add bias lighting. However, I'm not the biggest fan of bias lighting (because for me it impacts the picture-floating-in-the-dark and immersion effect), which is one reason like almost everyone with front projection I won't be using bias lighting.

Just ruminating on what the ever rising contrast specs may imply for future viewing.

Yeah I guess I am not the only one who hates bias lighting.

Well I guess I did kinda like that changing color bias light gimmick that some of the sets had. I never saw those installed in a home environment so maybe it would have been annoying.

So left out of the equation at the moment seems to be: What kind of ANSI is one getting with a Brightside display as well? Did they tell you any figures for ANSI contrast?I don't have a number. The 9-volt battery was dead in the meter we were going to use and didn't have any other 9-volt batteries right there, but we probably couldn't have measured such a low value anyway. I think it is probably very large multi-thousands:1 given the technology, but don't have a value. With the number of LEDs they had behind the LCD panel there would be over 100 per rectangle in the ANSI CR test. So, the ones in the middle of the video black rectangles could be off, combined with the LCD pixels being off in those rectangles. I don't see any reason the middle of those rectangles wouldn't be very dark. They sure looked dark, but just not sure how high they would measure.

A couple of us told them that we didn't want the bright scenes to be like daylight outside because it is headache inducing to go from bright like that to very dark and back and forth like movies can do. Most of us don't go between bright outside and dark that quickly and then back and forth. I want the ability to setup to the huge CR, but may want 6 ft-lamberts or less for white with huge on/off and ANSI CR. I'll just have to experiment more when we get there to see how bright I want the whites. Pretty sure I don't want 30 ft-lamberts and then totally black blackouts with no other light in the room though. I projector where I could choose between those (lots of light when I turn other lights on in the room or am playing certain videogames, but not necessarily huge on/off CR, and then huge on/off CR with a much lower white level) would be nice.

--Darin

I think film or digital video faithfully captures the real world. It is just that there aren't that many real world scenes with a huge amount of intra scene contrast. A scene of a person walking out of a dark tunnel may be one such scene.


I think film is a reasonable approximation for the middle region of contrast but it comes up short at the extremes (mixed scenes with bright sunlight for example and also predominantly very dark scenes with some very bright content).


Animated source material can have extremely large intra scene CR because the director does not have to create anything which looks real. The computer generated graphics of MI III is not real.


True.


There just isn't that much pop in the real world.

I'm not so sure about this though. I think there are times where real world intra-scene contrast has more pop than we see with film. I think your earlier analogy of looking out a tunnel into a bright sunlit scene is a good example where this applies.

I am familiar with the cameras because I use them. I also apply dynamic range compression to my images to reduce the dynamic range. Please see some of the specs of the Kodak CCDs.

Kai-04022 has 72dB of dynamic range or ~12 bits


This is something that I've always been curious about. I used to work for a company that manufacturered CCD's and DRO's for the aerospace industry and I'm also an amateur astrophotographer that has used both film and CCD's. Solid state sensors have all kinds of benefits over film such as much better quantum efficiency and a lack of reciprocity failure. The fact remains though that on average when I see films that were shot with digital HD cameras there always seems to be a noticeable lack of contrast compared to film, particularly in really dark scenes. I think the Planet Earth series is a good example.

I think some of it comes from the fact that there is much more going on that limits the effectiveness of the full dynamic range of the sensor. As an example the need to read out the CCD at a constant 24, 30 or most recently 60hz means that the well capacities might be not be close to being full. In fact I don't think that the cameraman would want to bias the CCD such that the well capacities are close to full because a saturated well can lead to blooming and really ugly artifacts. There are also other limitations to consider such as readout noise, the A/D dynamic range, etc.

In other words the CCD contrast specs that you've cited set the maximum upper limit on contrast but that the final real world contrast can be much less than that and it involves a lot of factors. I'll admit though that my perceptions of HD video are based more on casual observation as a movie buff than anything to do with a knowledge of the current state of the art in HD camera technology. It would be interesting to hear from those who work in the industry.

Mark,

Digital video only looks noisy in low light conditions where there are insufficient photons to fill the electron well thus resulting in lower signal to noise ratios. So the issue is not poor contrast but rather poor SNR resulting in poor contrast. If you are shooting a daylight scene, this is not an issue. One way to reduce this noise is to cool the camera as is done in Astronomy where typical imager temperatures can be lower than -20C. The electronic noise drops significantly the problem is resolved.
Interestingly, film gets noisy as well under low light conditions because the cinematographer may be using fast film with large grain structure.
Film response is non-linear and looks like a CCD image with dynamic range compression applied.

Mark,

Digital video only looks noisy in low light conditions where there are insufficient photons to fill the electron well thus resulting in lower signal to noise ratios. So the issue is not poor contrast but rather poor SNR resulting in poor contrast.


But then again if the well isn't being filled the dynamic range isn't being realized either. The point being that the only way that the full dynamic range of the sensor is realized is if some pixel wells are saturated and others are at the low end which in practice isn't the typical scenario. It would be interesting to see what the real world dynamic range of a typical HD camera really is.


If you are shooting a daylight scene, this is not an issue. One way to reduce this noise is to cool the camera as is done in Astronomy where typical imager temperatures can be lower than -20C. The electronic noise drops significantly the problem is resolved.


Ahh yes, the reduction in thermally generated charge carriers. This brings back memories from college Fermi-Dirac statistics.


Interestingly, film gets noisy as well under low light conditions because the cinematographer may be using fast film with large grain structure.
Film response is non-linear and looks like a CCD image with dynamic range compression applied.

Agreed.

But then again if the well isn't being filled the dynamic range isn't being realized either. The point being that the only way that the full dynamic range of the sensor is realized is if some pixel wells are saturated and others are at the low end which in practice isn't the typical scenario.


It is a separate issue. If the well is not being filled, the full dynamic range is not utilized but this is not the fault of the CCD. This is purely related to the scene being almost completely dark. That is, this dark scene has little dynamic range to begin with, hence the CCD would capture little dynamic range.

An alternate example is if we have a night scene but there are some lamps in the distance. The dark parts of the image will have very few electrons and the part of the image representing the lamps will have a lot of electrons. Hence, full dynamic range could be utilized for this case. But the dark parts of the image would still be noisy if gain is applied.

I saw this demo at the Sim2 exhibition of the Dolby lcdtv at the CES this past Jan (they call it HDR = high dynamic range). It was shown next to a std lcdtv (Westinghouse, I believe), and the difference was indeed astounding, the contrast of the Sim-Dolby being so much greater.

To be fair though, Bill, have you seen the Westinghouse LCDs at Best Buy?

They have been on sale where I was interested enough to take a 1080p one home and actually returned it because it looked so flat. In the side by sides I have done the Westinghouse LCD flat screens just dont hold a candle to the Samsung and Sony ones.

Brightside sounds interesting to me but I wish they put it next to a Sony XBR4/5 or a Samsung instead. If you were to report that it looked noticably better than either of those that would have been something else. 8)

It is a separate issue. If the well is not being filled, the full dynamic range is not utilized but this is not the fault of the CCD. This is purely related to the scene being almost completely dark. That is, this dark scene has little dynamic range to begin with, hence the CCD would capture little dynamic range.

An alternate example is if we have a night scene but there are some lamps in the distance. The dark parts of the image will have very few electrons and the part of the image representing the lamps will have a lot of electrons. Hence, full dynamic range could be utilized for this case. But the dark parts of the image would still be noisy if gain is applied.

Understood. That's why I said, "the only way that the full dynamic range of the sensor is realized is if some pixel wells are saturated and others are at the low end". My point is really that the contrast captured by a CCD based camera can be much less than the maximum dynamic range of the chip and it has to do with many factors including exposure time, readout rate and a desire to prevent blooming. The chip dynamic range only sets the upper limit which I don't think tells the full story.

At any rate, this is a really interesting topic and I'd like to hear more about it particularly from those who use HD video cameras but I hate to take this thread off topic. Maybe we should start another thread about it but if we do I think it will get moved to another forum.

I have to say that I'm no expert on CCDs. :rolleyes: But to me, it is obvious that our eyes can take in a higher simultanous contrast ratio than at least most commercial cameras.

Just take a football match on tv with half the pitch bathing in sunlight and the other half in shadow from the stands. On tv, you can hardly make out the players on the sunlit and the dark parts simultanously. Either the dark part gets completely black or the sunlit part totally overexposed. Thus, the camara has to adjust to the light depending on where it is shooting and it is having big problems when the play is at the border between the light and dark areas.

If you are at the stadium, the dark and light areas poses no problem for your vision and it is easy to follow the play even at the border zone.

I have to say that I'm no expert on CCDs. :rolleyes: But to me, it is obvious that our eyes can take in a higher simultanous contrast ratio than at least most commercial cameras.

Just take a football match on tv with half the pitch bathing in sunlight and the other half in shadow from the stands. On tv, you can hardly make out the players on the sunlit and the dark parts simultanously. Either the dark part gets completely black or the sunlit part totally overexposed. Thus, the camara has to adjust to the light depending on where it is shooting and it is having big problems when the play is at the border between the light and dark areas.

If you are at the stadium, the dark and light areas poses no problem for your vision and it is easy to follow the play even at the border zone.

This is a good point. I was going to cite football games as an example but my posts were getting too long and off topic as it is. But since you brought it up...:) I can't remember the last time I saw a football game that didn't clip whites and blacks. Some of it might be a simple case of the brightness and contrast settings that the guys in the broadcast trucks are using but some of it might be related to the way the camera technology is being used. I have seen excellent HD video concert material though which seems to exceed what film is capable of achieving but movies on the other hand don't seem to have this degree of contrast. It might be a case where film is used as an intermediary (HD camera to film to BD/HD-DVD).

To be fair though, Bill, have you seen the Westinghouse LCDs at Best Buy?

They have been on sale where I was interested enough to take a 1080p one home and actually returned it because it looked so flat. In the side by sides I have done the Westinghouse LCD flat screens just dont hold a candle to the Samsung and Sony ones.

Brightside sounds interesting to me but I wish they put it next to a Sony XBR4/5 or a Samsung instead. If you were to report that it looked noticably better than either of those that would have been something else. 8)

True about the Westinghouse, Mike. (I just recently got a Sony 52" W3000 for our bedroom, and it is really a very nice tv). The Sim2/Dolby demo was impressive nevertheless, though, even compared to their 'straw man'.

I have to say that I'm no expert on CCDs. :rolleyes: But to me, it is obvious that our eyes can take in a higher simultanous contrast ratio than at least most commercial cameras.

Just take a football match on tv with half the pitch bathing in sunlight and the other half in shadow from the stands. On tv, you can hardly make out the players on the sunlit and the dark parts simultanously. Either the dark part gets completely black or the sunlit part totally overexposed. Thus, the camara has to adjust to the light depending on where it is shooting and it is having big problems when the play is at the border between the light and dark areas.

If you are at the stadium, the dark and light areas poses no problem for your vision and it is easy to follow the play even at the border zone.

There's a huge difference between what you see on TV and what information is collected on a CCD imager. The dynamic range of the CCD has to be reduced before it is converted to video.

True about the Westinghouse, Mike. (I just recently got a Sony 52" W3000 for our bedroom, and it is really a very nice tv). The Sim2/Dolby demo was impressive nevertheless, though, even compared to their 'straw man'.

Yeah what is it with Westinghouse? The ones that I have seen look terrible compared to others with the same specs.

There's a huge difference between what you see on TV and what information is collected on a CCD imager. The dynamic range of the CCD has to be reduced before it is converted to video.

Well, then it should be possible to reduce it without crushing blacks/whites. Set max brighness of the CCD to 100 IRE video and the lowest to 0 IRE and remove shades in between so the range fits video standards. Say, just remove every other shade of grey and compress the range to half size?

It is a separate issue. If the well is not being filled, the full dynamic range is not utilized but this is not the fault of the CCD. This is purely related to the scene being almost completely dark. That is, this dark scene has little dynamic range to begin with, hence the CCD would capture little dynamic range.In real life dark scenes can have a lot of dynamic range. It might not seem like it because it is down low, but I don't see any reason the highest cannot be a fairly low number (say 1% of what we get for white in our theaters) and have the darkest be 1/1000th of that, or even less. If the camera isn't capturing enough of the dynamic range then it is the fault of the technology, even if we say it isn't the CCDs fault. Do you believe these cameras you were talking about exceed the dynamic range of human vision for dark stuff?

BTW: I realize an 8 bit system will have problems spreading things out to replicate real life when everything is at the lower end, but again I see that as a limitation of the technology compared to what is possible and what our eyes can see (at least under some conditions).

--Darin

Well, then it should be possible to reduce it without crushing blacks/whites. Set max brighness of the CCD to 100 IRE video and the lowest to 0 IRE and remove shades in between so the range fits video standards. Say, just remove every other shade of grey and compress the range to half size?

The max and min brightness can easily be done. This does not mean it is done right though. What's more tricky is the non-linear curve used to reduce the higher dynamic range. Some curves will highlight dark areas better than others. I have seen video processing chips where this curve is selectable.

I wouldn't listen to all the BS here. Just go see them yourself


WAYYYY easier said than done!:confused:

Thank you. If it was easy to just go out and audition a whole bunch of projectors, I would have done that. But, since it is extremely difficult to manage a projector audition, it only makes sense to try to narrow down the likely suspects by some method, however imperfect.

Yeah. One of the best that I have found is to see if there are any AVS guys with projectors that you can go visit.