Just came back from Stewart Filmscreen in Torrance where Meridian demonstrated they are truly a classy company with such a gracious event. In a word: Mind-blowing. I could not conceive of asking for ANYTHING better in a picture. It was on a 14 foot wide Studiotek 130 non perf. Enormous picture. ISCOIII lens. The image was just staggering. I could not have asked for better contrast, nor more accurate colors or image depth. This is the best image one could hope for. The PJ could have cranked out even more brightness had they wanted more then 16 ft lamberts. POC3 was just as real as you could imagine. It is just beyond words. What a dream machine. I beg anyone who sees the presentation to explain how a better image can be achieved. I don't really care about specifications, i would want a person to describe what they saw on the screen and point out how a picture can be improved upon. Barring transfer artifacts.
I don't know what to do now :-(
Should maybe have avoided seeing it since i am planning my theatre. I have owned the JVC RS1, seen the Meridian MF10, MF1 just this morning and after seeing the demo, I have lost interest in anything but.
But I'll conclude by saying if we can get this technology to the consumer under $ 50k, we are in for such a treat. This was one of those epic AV experiences. My first was seeing Joe Kane's 720p demo in Los Angeles using Runco 9" crt and Snell & Wilcox interpolator. This is my 2nd yet pinnacle experience. And I should say that listening to a Burmester Reference system on the same day didn't help my audio aspirations any.
Great job to Meridian who have the end all be all pice of video gear in my book.

It's not 'if', it's when! <$10K is probably only 2, maybe 3 years away. Gotta keep the high-enders buying.

You are correct, but I meant I want it NOW for under $ 50k. What a trip....

Any projector that can make POC3 worth watching is a steal at $150K!

Seriously, though, will this level of performance really trickle down to sub $10K projectors - if so, I now have an upgrade path form my VW200.

Thanks very much for your impressions ! Sounds like a winner. I assume there will be lines at CEDIA for this one.

Art

I want the 8K version :666:

JVC and Barco are selling this machine for less.

Art. there should be several 4k projectors at Cedia. Its not like each one will be very different from another, there is a lot more commonality between projectors than most people imagine. i am betteng on seing such machines from Sony,JVC,Sim2,Meridian and maybe more. you think may meridian is building these from the ground upor maybe modifying somewhat someone elses machine? BTW The lenses on these machines wil never cost less than 410,000 or so. we willNEVER see a $4K machine for anywhere near $10K. Consumer is set at 720p, 1080i,and 1080p. $4k will be for the big boys only. hellmost people wouldn't have roomfor a 14ft wide 2.35 screen anyway. We will see prices get below $100K.

Is this a tuned RS2 with 4K panels and more lumen?

Look for a Hafler mod kit to covert your RS2 intothis machine. You will have to be able to solder. :) Its a tuned JVC I think. Didn't JVC show something like this in their big theater at CEDIA? the problem then was sources. No scaler existed to diive the panels. I think a scaler is ready now.

I think Mayer original posted this picture of the JVC 4k

http://gallery.avsforum.com/data/509/iA.jpg

Sexy. But Hafler will have a sexy case for your mod too. Four month wait if you want a Ferrari color though.

Mark,
I understand ,Meridian has value added but what remains to be seen. I'm sure Sony will have a 4K there, we know that ,and for much less money.

Of course ,the Meridain is a JVC 4K unit.

Art

we willNEVER see a $4K machine for anywhere near $10K. Consumer is set at 720p, 1080i,and 1080p. $4k will be for the big boys only. hellmost people wouldn't have roomfor a 14ft wide 2.35 screen anyway. We will see prices get below $100K.

Poppycock. This ignores everything we've ever experienced when it comes to electronics. I'll bet money we see the <$10K 4K consumer machines announced by end of 2010, but probably sooner. It wasn't that long ago people were saying we'd NEVER see an affordable 1080p DLP. CE analysts said there'd NEVER be an HDTV below $1000, nearly 20 years ago, back when $1000 was a ridiculous amount of money for a TV. There were plenty of people that said we'd never get past a few GB for hard drives, nor anywhere close to current computer speeds. It's not if they'll be sub $10K, it's when. In 5-6 years, they'll be in the $3K-$5K range or less.

I think if you triple Meridians pricing for an OEM product, in actuallity a $50K price tag would be about right by any other modest manufacturer...

As soon as they ( commercial market ) get 6 or 8k expect a price drop in 4k. 2k will then get the leper treatment as 720 does now.

Poppycock. This ignores everything we've ever experienced when it comes to electronics. I'll bet money we see the <$10K 4K consumer machines announced by end of 2010, but probably sooner. It wasn't that long ago people were saying we'd NEVER see an affordable 1080p DLP. CE analysts said there'd NEVER be an HDTV below $1000, nearly 20 years ago, back when $1000 was a ridiculous amount of money for a TV. There were plenty of people that said we'd never get past a few GB for hard drives, nor anywhere close to current computer speeds. It's not if they'll be sub $10K, it's when. In 5-6 years, they'll be in the $3K-$5K range or less.

Ten years ago when I asked the Mercedes dealer when I would have a flying car he said never, I just laughed in his face.. shows what he knows.:)

Seriously though, I bet it will be in a couple of years. If we see any around fifty announced this year we will see $10,000 units

Art

Well, you can always get this -

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/aquada-4.jpg

JVC makes the base projector which I believe they sell for around $ 130,000.00 However, the problem is lack of supporting scaler. JVC does not sell one and afaik, there are no viable options short of a computer, even then I don't know if they will work. But Meridian do 4 days of calibrating on this unit, which involves more then just tweaking. It is similar to 3 chip units, but instead of 1 chip per color, this uses 4 X 1080p chips per color. The 4 chips are blended to make one, so it uses 12 X 1080p chips. JVC manages to get 8 megapixels since they use the sweetspot. Meridian manages to get the entire area to the same criteria as the sweetspot, so they gain additional resolution. Also, William Phelps does his full magic on this unit.
Again; killer resolution, immense brightness, spot on colors, fantastic shadow detail, black blacks. I can immagine some people might say they don't have RS2 blacks or G90 blacks and they would be right. But while they are saying this, I'll be drooling infront of the screen. Cleanup on aisle 2.

Thanks very much for your impressions ! Sounds like a winner. I assume there will be lines at CEDIA for this one.

Art

I thought of you Art after seeing this demo. I figured you managed to swing a PJ of your caliber once, you may start the cogs a turning on this one. Be warned and don't go towards the light...:-)

It is going to be interesting how the Sony looks in comparison. The Meridian will obviously have a lot more light.

Art

12-chip? Okay, well that might set back my time table a bit for the cheap version. I thought it was a 3-chip PJ. Well, 2.35:1 4K+ for the home will still be a reality sooner than we might think.

Nope these are the 4K chips, hence the pixel count that's higher that 4x 1080 D-ILA chips. 8K chip was announced last year, and has made it into a NHK demoprojector.

What's a bit of time among the big boy friends we have here on this forum? :)

I think the things we neede to see are high to mid APL contrast,panel alignment and uniformity which have been questionable at best with 4K devices.

Art

the jvc can scale 1920x1080 content up to 4k inside and thats easy
to realise.

since i have test a sony 4k pr. long long time ago i doubt that
the scaling from 2k to 4k makes the picture
"that better".
its not like sd tv scale to hd tv but i can see some small improvments.

when you will get perfect d 65 out of this jvc pr. you will end up in
the 3000 lumen range not more.
for screens till to 4m it will be nice but if you get used to 25 ftl or above
at a big screen
that can be a problem when the lamp after 300 hours will lose
at least 30% light.

the best about this pr. is the high 10000:1 on off cr. but i am sure
with a isco3 in the front max. ansi cr. wil be in the only good 200:1 range.
and that makes the biggest difference to a good 3 chip dlp that can
go up to 800:1 ansi cr.

and also need in to account that because of the not so good mtf function a lcos have
how much is more visible with true 4k content.

i think you cant see 4 times more with 4k with lcos compare to 2k dlp.
i guess you see "only" 2 times more.
but there is no 4k content beside some still pictures that you can do easy and
the way to feed such content is very difficult.

forget to add.

the panel is "not" a 16:9 ratio so you will lose more light even with the isco3.

the best about this pr. is the high 10000:1 on off cr. but i am sure
with a isco3 in the front max. ansi cr. wil be in the only good 200:1 range.
and that makes the biggest difference to a good 3 chip dlp that can
go up to 800:1 ansi cr..

Does the ISCO really decrease ANSI CR from potentially 10,000:1 to 200:1?

Is this what you are saying?

If so, we an need internal 2.35 lens..

His post states 10k on/off and 200 ANSI.

His post states 10k on/off and 200 ANSI.

Ah...I knew something was up with that... Thanks.

the jvc can scale 1920x1080 content up to 4k inside and thats easy
to realise.

since i have test a sony 4k pr. long long time ago i doubt that
the scaling from 2k to 4k makes the picture
"that better".
its not like sd tv scale to hd tv but i can see some small improvments.

when you will get perfect d 65 out of this jvc pr. you will end up in
the 3000 lumen range not more.
for screens till to 4m it will be nice but if you get used to 25 ftl or above
at a big screen
that can be a problem when the lamp after 300 hours will lose
at least 30% light.

the best about this pr. is the high 10000:1 on off cr. but i am sure
with a isco3 in the front max. ansi cr. wil be in the only good 200:1 range.
and that makes the biggest difference to a good 3 chip dlp that can
go up to 800:1 ansi cr.

and also need in to account that because of the not so good mtf function a lcos have
how much is more visible with true 4k content.

i think you cant see 4 times more with 4k with lcos compare to 2k dlp.
i guess you see "only" 2 times more.
but there is no 4k content beside some still pictures that you can do easy and
the way to feed such content is very difficult.


Guess the review sample is now definitly not on its way south;-).

George Lucas purchased one right after the Stewart demo. Of course, to him it was pocket change. Now that's a BIG BOY! Too bad he doesn't post here.

George Lucas purchased one right after the Stewart demo. Of course, to him it was pocket change. Now that's a BIG BOY! Too bad he doesn't post here.

He does post here,his user name is "CINERAMAX" :D

That's not even funny. BTW Peter is very nice in person but his alter egod oes take over when he posts. George reportedly is always nice.

That's not even funny.

Bite me.

No way. I've heard from a few ladies you taste terrible.

Touché

Bite me.

Interesting ,you continue to astound me with your eloquence.:eek:Few could have said it so succinctly.:D

Art

Interesting ,you continue to astound me with your eloquence.:eek:Few could have said it so succinctly.:D

Art

I was being laconic.:)

the jvc can scale 1920x1080 content up to 4k inside and thats easy
to realise.

since i have test a sony 4k pr. long long time ago i doubt that
the scaling from 2k to 4k makes the picture
"that better".
its not like sd tv scale to hd tv but i can see some small improvments.

when you will get perfect d 65 out of this jvc pr. you will end up in
the 3000 lumen range not more.
for screens till to 4m it will be nice but if you get used to 25 ftl or above
at a big screen
that can be a problem when the lamp after 300 hours will lose
at least 30% light.

the best about this pr. is the high 10000:1 on off cr. but i am sure
with a isco3 in the front max. ansi cr. wil be in the only good 200:1 range.
and that makes the biggest difference to a good 3 chip dlp that can
go up to 800:1 ansi cr.

and also need in to account that because of the not so good mtf function a lcos have
how much is more visible with true 4k content.

i think you cant see 4 times more with 4k with lcos compare to 2k dlp.
i guess you see "only" 2 times more.
but there is no 4k content beside some still pictures that you can do easy and
the way to feed such content is very difficult.

Well said!

Sony, JVC and Meridian are the AXIS of VIDEO EVIL. They want to deprive everyone to their birthright to MAXIMUM MTF. They have been warned, I DRAW THE LINE IN THE SAND RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW...

Have you even seen this projector peter?

I've never seen a 3-chip DLP look this good, putting color aside. It smokes the crap out of 1080p 3-chip.

Have you even seen this projector peter?

I've never seen a 3-chip DLP look this good, putting color aside. It smokes the crap out of 1080p 3-chip.

Chris,
Can you tell us some things that impressed you in the comparison ?

Art

Have you even seen this projector peter?

I've never seen a 3-chip DLP look this good, putting color aside. It smokes the crap out of 1080p 3-chip.

I saw the JVC 4k presentation of the THE TRIDENT by David Carradine, very very nice, looked like a giant G-90 on steroids. At no point however did I say to myself this looks like 70mm. The image is bordering on pasty, lacking the depth of a 825-860 ansi contrast DCI projector, it's like the air sucked out of the image. Then imagine adding an isco! What that does to that already two dimensional picture.

No way. I've heard from a few ladies you taste terrible.

Mark's being nice. Actually he heard from a few male forum members who got demos!!!:D

Now I must admit, that is COLD!!!@@@:confused:

Regarding the chips, I am regurgitating verbatim what Meridian said. The gentleman, Norm I believe, was very technically knowledgeable and a nice person to boot. He explained the chips as being 12 total; 4 per color to achieve that resolution. He explained they used more of the panel then JVC does by enlarging the sweet-spot. These are his words, not mine. If JVC uses 3 X 4k chips, then he might be mistaken.
Also, I don't think George Lucas attended this particular event at Stewart. He did order one upon viewing I was told.

Georgie Boy needs to be playing with the finest 4k chipper around and for him the meridian is probaly the very best, although I am not sure if he would use the anamorphic part, who knows?

But everyone else living in the 2k world,or not sitting with their noses against the screen, scaling to 4k is a no no, or adding the lens.

What's the problem with upscaling, especially with an even multiple?

I saw the JVC 4k presentation of the THE TRIDENT by David Carradine, very very nice, looked like a giant G-90 on steroids. At no point however did I say to myself this looks like 70mm. The image is bordering on pasty, lacking the depth of a 825-860 ansi contrast DCI projector, it's like the air sucked out of the image. Then imagine adding an isco! What that does to that already two dimensional picture.
Film does not have DLP kind of MTF anyway. Besides too much MTF is not good with 2K DLP panels. You just see pixels. Yuck.

Mark's being nice. Actually he heard from a few male forum members who got demos!!!:D

Well now, Stevie boy. Have you been hiding out in the weeds waiting for that opportunity since my "reaming" comment, a couple of weeks back.:D

Ive also noticed that you seem to combine the words "male" and "member" in the same sentence far too frequently.

Its as if "male member" is constantly on the tip of your tongue.:eek::eek:

Chris,
Can you tell us some things that impressed you in the comparison ?

Art

1080p is great, but you still can't sit as close, it's not as utterly clear from display structure as the 4k is. and on the Meridian version they showed here in seattle, the CR appeared very good. on/off may have appeared better than it was because I was sitting so close, but ANSI was also very impressive, several dark objects in very bright scenes (Cars, Bond) totally black-holed it was very impressive.

Keep in mind that I am generally not partial to DLP, LCOS is a much more solid image temporally, and that kind of stuff bothers me on DLPS, CRTs, plasmas etc.

But I've not seen a 3-chipper look that good, especially with the ability to support very large viewing angles, and that's the major advantage. Now, once 4k content is available, I don't think it will be any contest at all. I expect it to look more like 70mm, and certainly 1080p can't touch that at all by any stretch of the imagination.

Georgie Boy needs to be playing with the finest 4k chipper around and for him the meridian is probaly the very best, although I am not sure if he would use the anamorphic part, who knows?

But everyone else living in the 2k world,or not sitting with their noses against the screen, scaling to 4k is a no no, or adding the lens.

Yeah, what are you talking about, upscaling is advantageous especially given the significant even multiple cirumstances we're talking about here.

I am talking about what I have seen, and what you have not seen. If you are happy with 250 ansi cr, that is fine but 825-860 ansi is something to see, that is where MTF grabs you by the throat.

But I've not seen a 3-chipper look that good, especially with the ability to support very large viewing angles, and that's the major advantage. .

How do you figure DLP and LcOS ore different here?

How do you figure DLP and LcOS ore different here?

Um, the fact that the LCOS has 4x the resolution... ;)

I am talking about what I have seen, and what you have not seen. If you are happy with 250 ansi cr, that is fine but 825-860 ansi is something to see, that is where MTF grabs you by the throat.

What does ANSI have to do with MTF?

And secondly, I don't find the LCOS lacking in ANSI visually. If it can maintain an extremely deep black, with detail, in the midst of a bright scene in cars, I don't see how there is improving that too much of any significance (not to say it can't be improved, but it's not an issue that I would concern myself with given the other benefits.).

Well now, Stevie boy. Have you been hiding out in the weeds waiting for that opportunity since my "reaming" comment, a couple of weeks back.:D

Ive also noticed that you seem to combine the words "male" and "member" in the same sentence far too frequently.

Its as if "male member" is constantly on the tip of your tongue.:eek::eek:

That one is reaching a bit!

Um, the fact that the LCOS has 4x the resolution... ;)

Interesting, I will assume you meant viewing distance not angle. Source material being the same the image resolution of both images will be the same. DLPs structure is far more evident than lcos so you could sit closer to the screen before seeing pixel structure, but as we speak the limiting factor in resolution is from software. Display pixels do not equal resolution.

With a super bright projector and 14ft or bigger screens, how close do you really want to sit? Maybe its just me, but I want to be able to see the whole screen without having to move my big head. :)

Mr. Burns. Looking forward to seeing your machine at Cedia. I understand that eventually there will be other models with 2x and 4x the ANSI lumens of the first. Give my regards to John. :)

What does ANSI have to do with MTF?




I believe they could be considered as nearly opposite ends of a continuous spectrum.

Art

Interesting, I will assume you meant viewing distance not angle.


Viewing angle increases as one sits closer.

Art

Interesting, I will assume you meant viewing distance not angle.As Art basically pointed out, it is viewing angle that is important to this discussion, not viewing distance. Viewing angle takes the screen size into account, while viewing distance doesn't.
Source material being the same the image resolution of both images will be the same. DLPs structure is far more evident than lcos so you could sit closer to the screen before seeing pixel structure, but as we speak the limiting factor in resolution is from software. Display pixels do not equal resolution.The display pixels most definitely matter as far as seeing pixels at a particular viewing ratio. And since the sources contain points in space (and not square pixels), 1:1 mapping to square pixels is actually incorrect for displaying that source. People might like it because of the false aliasing effect it creates (which can make things look sharper than the source has encoded in it), but 4x the resolution of the source can show closer to how that source is actually encoded and meant to be displayed (with transitions between the points in space that are in the source instead of hard edges halfway between each point in space). Although 9x could show even closer to how the sources are meant to be displayed because they could show every point in space and also have 8 more pixels around per source point for the transitions to the other points in space in the source that surround it.

All else (like fill ratio) being equal a 4k projector can support larger viewing angles (closer viewing distance for the same screen size, etc.) before the pixels become a problem than a 2k projector can, even with a 1080p source. Do you disagree with that? I think just about anybody who would be bothered by pixel structure could see this effect with a 1080p projector vs a 480p projector and a DVD source. The 1080p projector will tend to support larger viewing angles even though the source is the same.

--Darin

Regarding the chips, I am regurgitating verbatim what Meridian said. The gentleman, Norm I believe, was very technically knowledgeable and a nice person to boot. He explained the chips as being 12 total; 4 per color to achieve that resolution. He explained they used more of the panel then JVC does by enlarging the sweet-spot. These are his words, not mine. If JVC uses 3 X 4k chips, then he might be mistaken.
Also, I don't think George Lucas attended this particular event at Stewart. He did order one upon viewing I was told.

I heard that there are 4 DVI inputs for video and the scaler works on quadrants.

Scaling in quadrants makes sense giving chips existing out there today.

Kei. See you at dinner Friday night at Cedia. You too Art

OK he meant viewing angel as in degrees of view, got it, my bad. I took it as off axis viewing.

As far as number of pixels meaning more resolution, I do not agree. ANY scaling softens the image. When a comparison is made of more pixels vs less on a displays it needs to be made between the same technologies (dlp vs dlp or lcos vs lcos). I am not talking about fill factor or pixel size. I am talking about resolution. The algorithms for up conversion change small edge transitions, that softens the image.

I will also agree that most “pixel per pixel” displays do some scaling and will soften as much, if not more than a simple 2x oversampling will. If the native pixel structure of the source does not match either display pixel structure, and both displays are of the same technology, more display pixels will generally create a better picture with better color saturation and contrast based on the fill factor.

Scaling in quadrants makes sense giving chips existing out there today.

Kei. See you at dinner Friday night at Cedia. You too Art

Looking foward to it. Wish it was sooner.

As far as number of pixels meaning more resolution, I do not agree.I didn't say it meant more resolution because then I would have to define what "more resolution" means and a display doesn't have to display more resolution to support larger viewing angles with the "more resolution" definition you seem to be using (the source resolution). Do you disagree that a 1080p projector will support larger viewing angles with DVD than a 480p projector (keeping things like dlp vs dlp)? If not, if the projector you are now working with is a 1080p model, what kind of viewing ratio (to width) do you think it reasonably supports with a good DVD?
ANY scaling softens the image.The image is supposed to be soft compared to 1:1 mapping with hard corners. There is supposed to be something like a sine wave between those points in space, more like a CRT does. We need to separate what people like from what is correct. I have no problem with people liking sharper (I like it myself), but it isn't correct and saying that an image is softer doesn't support a position that it doesn't support closer viewer angles/ratios. Softer generally means it will support closer viewing angle/ratios before artifacts are a problem and square pixels are an artifact that will show up at close enough angles.
When a comparison is made of more pixels vs less on a displays it needs to be made between the same technologies (dlp vs dlp or lcos vs lcos).Yes, I was keeping those the same.
I am not talking about fill factor or pixel size. I am talking about resolution. The algorithms for up conversion change small edge transitions, that softens the image.Which is often more correct. As I said, 1:1 with square pixels is false sharpening.

I agree with this part of what Chris said about the 4k projector:
... the ability to support very large viewing angles ...Of course there are different strokes for different folks, so many people won't want to sit as close as they could with that 4k display resolution, but the ability is there.

--Darin

The only advantage of scaling 2K to 4K is the ability to sit closer to the screen and this probably means closer than 1x screen width. I have not looked at the 1920x1080 DMD based projectors and the reports of pixel visibility are all over the place, ranging from 0.8x to close to 1.5x. There are several confounding factors with pixel visibility, including screen surface patterns and perforations and I don’t trust many of the casual reports. I have just looked very carefully at a 2048x1080 1.2” DMD based projector with nearly perfect convergence and focus and I can’t see pixel structure closer than 0.8x screen width. These DMDs have a higher fill factor and my best guess about the 1920x1080 0.95” type is 1x screen width and very few want to sit closer than this.

Regarding resolution, you have to look at what happens to MTF when you scale 2K to 4K with the interpolation methods that I am familiar with. The MTF at the higher spatial frequencies of the source goes down. In other words, the contrast of higher frequency detail decreases and the image looks softer. This has nothing to do with loss of false sharpness, but less clarity of detail that’s in the source. The resolution, in objective terms, decreases when 2K is scaled to 4K by anything other than simply repeating pixels.

The real advantage of 4K is with a 4K source. It’s possible that Sony will offer this on a limited basis. They have the content and it would be a powerful tool to sell 4K projectors.

I heard that there are 4 DVI inputs for video and the scaler works on quadrants.

It did indeed have 4 DVI inputs and I think your quadrant statement sounds right since they talked about being able to maximize the sweet spot to a larger area then JVC.

you can also use 2 dvi inputs to feed the 4096x2400 resolution.

OK he meant viewing angel as in degrees of view, got it, my bad. I took it as off axis viewing.

Yes, I was referring to the relative size of the image for where you're sitting, not the absolute size, thus the viewing angle, or viewing ratio, whichever terminology you'd prefer. In lay-terms, it supports a "bigger image," but the reason I don't say that is because obviously absolute screen size isn't the issue if you sit very far away from a larger screen.

As far as number of pixels meaning more resolution, I do not agree. ANY scaling softens the image. When a comparison is made of more pixels vs less on a displays it needs to be made between the same technologies (dlp vs dlp or lcos vs lcos). I am not talking about fill factor or pixel size. I am talking about resolution. The algorithms for up conversion change small edge transitions, that softens the image.

This is an erroneous understanding of the nature of image reconstruction. Mapping the source content 1:1 is the crudest way to reconstruct the source's point samples. True, it does avoid some challenges that can enter when you scale to uneven multiples, and other aliasing issues however it is not the best way to reconstruct an image. Doing so artificially introduces high frequency noise which appears as the hard edge transitions of each display pixel which is an equal-intensity (or somewhat close to it) distribution. This is theoretically the poorest way to reconstruct each sample for continuous-tone images. Now, realistically we could do worse by using fewer display elements than the source resolution, or by only slightly increasing the display's resolution compared to the source's resolution, thus causing bad aliasing problems, but as long as we increase the resolution significantly enough, or at even multiples we end up with a MORE accurate reconstruction of the source than you would with a 1:1 pixel map.

What you perceive as a "softening" of the image is actually an increase in the visibility of image detail because what is actually being removed is not high frequency image content, but high frequency image noise which occurs with a 1:1 pixel map. If you're sitting close enough to discern what you term as "softening" then you are sitting at a viewing angle large enough that you would benefit from a higher resolution display on which to view this content since in the former case you are actually seeing the high frequency noise of the crude 1:1 reconstruction.

I will also agree that most “pixel per pixel” displays do some scaling and will soften as much, if not more than a simple 2x oversampling will. If the native pixel structure of the source does not match either display pixel structure, and both displays are of the same technology, more display pixels will generally create a better picture with better color saturation and contrast based on the fill factor.

But the point is that it is often assumed (wrongly) that the best way to view an image is with a 1:1 pixel map where each source sample is mapped to one display element, in this case assuming a recangular element with equal intensity distributed across its area as is basically the case with the display technologies we're discussing. This is not accurate, and arises from a misunderstanding of the nature of the source content itself which is not comprised of as "pixels" in the rectangular sense that they are often understood as, but as point samples which have no dimensions and must be reconstructed. Doing so with a single rectangular display element with equal intensity over a rectangular area is essentially a box reconstruction of that point sample, which is the crudest way to do it. The theoretically best way to reconstruct that waveform from the point samples in the source is to have infinite analog resolution, or in essence by scaling the image up infinitely to a display with infinite resolution.

Obviously we don't have infinite resolution, but if you scale up significantly enough that aliasing is less a concern, then you are gaining a more accurate reconstruction of the source than previously. That's why 480p content appears so much better when scaled up to 1080p. Now, we could debate about how realistically significant it is to scale up 1080p content to 4k, but the same theory applies. It is simply more accurate way to view that content. You can also debate about whether that is better or not, I generally begin by assuming that accuracy is better, but not eveyone will agree with that and that's certainly a fair perspective to have. You could certainly prefer the perceived "sharpness" of the box reconstruction, but that is a less accurate image than what is possible.

[SIZE=3][FONT=Arial]The only advantage of scaling 2K to 4K is the ability to sit closer to the screen and this probably means closer than 1x screen width.

As dealt with above, this is not the only advantage. The other advantage is that you get a more accurate image if you have the resolution headroom at the display to better reconstruct the source.

Now, obviously, you do have to be sitting at a large enough viewing angle to benefit from that, so in those cases where you are not, then there is neither this advantage nor the advantage of less visible display structure.

And obviously it should be said that display structure visibility is not just based on the display's resolution or MTF (or however you want to quantify "resolution"). But I think that's understood, but just wanted to make that clear.

I can see that there is going to be endless hype about 4K projectors and with 4K content it will be justified, but not with 2K sources. All that’s lacking is Tryg’s endorsement and I am sure that it will come.

Regardless of the interesting points about image reconstruction, the effect of scaling can be objectively measured. The contrast of high frequency detail in the source will decrease. This is not noise, but image detail in the source. Also, there is going to be no additional source detail that’s not there before scaling.

Regarding pixel hard edges as noise, the viewing distance takes care of that. When your eye can’t resolve the pixels, that noise is gone. That is at about 1x image width with 2K DLP. The best overall image quality at this distance and higher with a 2K source is through 1:1 pixel mapping.

It would be useful if Meridian showed resolution and contrast test patterns and provided MTF data. A good start would be one pixel on/one pixel off patterns, including 2K scaled to 4K.

I can see that there is going to be endless hype about 4K projectors and with 4K content it will be justified, but not with 2K sources. All that’s lacking is Tryg’s endorsement and I am sure that it will come.

Regardless of the interesting points about image reconstruction, the effect of scaling can be objectively measured. The contrast of high frequency detail in the source will decrease. This is not noise, but image detail in the source. Also, there is going to be no additional source detail that’s not there before scaling.

This is simply not true for the reasons I already went into, and that Darin also described briefly. The visibility of high frequency detail increases with a better reconstruction, which is what upscaling allows for.

So by simply ignoring the "interesting points about image reconstruction" you are ignoring everything that I am talking about and that is relevant in comparison. That's like comparing the taste of two different foods, and then saying "well ignoring the taste this one tastes better." You can't ignore what makes one image better simply to assert that the worse image looks better for no reason at all.

Regarding pixel hard edges as noise, the viewing distance takes care of that. When your eye can’t resolve the pixels, that noise is gone. That is at about 1x image width with 2K DLP. The best overall image quality at this distance and higher with a 2K source is through 1:1 pixel mapping.

That's why I included the caveat above that the benefits of upscaling are only present if you're viewing at a viewing angle large enough. If you're not viewing at such a large viewing angle, then there isn't any difference either way since you're not capable of seing either the content detail in question or the noise that is obscuring it in the 1:1 box reconstruction.

And again, it is not correct to assert that the best image quality occurs with 1:1 pixel mapping to a digital display with rectangular display elements. That most unambiguously is not the best way to view the source, assuming a continuous tone image.

Chris,

The visibility of high frequency detail that's in the source is measured by MTF at that spatial frequency. Are you saying that MTF is higher after scaling? What other objective measurement do you propose for determining the visibility of detail? Have you done any actual work in image reconstruction?

odyssey: isn't it reasonable to suppose that the MTF of a 4k LCOS chip at the spatial frequency corresponding to 2k resolution would be superior to the MTF of a 2k chip of otherwise similar construction?

sort of like not all 9" crt TUBES were better tubes than 8", but most of the projectors were built with much higher internal bandwidth due to the demands based upon the applications.

Hence, better result.

Currently 2k DLP shows higher MTF then 2k Lcos. Maybe 4k Lcos will finally equal or surpass 2k DLP but 4k DLP when it arrives will win again.

Fair enough. But let's say for the sake of argument that 4K LCOS matches 2K DLP in MTF for 2K content. Which would be better at rendering 2K material? That's all I was asking.

It seems to me that using MTF alone to measure visibility of high-frequency content ignores the additive noise due to uniform square pixel structure. I do appreciate though that odyssey is saying that at a certain viewing distance this becomes a non-issue. But of course, higher resolution encourages closer seating distances. Honestly, a 1x seating distance doesn't seem all that aggressive to me :)

odyssey: isn't it reasonable to suppose that the MTF of a 4k LCOS chip at the spatial frequency corresponding to 2k resolution would be superior to the MTF of a 2k chip of otherwise similar construction?

The MTF corresponding to the spatial frequency of 2K resolution will decrease if you scale 2K to 4K with any method other than simply repeating pixels. This results in loss of detail clarity and a softer image. This is separate from the issues of pixel structure visibility and false sharpness which are relevant only with close viewing distances.

Regarding the method of using square pixels to construct an image, I don't have any problems with it at 2K resolution at more than 1x image width distance. To me, the image does not look like it's composed of separate square elements and does not look artificially sharp. If anything, the image with even the best DLP projector looks soft when compared to possible references like the camera negative, answer print, and 4K transfers. I really don't know why anyone would prefer to make the image even softer. How does that get us to an image that's closer to what it's supposed to look like? And by the way, what exactly is that goal?

After reading this thread, I have 3 questions

1) what is the model of this 4k machine? Did I miss it? Can someone provide a link to the announcement w/specs?

2) What exactly is the MSRP on this thing?

3) How does this compare with the MF10? I understand the MF10 is a fraction of the cost - but the specs on the MF10 are very impressive to me. Is this 4k machine really worth the difference?

Thank you.

The MTF corresponding to the spatial frequency of 2K resolution will decrease if you scale 2K to 4K with any method other than simply repeating pixels. This results in loss of detail clarity and a softer image. Surely you're not arguing that repeating pixels is the proper way to do scaling in theory. Suppose I have a 480p image that I'd like to scale to 960p. Clearly simple replication of pixels is not the right way to go about it. Sure, a more optimally scaled image might subjectively seem softer than ones with nice fat square pixel blocks. But wouldn't that basically be an illusion? Don't the square pixels just offer a false perception of sharpness? Why does Lumagen go through so much trouble?

It seems to me that if a more Nyquist-friendly scaling of content makes it look softer, that's the fault of the content or the viewing distance.

Surely you're not arguing that repeating pixels is the proper way to do scaling in theory. Suppose I have a 480p image that I'd like to scale to 960p. Surely simple doubling of pixels is not the right way to go about it. Sure, it might seem softer if you do something closer to Nyquist optimal, but I would argue that's because of limitations in the source resolution. Let's blame the right cause here.

Of course not. I was trying to say that the only method that does not cause the MTF loss problem is a useless method.

Sorry, I edited my post but you got the point I see. It would seem I understood you backwards. Let me see if I understand: I think you're saying that if a 4K LCOS projector has the same MTF at 2K than a 2K DLP projector does, that applying intelligent scaling will reduce that MTF below that of the DLP. Correct?

So it's only if the 4K LCOS has somewhat higher MTF at the 2K spatial frequency do you have any headroom to apply intelligent scaling and end up with equal MTF. And if you're far enough away not to care about pixel structure then MTF is all that's left.

Is that right?

I do see your point about pixel structure. If I had a 4K DLP, I am sure I wouldn't be worrying about it. Then again if I had a 4K LCOS I'm not sure I'd be worrying about its pixel sharpness either as long as its effective MTF (including scaling) was high enough at my visual acuity limit. At 2K though I'm not sure. I do love me some close seating. :)

This entire thread is composed of posts by square nerds, so why should square pixels be bothersome? When we get someday to 16K, then you will be able to sit behind the screen at a -0.31517 multiplier assuming the plane of the screen, call it the Y axis crosses the x axiss at 0. Positive is in front of the sceen and negative is behind.

If you have to move your head to see the entire screen, why not just go back to scan and pan?

4K makes no sense unless we have 4k sources or perhaps a humongus screen width with passengers on the trip sitting way too close.

Guilty as charged.

Michael,

Yes, you have it right.

My comments about pixel visibility were for 2K DLP and my seating distance is almost 1.5x image width. However, I would have the same conclusion as close as 0.8x. I would be able to see some aliasing, but I would have to look for it. I increased the 0.8x to 1x to compensate for the lower fill factor of the 2K DMDs used in models other than the 1.2" 2K DMD units.

Chris,

The visibility of high frequency detail that's in the source is measured by MTF at that spatial frequency. Are you saying that MTF is higher after scaling? What other objective measurement do you propose for determining the visibility of detail? Have you done any actual work in image reconstruction?

But you're ignoring the fact that you are ADDING noise that obscures the actual visibility of that detail by reconstructing the point samples poorly. By upscaling, you reduce that noise and thus are better able to see the high frequency content in the source because it's not obscured by noise.

Yes, it is correct that for non continuous tone images such as test patterns, the content will be softened. But that's not really our concern because we're not viewing artificial images, what we're concerned with is continuous tone images that have been sampled, and how best to reconstruct those images. And in both theory and practice, it is unambiguously better to have the capability to display a source at a resolution higher than the source content's resolution.

It's the exact same thing as upscaling DVD. Surely you would not assert that the best way to view DVD content is on a 1:1 native 480p display that matches the DVD source!

I see wide variations in MTF because I have a job where the port glass is a dust magnet, when it is clean I have in excess of 800 ansi contrast and it looks way more like IMAX or 70mm than the TRIDENT presentation, when dusty it probably gets cut in half and you really miss that MTF.

The 4k presentation of the TRIDENT had perhaps an MTF 33-37% lesser than the SuperKontrast with the lens/port cleaned, this was at 4k-4k.

It is quite possible that the MTF of 4k content presented at 2k on a DC DLP, may be just a hair lower than that of the JVC 4K presenting true 4k, it is going to be very close.

There is a paper on 4k content presented on 2k by cowan (http://digitalcontentproducer.com/mag/video_digital_cinemas_special/), that supports this theory somewhat.

Look I have no problem with a SONY 4k for 30 grand, I welcome it, I have a problem with a 175k 4k lcos with inferior MTF at 2K. Bad move.

It's the exact same thing as upscaling DVD. Surely you would not assert that the best way to view DVD content is on a 1:1 native 480p display that matches the DVD source!

It's not the same thing and it depends on resolution and viewing distance. The viewing distance needed to avoid any problems with noise due to pixel structure for 2K are well within the normal range. I think that most viewers prefer to sit in a 1-1.5x width range for these images that have various compression artifacts, optical aberrations, convergence problems, dithering, etc. without even considering pixel structure.

It would be useful to know what you are trying to achieve and why you think that scaling 2K to 4K gets you closer to that at more than very close viewing distances. What is the reference that you are trying to match? If it's not the source, what is it? Also, what do I look for to see (at 1x or more) the noise that you are concerned about in a 2K image?

If anything, the image with even the best DLP projector looks soft when compared to possible references like the camera negative, answer print, and 4K transfers.
I have trouble believing any 35mm answer prints look sharper than 2K DLP. More detailed, more analogue and continuous, yes, sharper, no (except for cases where the bad on-off contrast of cinema DLPs causes veiling).

4K makes no sense unless we have 4k sources or perhaps a humongus screen width with passengers on the trip sitting way too close.
I have HD material that is so sharp that 4K would make a difference from a viewing distance where I see 1080p detail. Edges would look better and less jagged.

I have trouble believing any 35mm answer prints look sharper than 2K DLP. More detailed, more analogue and continuous, yes, sharper, no (except for cases where the bad on-off contrast of cinema DLPs causes veiling).

I have not done this comparison, so you could be right. In any case, most of this is now done with a 2K DI and the answer print is produced with a CRT or laser film recorder. I think that this is negative and it is contact printed, but I am not sure.

After reading this thread, I have 3 questions

1) what is the model of this 4k machine? Did I miss it? Can someone provide a link to the announcement w/specs?

2) What exactly is the MSRP on this thing?

3) How does this compare with the MF10? I understand the MF10 is a fraction of the cost - but the specs on the MF10 are very impressive to me. Is this 4k machine really worth the difference?

Thank you.

1) I think it is the MF801

2) MSRP Went up to $ 195,000.00 plus anamorphic lens

3) There is no comparison between this and the MF10. I saw the MF10 45 minutes before seeing this and it even doesn't belong in the conversation with the 4k.

Again, the 4k was as good a picture on a 14' wide screen as you could ever want. 16 ft.lbts.

4K makes no sense unless we have 4k sources or perhaps a humongus screen width with passengers on the trip sitting way too close.

If you are sitting at or near SMPTE minimum it makes sense.

Art

Well, you can always get this -

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/aquada-4.jpg

Or this:

http://www.foxnews.com/images/344659/1_21_021408_water_car1.jpg

Even though Norm and the gang are just around the corner, I haven't seen this latest wonder. None-the-less, I am intriqued to see what they've done.

From many of the posts, there can be a long list of issues associated with using higher resolution projection devices with lower resolution sources (I suspect we have an equally long list of issues getting 4k or higher media!). In any case, I have seen this done (in the public sector), taking a slightly different approach, with some very incredible results (of course we tax payors have deeper pockets than we "private citizens"). I believe Meridian's approach and a slightly different (not announced approach) is going to set us up for some really neat "stuff" over the next year.

It's not the same thing and it depends on resolution and viewing distance.

Please explain why it is you think it's not the same thing. What makes point samples at one resolution somehow fundamentally different from point samples at another resolution. And where is this imaginative line that you draw?

The viewing distance needed to avoid any problems with noise due to pixel structure for 2K are well within the normal range. I think that most viewers prefer to sit in a 1-1.5x width range for these images that have various compression artifacts, optical aberrations, convergence problems, dithering, etc. without even considering pixel structure.

That's a reasonable assertion, but that doesn't address what I've said. I repeatedly said that there is no benefit from upscaling if you are sitting so far away that you cannot see any noise introduced by a 1:1 pixel map. It is completely fair to say that in some circumstances, if you're at a small enough viewing angle, you can't see the high frequency detail in the content either way so there is no difference anyhow. The same thing applies to lower resolution sources, such as DVD. If you sit very far away from the screen, at some point there too the benefits of upscaling cease to be visible because you can't see that detail at all at that viewing distance.

So if you restrict the viewing range (and I would say that you can definitely see improvements at 1x, so I would make it farther than that), then yes you're right there is no benefit to be had because you're too far away to see the detail in the content at all. But some viewers may want to sit close to the scree, particularly with high definition content (whereas they may not want to sit that close with lower definition content because the detail is not there to support pleasurable viewing that close).

It would be useful to know what you are trying to achieve and why you think that scaling 2K to 4K gets you closer to that at more than very close viewing distances. What is the reference that you are trying to match? If it's not the source, what is it? Also, what do I look for to see (at 1x or more) the noise that you are concerned about in a 2K image?

The reference is the source. You achieve a more accurate reconstruction of the source by upscaling, assuming quality upscaling.

If you can discern the display structure ("display pixels"), then you are seeing noise that has been introduced in the reconstruction of the source. There are two solutions to this problem. One that you suggest, is simply moving far enough away from the image that you can no longer discern the noise (or the detail in the image). Another way is to reduce that noise by upscaling the content and displaying it on a higher resolution display. What this does is increase the frequency of that noise, such that at the same viewing distance as before it is no longer visible, or significanly less so. By shifting the noise up, essentially, source details are now more readily apparent and are more easily interpreted.

Again, you must divorce yourself of the assumption that a point sample in the source is a little rectangle. It most certainly is not. And that's where people get the mistaken idea that a 1:1 map from source to display with rectangular display elements is the best way to reconstruct an image. It isn't, and it's important that people not forget that.

I have not done this comparison, so you could be right. In any case, most of this is now done with a 2K DI and the answer print is produced with a CRT or laser film recorder. I think that this is negative and it is contact printed, but I am not sure.
With 2K DI the print has no chance anyway. With 4K and no DI the print can have some response beyond 2K but it's so little and the response below 2K which dominates the impression of sharpness is better on the DLP so the 2K DLP still wins.

1) I think it is the MF801

2) MSRP Went up to $ 195,000.00 plus anamorphic lens

3) There is no comparison between this and the MF10. I saw the MF10 45 minutes before seeing this and it even doesn't belong in the conversation with the 4k.

Again, the 4k was as good a picture on a 14' wide screen as you could ever want. 16 ft.lbts.

I must be real dense. I can find no link to any info on this PJ. The Meridian site only has info on their D-ILA1080MF1 1080p pj. I am interested in this PJ - can someone provide a link to official info on this?

never mind. find it. it MF810! http://www.cepro.com/article/meridian_m810_projector_processor_delivers_digital_nirvana/

I could not find any info on their site as well.
Here are some pictures of the Meridian though.
http://www.it.com.cn/f/projector/087/4/619102.htm

Alan,
Very nice link especially this at the bottom of the page !:D

http://lonelytime.it.com.cn/files/2008612171513.jpg

art

that is a nice bottom.

She would look so much better without all that high frequency noise. :D:D:D

Price is not the stated $ 175 k, nor the $ 185k, but it has headed North. I gather it is: $ 215,000.00 with lens and scaler. Based on limited production and high demand following demonstrations.

Should we go ahead and start an owners thread ?

Art

You first.

Let's call it mods and tweaking to improve the Meridian MF801.

I take it the AVS posse will be attempting to seriously demo and dissect this PJ, if possible, at CEDIA?

Im sure there will be private viewings.

Art;s bringing a blow torch and I am responsible for the sledge hammer.

All I need is my tongue.

Do make sure the bulb is cool first.

Peter. You dog. PLEASE DON"T TELL US WHERE YOUR TONGUE HAS BEEN. :)

Cindy
lauper...

That's scary. Really scary.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/customprofilepics/profilepic1813_6.gifhttp://img.timeinc.net/people/i/2006/startracks/060807/cyndi_lauper.jpg

You've been on vacation way too long.

http://gizmodo.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2008/07/m810.jpg

Well, the new Meridian 4k projector was just demoed in NYC at a private press event. It actually uses four DVI connections from its external scaler to feed a combination of four conventional JVC 2k panels and fed through an anamorphic lens to produce Scope images of 2.39:1 aspect ration and 4,096 x 2,400P resolution!

Now 4k is starting to heat up for home theaters. Quoted Price = $185.000 USD.

Anyone else see this recent demo?

Read more, here:

http://gizmodo.com/5030792/meridian-10mp-projector-displays-on-25+foot-screen-with-no-pixelation

There is also this other new review:

http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/meridian-810-reference-video-system.shtml

Article: http://www.twice.com/article/CA6582747.html?nid=2402

Well, the new Meridian 4k projector was just demoed in NYC at a private press event. It actually uses four DVI connections from its external scaler to feed a combination of four conventional JVC 2k panels...

Not four 2K panels (which would imply a total of twelve - four for each color). It uses three 1.27-inch LCoS (D-ILA) panels with an actual resolution of 4,096 x 2400. The projector is quite obviously "based" on JVC's DLA-SH4K (which Barco also sells as the LX-5). That's been previously noted in this thread but here are some additional links:

http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/20/jvc-victor-gets-official-with-4k-x-2k-dla-sh4k-projector/
http://www.barco.com/presentation/en/products/product.asp?GenNr=1904
http://www.barco.com/Presentation/en/pressreleases/show.asp?index=2025
http://pro.jvc.com/pro/pr/2007/infocomm/victor_release.html

In all likelyhood Meridian's projector _IS_ a DLA-SH4K/LX-5 with a different namebadge and perhaps some other custom details that won't in practise make any real difference. (I'm not counting that it apparently sells with a different lens and is calibrated by William Phelps.) Meridian makes it sound like they engineered the product themselves, including "removing the masks from the D-ILA panels" to get more resolution (which is not true). In reality JVC and/or Barco did all the engineering. Meridian may, however, deserve credit for their external scaling box, but I think it likely that here too someone else ("co-developer" Marvell) did the bulk of the actual design, if not all of it.

This kind of product "development" by high-end "manufacturers" goes way back. Does anyone recall Madrigal's MP-9 CRT projector?
http://www.ultimateavmag.com/videoprojectors/30/
It was quite obviously an Electrohome Marquee projector with wood (?!) side-panels. I listened to one of the company's sales droids at CES the year they introduced it claim they had worked with Electrohome for almost ten years on its design. I have it straight from an inside source that in reality Madrigal first contacted Electrohome about two years before the product was introduced and, ultimately, requested only a few minor custom changes, none of which made any apparent or even measurable affect on the image. The product sold for $60K while the original Electrohome version (9500DM) was $37K. That's the kind of snake oil many high end companies are selling.

Well, this review of the JVC DLA HD100 in Home Theater Magazine comments on the slight over-saturation of Red and Green primaries, but he finds that it makes for a great projected image, all the same.

http://www.hometheatermag.com/frontprojectors/408jvcdila/index.html

My experience was with a new unit, about a week ago, and it is certainly possible (since those other reviews were written at least 6 or more months ago) that my experience might be different. I found that their were sufficient controls available to properly adjust the XYZ (xvYCC) native color space down to HDTV's ITU. Rec 709 color space, eliminating the over-saturation issue.

Well, this review of the JVC DLA HD100 in Home Theater Magazine comments...Wrong thread?

In all likelyhood Meridian's projector _IS_ a DLA-SH4K/LX-5 with a different namebadge and perhaps some other custom details that won't in practise make any real difference. (I'm not counting that it apparently sells with a different lens and is calibrated by William Phelps.) Meridian makes it sound like they engineered the product themselves, including "removing the masks from the D-ILA panels" to get more resolution (which is not true). In reality JVC and/or Barco did all the engineering. Meridian may, however, deserve credit for their external scaling box, but I think it likely that here too someone else ("co-developer" Marvell) did the bulk of the actual design, if not all of it.



Have you ever seen the JVC HD4K? I have heard it is calibrated for simulation use and that the color and gamma are not right for home theater. Meridien on the other hand has gotten exclusive for home use with different firmware, primaries, as well as other changes that are proprietary to their product specifically for use in a home theater.

Have you ever seen the JVC HD4K? I have heard it is calibrated for simulation use and that the color and gamma are not right for home theater. Meridien on the other hand has gotten exclusive for home use with different firmware, primaries, as well as other changes that are proprietary to their product specifically for use in a home theater.I haven't seen it (otherwise I would have said so) nor have I seen the Meridian version. You could well be right that the differences exclusive to Meridian make their version better suited for HT. But at this point I don't think anyone can say for certain that the base JVC product cannot be set up to also be suitable (with the exception of the lens throw ratio, which is more of an installation issue). I don't know how the product has been designed (I don't work for JVC or Barco) but most high end projectors have adjustable gamma and most can be calibrated to 709 primaries, to name just the two aspects you mentioned specifically.

There is also this other new review:

http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/meridian-810-reference-video-system.shtml
That ranks up there with some of the most ridiculous demos I've ever heard of:
So how did it look? Well the demo was marred by a less than ideal screen that they apparently had rented, and which showed up with more folds than an origami chicken. The masking frame was jagged and uneven, there were visible creases every foot or so, and the optical characteristics of the screen itself were less than ideal. But even still, the 1080i and 1080p demo segments they displayed did look promising...
Using this technique, the local Ferrari dealer should give test drives in the sand dunes.

Have you ever seen the JVC HD4K? I have heard it is calibrated for simulation use and that the color and gamma are not right for home theater. Meridien on the other hand has gotten exclusive for home use with different firmware, primaries, as well as other changes that are proprietary to their product specifically for use in a home theater.

The Trident 4k was shown at DCI spec. It is possible Meridian has an exclusive on rec709.

I have the feeling that Meridian will come loaded for bear at the CEDIA demo.

Art

The Trident 4k was shown at DCI spec. It is possible Meridian has an exclusive on rec709.You could be right but that would be (IMHO) just plain silly of JVC.

That ranks up there with some of the most ridiculous demos I've ever heard of:I see they repeat the nonsense about JVC masking the chip that also appeared in the TWICE article, reported there to have been stated by Meridian's technology director. Do the guy's who report this stuff even bother to check facts before they repeat something? JVC does not "mask" the chip in the original product.

I have the feeling that Meridian will come loaded for bear at the CEDIA demo.

ArtOne which will attend Loaded from Beer... :D

The Trident 4k was shown at DCI spec. It is possible Meridian has an exclusive on rec709.

Have a look at my quick review of the Meridian 810 Reference Video System - the very first Home Theater 10K Video Projection System commercially available, which I was lucky enough to view closely for a few hours, recently:

http://www.hemagazine.com/files/810.jpg

http://www.hometheaterreview.com/front_projector_reviews/meridian_810_dila.html

Quite a Rave. Let's see next week.;)

Thanks

Quite a Rave. Let's see next week.;)

Thanks

It's expensive, but it's quiet, sharp, and the scaler really fills in where the source is missing. A very compelling combination - and a great use of this technology. If you have the money . . . you owe it to yourself to consider it!


http://www.hometheaterreview.com/front_projector_reviews/meridian_810_dila.html


Thank you, Bob Stuart and Meridian for getting it . . . RIGHT! :p

Jeremy, 36 bits video processing scaling, I know you like hyperbole as much as Cineramax, but come on...

It isn't the first projector that comes with a seperate scaler/processor. It isn't the first split-pack electronics/projection head projector either (this dates back to CRTs).

So, simulation clients will let JVC limit them to unusual ratio's and limited resolution, because of TV formats...

Can't remember the data on any JVC spec sheets, but the Barco isn't limited either.

4 days, that must be without your camera set-up...

Jeremy, 36 bits video processing scaling, I know you like hyperbole as much as Cineramax, but come on...

It isn't the first projector that comes with a separate scaler/processor. It isn't the first split-pack electronics/projection head projector either (this dates back to CRTs).

So, simulation clients will let JVC limit them to unusual ratio's and limited resolution, because of TV formats...

Can't remember the data on any JVC spec sheets, but the Barco isn't limited either.

4 days, that must be without your camera set-up...

Donald,

The 36-bits of processing comes from Bob Stewart's high minded standards and his choice to use the external Qdeo based scaler from Marvell, in particular. I appreciate the need for that kind of math in real time to create a cutting edge 4k image with the included ISCO Anamorphic Lens.

http://www.trendygadget.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/meridian-810-2.jpg

From the Meridian 810 Reference Video System Literature:

"At the core of the Marvell(R) 88DE2710 digital video format converter, Qdeo delivers rich, high-definition video quality through a suite of advanced technologies, providing quiet and natural video, free of noise and artifacts. The 36-bit per-pixel noise and compression artifact reduction removes noise typically inherent in digital video. Per-pixel motion-adaptive 3-D de-interlacing removes jaggies and eliminates feathering. Adaptive Contrast Enhancement (ACE) and Intelligent Color Remapping (ICR) render rich and vivid images. The unique adaptivity of award-winning Qdeo processing allows it to serve a very broad range of applications spanning from low-resolution internet video to pristine 4K x 2K."

This is the first near 10k projector, and it is the first 4k width unit to feature an external scaler.

Finally, it takes the factory four days to do the alignment and calibration of the 4 - 2K panels that make up each 9.9 MegaPixel DILA panel (x 3 colors) to their particular satisfaction. I'll get back to you about how long it takes me :)

Plese see my review, again, for further details:

http://www.hometheaterreview.com/front_projector_reviews/meridian_810_dila.html

Review mentioned on site calibration.

36 bit is cheap marketing speak only fitting for cheap desktop scanners, not a quality review by the custom HT king (just watching West Coast Customs on Discovery;-)). It is 3 x 12 Bit. 12 bit is good, no need to cheapen it.

I am somewhat allergic for the release hyperbole and marketing speak you just quoted above, the only time I would use it is when I would need to hide there really isn't much to to tell, otherwise I edit it down to its essence.

Okay, will read your revised (?) review.

Quite a Rave. Let's see next week.;)

Thanks

Yes ,lets ! Peter, I can only attend Thursday,will you be there then ?



Art

36 bit is cheap marketing speak only fitting for cheap desktop scanners, not a quality review by the custom HT king (just watching West Coast Customs on Discovery;-)). It is 3 x 12 Bit. 12 bit is good, no need to cheapen it.

To clarify:

In 2006, the then new HDMI 1.3 specification received an overall speed boost over 1.2 to better handle future HD content with "deep color." This was to (and will) be used to support 1080p @ 60 Hz with 36-bit RGB color, or even 1080p @ 96 Hz. The old HDMI 1.2 spec "only" supported up to 24-bit RGB (8 bits x 3 colors) which is still truly amazing to see. but 1.3 allows for 30, 36, and even 48-bit color depth. Most of the time when 36-bit color has been utilized, it was for GUI overlays in broadcast systems. This allowed for the image underneath not to be modified when the overlay was present. But this also allows for over 1 billion possible colors. The PS3 can take advantage of this and future games and the newest displays today (2008) will surely take advantage of it.

HDMI 1.3 'Deep Color' Specifications - compliments of Nordic Hardware (2006)

The HDMI technology (High-Definition Multimedia Interface) is about to enter the PC market after becoming fairly common with home electronics. But if one might think it would be easy just to wait for the first HDMI-capable graphics cards for your PC it seems that has now been made a lot more complicated. HDMI LLC, the group behind the standard, has now announced that it has upgraded the specifications for HDMI and the HDMI 1.3 specification is considerably more future-proof than today's version. It has namely increased the frequency of the interface to 225MHz, from today's 165MHz, and this increase in bandwidth makes it possible to handle a 1080p resolution at 96 Hz with 36-bit RGB color depth.

The color depth is something that has been tuned with the HDMI 1.3 specification by adding support for the Deep Color technology. Deep Color makes is possible to use 30-, 36- and 48-bit RGB color depths, which is big step up from today's monitors which often use 24-bit RGB, up to 16.7 million colors. This will result in considerably better color reproduction as the human eye can even distinguish between higher color depths than 36- to 48-bit RGB.

Alpha channel is 32 bit. it is an 8 bit transparency overlay on 24 bit colour.

Alpha channel is 32 bit. it is an 8 bit transparency overlay on 24 bit colour.

WOW!!!

I almost am confused! Could you please detail that very specific 8 on 24 bit system?

Is that really 24-bit overlaid on-top of 8 bit video?

Yes ,lets ! Peter, I can only attend Thursday,will you be there then ?



Art

Yes.

Youve got my cell number.

Yes ,lets ! Peter, I can only attend Thursday,will you be there then ?



Art

Art,

Are you coming in to CEDIA? Dinner Thursday?

Art,

Are you coming in to CEDIA? Dinner Thursday?

If you have a spot left,where will it be ?

Art

Yes.

Youve got my cell number.


Yes, got it.:)

Art

If you have a spot left,where will it be ?

Art

I'll put you down for dinner..

I'll put you down for dinner..

Jeff,

What a great article Rachel wrote about you and your system in EH. Congratulations, and good luck in your search for the newest 4K projector. I'd love to see more pictures :p

WOW!!!

I almost am confused! Could you please detail that very specific 8 on 24 bit system?

Is that really 24-bit overlaid on-top of 8 bit video?

ok, while my quickly typed verbiage was incorrect, my point was that for broadcast, an 8 bit transparency channel (or alpha channel) is added over the 24 bit colour to give you 32 bit.

And not
Most of the time when 36-bit color has been utilized, it was for GUI overlays in broadcast systems. This allowed for the image underneath not to be modified when the overlay was present. But this also allows for over 1 billion possible colors.

Agreed!

To clarify:

In 2006, the then new HDMI 1.3 specification received an overall speed boost over 1.2 to better handle future HD content with "deep color." This was to (and will) be used to support 1080p @ 60 Hz with 36-bit RGB color, or even 1080p @ 96 Hz. The old HDMI 1.2 spec "only" supported up to 24-bit RGB (8 bits x 3 colors) which is still truly amazing to see. but 1.3 allows for 30, 36, and even 48-bit color depth. Most of the time when 36-bit color has been utilized, it was for GUI overlays in broadcast systems. This allowed for the image underneath not to be modified when the overlay was present. But this also allows for over 1 billion possible colors. The PS3 can take advantage of this and future games and the newest displays today (2008) will surely take advantage of it.

HDMI 1.3 'Deep Color' Specifications - compliments of Nordic Hardware (2006)

The HDMI technology (High-Definition Multimedia Interface) is about to enter the PC market after becoming fairly common with home electronics. But if one might think it would be easy just to wait for the first HDMI-capable graphics cards for your PC it seems that has now been made a lot more complicated. HDMI LLC, the group behind the standard, has now announced that it has upgraded the specifications for HDMI and the HDMI 1.3 specification is considerably more future-proof than today's version. It has namely increased the frequency of the interface to 225MHz, from today's 165MHz, and this increase in bandwidth makes it possible to handle a 1080p resolution at 96 Hz with 36-bit RGB color depth.

The color depth is something that has been tuned with the HDMI 1.3 specification by adding support for the Deep Color technology. Deep Color makes is possible to use 30-, 36- and 48-bit RGB color depths, which is big step up from today's monitors which often use 24-bit RGB, up to 16.7 million colors. This will result in considerably better color reproduction as the human eye can even distinguish between higher color depths than 36- to 48-bit RGB.

To further clarify, HDMI prior to 1.3 supports these greater color depths for 4:2:2 and 4:2:0 component, depending on implementation. The limitation to 8-bit was/is for RGB and 4:4:4 only.

Does anyone on the AVS FORUMS own this projector? A home theater store about 15 minutes from my house has one on DEMO! I believe there the only one in the Bay Area to have one on demo.. I really want to see it in action but Im not sure if they will waste there time showing me a demo since the projector is way beyond my budget..! From what I've been old and read about this projector seems to be nothin less the PERFECT!

Does anyone on the AVS FORUMS own this projector? A home theater store about 15 minutes from my house has one on DEMO! I believe there the only one in the Bay Area to have one on demo.. I really want to see it in action but Im not sure if they will waste there time showing me a demo since the projector is way beyond my budget..! From what I've been old and read about this projector seems to be nothin less the PERFECT!

I have auditioned it twice, and rejected it outright.

It is very far from perfect, or anything close, as has been reported here a number of times.

The demo isn't going to cost you anything. So go look at it and tell us what you think.

The demo isn't going to cost you anything. So go look at it and tell us what you think.

Dennis, I agree 100%. Thanks for adding balance to my post.

I would love to read more opinion on this.

There is another location in the Bay Area where you might be able to see this projector - my lab.

William

There is another location in the Bay Area where you might be able to see this projector - my lab.

William

WM where are you located? I would love to see this PJ in action..

Poppycock. This ignores everything we've ever experienced when it comes to electronics. I'll bet money we see the <$10K 4K consumer machines announced by end of 2010, but probably sooner. It wasn't that long ago people were saying we'd NEVER see an affordable 1080p DLP. CE analysts said there'd NEVER be an HDTV below $1000, nearly 20 years ago, back when $1000 was a ridiculous amount of money for a TV. There were plenty of people that said we'd never get past a few GB for hard drives, nor anywhere close to current computer speeds. It's not if they'll be sub $10K, it's when. In 5-6 years, they'll be in the $3K-$5K range or less.

Alimentall

Youare stating the obvious.. If one waits long enough one will certainly buy a PC more powerful than today's best for $10 dollars..

William:

Nice to hear from you, hope all is well.....

WM where are you located? I would love to see this PJ in action..

Mountain View. Every 810 sold in the US goes thru here for Optimization (they call it "Optimisation"). One is shipping out today, should have another in about a week. Send an email. wm (at) usa (dot) net.

You should not have any problem seeing it at AH though. They have a larger screen and the 2.35 setup. My screen is 96x54, way too small for this projector!

Hi, Lon!

William

Thanks William.. I'll go back and talk to Mike and see if he'll demo it for me. I just didn't know if he would want to waste his time showing me a demo since its beyond my budget. But I have to go back there to demo some Usher speakers so hopefully he's not to busy to give me a nice demo.

I have auditioned it twice, and rejected it outright.

It is very far from perfect, or anything close, as has been reported here a number of times.

Care to share exactly what you mean? Thanks.

Is there any screen shots of this PJ on these forums?

I tried to take some but I only have a 3 megapixel Kodak and the resolution from the PJ was so high it overloaded and blew up the camera.

Care to share exactly what you mean? Thanks.

I can't find the posts but as I recall the uniformity,panel alignment and contrast were all less than stellar.

Art

I can't find the posts but as I recall the uniformity,panel alignment and contrast were all less than stellar.

Art

I would assume that the full WM P treatment would correct any of these issues.

All Merdian 4K's are optimized by Wm

All Merdian 4K's are optimized by Wm
Then I would assume that the one(s) seen by coldmachine were anomolies. It would be inexcusable for a projector in this price range to have less than perfect alignment/uniformity/grayscale tracking.

Then I would assume that the one(s) seen by coldmachine were anomolies. It would be inexcusable for a projector in this price range to have less than perfect alignment/uniformity/grayscale tracking.


Maybe wm can/will comment?


Jim

Can you please tell me where do you really order those kind of products?! do you buy them anywhere online?! http://www.***************/stubby/097e26b2ffb0339458b55da17425a71f.gif

Can you please tell me where do you really order those kind of products?! do you buy them anywhere online?! http://www.***************/stubby/097e26b2ffb0339458b55da17425a71f.gif

I bought mine at Crazy Eddie's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc-Mhynh_pg).

I bought mine at Crazy Eddie's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc-Mhynh_pg).


I hope you didn't pay retail.:D


Jim

i bought mine at crazy eddie's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc-mhynh_pg).

lol..