after more than a year delay i have the unit at my cinema
since last friday.

you see the dealer is very happy that we have no "accident".

http://gallery.avsforum.com/data/509/101_0082.jpg


i was surprised how easy it was to bring this huge monster down to the theater.
its about 125 kg with the lens so almost 3 times the qualia and its much bigger see the pictures.

one problem the unit have is the limit inputs.
you can feed 4 k at the moment only by order 4 hd sdi input cards and a computer that handle the this inputs.
than i need (because all consumer source is dvi or hdmi)4 converter dvi to hd sdi and there is no legal
way to send material with hdcp to the pr.
sony is working on a dvi input card but seams with no hdcp and you also need 4 inputs then.
you only do not need the 4 converter and you can safe may $20000 for the converters.

i decide to use in the first steep the unit only at 1920x1080 feed by the new vigatec scaler s1 output it as a
dvi signal to a folsom image pro hd converter to get hd sdi.
very sad i only can playback material that was not copy protect but i have a lot of very very good material in hd.
4k material will be anyway not out for consumers anytime soon.

i used a prototype from the first pace stb in europe with mpeg 4 hd 1920x1080 50i and d theater and i also
have a hd cam from sony with almost uncompressed hd reference material at 24p 25p with a direct hd sdi out to the
4k pr.

in theory when the 4k pr.scale a 1920x1080 picture to 3840x2160 in a good quality i expect (like if you scale up dvd from 480i to 1920x1080i) a picture improvement.

sad this was almost not the case.i cant see a big improvement may i very little one.

i thought that the unit is not good in cr. but surprised it was very good.
i measured about 2000:1 cr. an this with full light with one lamp.
it looks very good better than my qualia that i run with no iris in high lamp mode at about 1250:1.

the gamma trick that sony do with all there high end units since the qualia is out helps a lot to rate the cr. much better than the
measurement is.

because my power supply is not strong enough i use just one from two 2000 w xenon lamps and i get at 4 hours lamp runnig time 6000 ansi
lumens.
runnig 2 lamps should offer 12000 ansi when the lamp is new and thats about 20% more than the sony spec.

so you can get high light out with high cr. at the same time.
remember the qualia offers at iris 2 at 2000:1 only about 600 lumens so the 4k is about 20 times brighter and
the smaller unit about 10 times.

convergence is not good.
there is the complete red shift 2 pixels down over the complete screen see the pictures.
i dont know but it should be possible to adjust it because what sony need to do is just move the red panel up 2 pixels
and that safe most convergence bugs.
as bad as it sounds and look in the picture it was surprising almost not visible!
i can live with 2 pixels of when the unit is ok in the center and at the corners you have 2 pixels but not with the bug in the center of the screen.
remember if the 4k have 2 pixel of that the same as a 2k pr. have 1 pixel of.
btw:sony spec. is 2 pixel but as i sad i cant live with it if the center is also 2 pixels of.

mr. schmitt and mr.lange from www.cine4home was also there to measure the unit.
they found that the color is very good factory calibrated to d 65.(you will see in the next few days a longer report about the test at his page)

so make it not to long i have to say that with good 2k material the unit offer the best picture i ever saw.
very bright very good cr. very good colors almost no shading no bright corners no halos no false countur bug no dittering........

the negative sides are the convergenzproblems and the inputs without hdcp and that you always need 4
input boards to feed true 4k content.
the unit need a separate room because is much to big and much to noisy to keep it at the same room.

i can simulate how good a true 4k image will look by selecting the 4 screen mode.
see the picture.
i use the robbie williams concert clip "let me entertain you" from hd cam and that material blow us away.
on a big screen you will see very easy the 2k to 4k difference and this makes it clear for me the future is 8 mil. pixel not 2 mil.pixel.
from the 1.5 times the screen wide we are sitting the 8 mil. pixels are above the human eye resolution.
beside jvc i see no competitor in the next time with a 4k pr.

if sony can fix the convergence and offer a dvi input card with hdcp (with at least 1920x1080)i may consider a purchase the
smaller 105 unit with 5000 ansi.

more pictures will be add soon.

so make it not to long i have to say that with good 2k material the unit offer the best picture i ever saw.
very bright very good cr. very good colors almost no shading no brigt corners no halos no false countur bug no dittering........
.
No depth with dark material, only haze... 2000:1 projectors are so passé. If you watch sports on a big screen, great, if you watch feature films on a normal home cinema screen there are far more suitable (not to mention cost effective) projectors around.

Wolfgang,
I admire your zest ! :) I also see you are amassing quite an inventory of projectors. :eek: I wonder if a custom iris could be installed for a relatively small amount and use those giant lumen numbers. If you could stop down the big unit throwing away three quaters of the light you might be able to double the on off CR and still have way more light than you need even for your supreme screen size. Anyway, best of luck in your quest ,you have me drooling ! :)

Art

W.Mayer
Good to hear that 4k is the future. I think it is sad if too much money is committed to just 2k.

Did you talk to "Sony"/somebody about how they plan to minimize misconvergence? They could offer both pixel shifting and a mechnical alignment option. I know dlp offers physical alignment. What scenario can we expect here from Sony? Truly they must be shooting for very good alignment to make most use out of 4k.

here are some more pictures

close up from the convergence in the middle of the screen 2 pixels out.

http://gallery.avsforum.com/data/509/101_0087.jpg

with the quad mode 4 identical pictures are displayed at there full
1920x1080 resolution.
that give us a feeling how real 4k material can look like.
it was shocking good!!!


http://gallery.avsforum.com/data/509/IMG_0019.jpg

mr. lange from cine4home on the right side and me.

http://gallery.avsforum.com/data/509/101_0113.jpg

Thanks Wolfgang, how is shading on the unit compared to the Qualia/Ruby?

Wolfgang.

your next purchase should be

http://www.red.com/redcamera.html

4k baby!

http://www.red.com/format.html


Nab 2006
booth SU1401

art
from what i know you need about 50% light to trade of for a better cr.
and i think if someone can add a iris after the lamp like the qualia have
it that can boost the cr. to 3500:1.
di will be the best but not in this pr. for professional use only.

we have to wait for a qualia replacement.
let see may this upcoming unit will have not the 8 mil. pixels but likely more than 2 mil. and it may combines this with the di and more light out.

ohlson
i am sure sony will get pressure to fix it but i think its not easy as some believe otherwise
the bug should be not there.

peter
the unit i had have almost no visible shading.
it was as good as one of my qualias or a little bit better.

tryg
nice link.
i am sure that we will see more products in 4k at next nab and after.

let me point this out one more time.
the distance between 1920x1080 24p or 25p material even if its in the best from almost uncompressed hd cam compare to the 4k simulation that i did was so big and huge
that it will be hard for me to wait till i can get such content.

companys that say there is not a big difference in 2 mil pixels compare to 8 mil. pixels
are either lies or they may know it not better what i not believe .
it was a huge difference even on the screen size we did this comparison 5,4m.

the trues is that sony is ready with some always in the beginning of a new technology
occurring problems other are not.

Folks, let's forget (and even forgive) that besides the obvious eye-candy high-resolution, the SRX-R110 has ridiculous image depth, no blacks of any kind, real-world contrast figures below current by-at-Costco sub-$799 LCD PJs and uniformity problems of all sorts and flavors. Yes, let's "close our eyes" to all of this. Now let's get real here:

I'm yet to personally see one, just O N E SRX-R110, or anyone reviewing one for the matter, that even has proper SXRD panel convergence! I mean, for crying out loud, so much hoop-la, development and whatever else and they cannot still put together a single unit that arrives at the end user with proper quality control? Give me a break. Sony might surely be interesting and even pioneering at times at research and technological innovation, but as a manufcaturer (at all levels) it is a supreme joke. Absolutely ridiculous.

let me point this out one more time.
the distance between 1920x1080 24p or 25p material even if its in the best from almost uncompressed hd cam compare to the 4k simulation that i did was so big and huge
that it will be hard for me to wait till i can get such content.


Although this is true for 4K content, if I read your report correctly, 2K content scaled to 4K offers relatively minor or no benefit. This makes sense. There is an aliasing benefit, but the softening and artifacts that come from any scaling are offsetting problems. Also, the analogy of converting 480i SD to deinterlaced higher resolution format does not fully apply. 480 lines (pixels) is so coarse that line and pixel structure are highly visible. Also, there are interlace artifacts. Once you are at 2K and it’s progressive, these problems are already gone.

Actual 4K content is something else, but it’s going to be a very long time before we see it in any consumer form.

I seriously doubt that there is going to be a Qualia replacement. I just can’t see this type of low volume product given Sony’s problems and reorganization. I can’t see the 4K SRX types continuing either. TI has already won the digital cinema war. Sony’s future is in the high volume product lines, especially rear projection.

Folks, let's forget (and even forgive) that besides the obvious eye-candy high-resolution, the SRX-R110 has ridiculous image depth, no blacks of any kind, real-world contrast figures below current by-at-Costco sub-$799 LCD PJs and uniformity problems of all sorts and flavors. Yes, let's "close our eyes" to all of this. Now let's get real here:

I'm yet to personally see one, just O N E SRX-R110, or anyone reviewing one for the matter, that even has proper SXRD panel convergence! I mean, for crying out loud, so much hoop-la, development and whatever else and they cannot still put together a single unit that arrives at the end user with proper quality control? Give me a break. Sony might surely be interesting and even pioneering at times at research and technological innovation, but as a manufcaturer (at all levels) it is a supreme joke. Absolutely ridiculous.

Whatever, as the kids say. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Besides Sony there is a heck of a lot of nothing going on in front projection.I have two of their G90s and they have needed nothing but gas and oil.

Art

...I have two of their G90s and they have needed nothing but gas and oil.
Yes Art I agree... buth those were the days of Sony manufacturing "quality"... those days have been long gone... and that is why you still haven't upgraded to anything better. Go buy any, I mean any Sony AV product and you'll be crying back for your G90s for a long time to come. I care less about techology innovations than I do for polishing and troubleshooting existing ones. Then again, I only drive classic cars also... the day my 1936 Auburn Boattail Speedster or 1942 Packard have a "replacement" at least for their design, I'll jump on it and sell all my car collection. Maybe Sony will be better at making a car, who knows...

I will root for Sony as long as no other company goes after 4k. Having 2k as a long term digital de factor standard would be rediculous with 2k soon in the homes of a lot of people. In addition add simultaneous release and 1080p downloads, who need the cinema? It has to be 4k and Sony has to fix convergence. By the sound of this unit it was uniformly off. That must be better than off in all kind of ways.

Whatever, as the kids say. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Besides Sony there is a heck of a lot of nothing going on in front projection.I have two of their G90s and they have needed nothing but gas and oil.

Art

Oh yes there is! There is the Digital Projection HD10k with 2.35 /1.77 AR zoom focus memory, it has hdcp input card, one was already hand built. You can modify the Iris to obtain 3:300 >1 , and it with some lenses it will focus on a Torus screen with a radius of 93% of TD.

Thats IS THE G-90 terminator.

I will root for Sony as long as no other company goes after 4k. Having 2k as a long term digital de factor standard would be rediculous with 2k soon in the homes of a lot of people. In addition add simultaneous release and 1080p downloads, who need the cinema? It has to be 4k and Sony has to fix convergence. By the sound of this unit it was uniformly off. That must be better than off in all kind of ways.

TI will have 4K, but not yet and probably not for about five years. 2K resolution is simply not an issue for digital cinema at present. The remaining roadblocks for wide adoption have nothing to do with resolution and they are being solved. The logjam seems to have been already broken and the current install rate of 2K DLP units is about 100/month (this is a guess). We will probably see 48p before 4K resolution, and this is considered by many an equally important technical advance.

odyssey
I was sad to see 4k@48p was not suggested. I think both the 2k and the 24p barrier will be slow to break down. With your time frame for TI 4k Sony is not in a hurry. The coming standard for the software side of it should be most important as you say. Then Sony can compete at the 4k level. They should get to established 4k sooner than TI.

W.Mayer
Any indication if Sony is going to a single or a dual input standard in the future that can handle 4k?

Oh yes there is! There is the Digital Projection HD10k with 2.35 /1.77 AR zoom focus memory, it has hdcp input card, one was already hand built. You can modify the Iris to obtain 3:300 >1 , and it with some lenses it will focus on a Torus screen with a radius of 93% of TD.

Thats IS THE G-90 terminator.


OK ,so I trade a maybe if you're lucky 3300:1 device for a 40,000:1 device. What's in it for me ? :rolleyes: Why in the hell do you need a torus for a bulb based projector,where's the beef ? :o

But of course, last years 720p DP unit was your G90 killer. All I can say is you must either be in bed with DP or on something or both.

Art

Alright Art, neglecting CINERAMAX's excessive enthusiasm, what would actually make you dump your G90s in the trash? :D
10,000:1? I mean, real panel CR, not the DI trickery... Additional DI CR improvement is welcome of course...

Other than that, everything else should be superior to your G90s.
According to wm a well calibrated G90 doesn't have a better CR than 10,000:1 (8,300:1?).

Would that be a trigger puller for you Art?

Alright Art, neglecting CINERAMAX's excessive enthusiasm, what would actually make you dump your G90s in the trash? :D
10,000:1? I mean, real panel CR, not the DI trickery... Additional DI CR improvement is welcome of course...

Other than that, everything else should be superior to your G90s.
According to wm a well calibrated G90 doesn't have a better CR than 10,000:1 (8,300:1?).

Would that be a trigger puller for you Art?

Personally, I disagree with wm on that one. At least my system which has been superbly calibrated and without losing shadow detail is estimated to have around that number by Darin.

Anyway, if it had 10,000:1 I think that could get me close but I'd like to see it. If I could get a device that looked as good as the TI demo with that I'd probably be happy but if Peter needs a toroidal screen then something is wrong with the projector IMO.

Real calibrated 10,000:1 CR, about 1000 lumens and not just out of the box but a month later assuming other crap doesn't rear it's head as it has with the Ruby that should do it.

Here is the bottom line when I see something that is better and can light up my screen I'll buy it. I don't want this to sound smug but moving backward just to have the latest isn't what will be the key for me.

Honestly ,I had really thought I would have found the digital for me a year ago.

Art

I don't want this to sound smug but moving backward just to have the latest isn't what will be the key for me.

Honestly ,I had really thought I would have found the digital for me a year ago.

Art

Absolutely, doing anything like that would be foolish at best.
The Qualia didn't fit your bill, eh?

Absolutely, doing anything like that would be foolish at best.
The Qualia didn't fit your bill, eh?

The light output is just a little short of what I need and 1950:1 CR in high CR mode is not even close.

Art

Oh yes there is! There is the Digital Projection HD10k with 2.35 /1.77 AR zoom focus memory, it has hdcp input card, one was already hand built. You can modify the Iris to obtain 3:300 >1 , and it with some lenses it will focus on a Torus screen with a radius of 93% of TD.

Thats IS THE G-90 terminator.

No < 10000:1 CR projector is a CRT terminator for people who prefer CRT for its black level and contrast range. For all other aspects you can have equal or better from digital projectors now. Digital CRT terminators start at 30000:1 and higher and are in the future.

Although this is true for 4K content, if I read your report correctly, 2K content scaled to 4K offers relatively minor or no benefit. This makes sense.

Yes, a lot of sense. SXRD has practically no SED so whether you look at 2K or 4K it looks smooth and analogue with a smooth looking source. If you have super sharp 2K (which you don't from consumer sources) 4K can make it look smoother, but with normal HD it ain't going to happen. With 4K sources that have 4K detail (requires 70mm sources or > 2K digital cameras) the 4K chips deliver a significant improvement to the 2K picture. But no such sources in sight for at home. So why bother with a very expensive Sony 4K projector? If you need the lumens, well, you have not much choice if you dislike DLP.
A 4K projector becomes attractive to me once we have less bright versions with Ruby technology and beyond so there is decent contrast and superior resolution.

mhafner
I think the bulb has to be ditched to take the next step with sxrd. We see that leds are coming with several rptvs and rumors are that some company will try lasers instead of leds. Even so this will only give you black but not the contrast you desire. The pressure to innovate is harder in the rptv market.

I think many would be very happy if there were to be a Ruby on steroids. That is more lumen, lens options and a better manfacturing process. With a prosumer device I think 2 million pixels are enough with the sources that will be available.

No < 10000:1 CR projector is a CRT terminator for people who prefer CRT for its black level and contrast range. For all other aspects you can have equal or better from digital projectors now. Digital CRT terminators start at 30000:1 and higher and are in the future.

CRT's are totally unlinear. Once conditioned to xenon three chip dlp the colorimetry of these "Calibrated " G-90's and company is laughable. Thense conditioned, you are sensitive to the fact color of analog is totally unlinear depending on program ansi contrast.

NO WONDER YOU LIKE WATCHING DARK MATERIAL, it keeps your colors linear, but what a price to pay.

50 years from now Art Sonneborn is going to be remembered as the person responsible for holding out against the superior color projection format of 3 chip dlp.

ON:OFF contrast ratio is not the holy grail of projection once you cross the 3:000 threshold. extreme ANSI contrast is what protrays true dynamic impact on a video image.

Fortuitously this pathetic obsession to 50 year old technology shall soon come to pass. I will have a laugh when Art and Swiss Mike change their bragging mantras from crt to dlp.

Art: To the regular crt projection nonlinearity problems you must add the compounding effect of double stacking where you conciously are overlaying an image ditortion, perfect convergence is an impossibility. My supercalibrated g-90 and torus combo is a far more elegant solution to your dilema. Why have two projectors blooming when you can have one not blooming yielding 18ftlbs on an 11 foot wide.

Why would you use a digital projector on a TORUS? Because optical screens are always better than non optical screens. The TORUS is the first Optical front projection screen, the second is THE SUPERNOVA, at this point a very promising technology for future cave cinemas.

An optical screen's job is to collect the light produced by the projector and refocus it on the audience area. This eliminates kick back light much like a rear projection does. The benefit to the user is richer more lifelike colors , enhanced immediacy and apparent resolution, and lastly for you ON:OFF superfreaks, it lowers your on screen floor level.

If I could get a device that looked as good as the TI demo with that I'd probably be happy
Art

Peter may be right then, since this device was rumored to only have 1,800:1 CR.
Interesting...

CRT's are totally unlinear. Once conditioned to xenon three chip dlp the colorimetry of these "Calibrated " G-90's and company is laughable. Thense conditioned, you are sensitive to the fact color of analog is totally unlinear depending on program ansi contrast.


I'd be the first to admit that three chip DLP has the best color reproduction available in any technology used in front projection this isn't news and hasn't been for a very very long time.




50 years from now Art Sonneborn is going to be remembered as the person responsible for holding out against the superior color projection format of 3 chip dlp.



And he enjoyed the cleanest ,highest contrast ,deepest images avaliable in front projection in his theater with great color.Instead of substandard contrast and blacks, rampant dithering artifacts, and noise.


ON:OFF contrast ratio is not the holy grail of projection once you cross the 3:000 threshold. extreme ANSI contrast is what protrays true dynamic impact on a video image.



Dead wrong ! Anyone who cares about image quality knows that 3000:1 is joke. From this alone I wonder about your eye for excellence.

Every digital projection manufacturer is killing themselves to reach numbers and the incredible look associated with CRT CR numbers. This sure isn't because 3,000:1 is already good enough and they have nothing better to do with their time and money. If you had said perhaps 10,000:1 I'd give you credit but instead you simply regurgitate the CR numbers of whatever projector you like at the time.

Fortuitously this pathetic obsession to 50 year old technology shall soon come to pass. I will have a laugh when Art and Swiss Mike change their bragging mantras from crt to dlp.

.

I'd hoped so myself but it ain't here yet and you really know it but can't accept that despite the best efforts, it is taking way longer to get there than it was expected to or should have. This is like Nixon's war on cancer,the hope was there ,the goal was there, the dreams were there, the tools weren't.

I will also say that of the contenders to get me to take my G90s down DLP is in the lead.If it weren't for noise,dithering,and relatively poor on off CR in average to low APL I'd have one now.



Art: To the regular crt projection nonlinearity problems you must add the compounding effect of double stacking where you conciously are overlaying an image ditortion, perfect convergence is an impossibility. My supercalibrated g-90 and torus combo is a far more elegant solution to your dilema. Why have two projectors blooming when you can have one not blooming yielding 18ftlbs on an 11 foot wide.

.

I'd bet you one of my testicles that I have better color registration with less fringing and better overall overlay of my CRTs right now than a three chip DLP has. My CRTs are calibrated to 5 to 6 fL per G90 these are far far from blooming by design. Toroidal screens are ugly and ruin the possibility of getting the best audio performance, not to mention any hope of getting a great clean looking room.


An optical screen's job is to collect the light produced by the projector and refocus it on the audience area. This eliminates kick back light much like a rear projection does. The benefit to the user is richer more lifelike colors , enhanced immediacy and apparent resolution, and lastly for you ON:OFF superfreaks, it lowers your on screen floor level.

And they have the same acoustical issues as the toroidal screen unless you like to just sit all of you gear around the room as some do but not me.



Art

Dead wrong ! Anyone who cares about image quality knows that 3000:1 is joke.

Art, seriously, this puts you in a vanishingly small minority of “experts.” The vast majority of experienced viewers, including myself, consider 3000:1 sequential CR as a high level of performance. We would all gladly have more, but not at the expense of light output, colorimetry, artifacts, etc. Also, you may be surprised to know that the S/N ratio of the G90 is probably worse than that of the best 3 chip DLP. This is relevant to your comment about a clean image and dithering artifacts.

Art, seriously, this puts you in a vanishingly small minority of “experts.” The vast majority of experienced viewers, including myself, consider 3000:1 sequential CR as a high level of performance. We would all gladly have more, but not at the expense of light output, colorimetry, artifacts, etc. Also, you may be surprised to know that the S/N ratio of the G90 is probably worse than that of the best 3 chip DLP. This is relevant to your comment about a clean image and dithering artifacts.

Yes ,high and as you say we want more. Vanishing yes, for sure , but I'd still take my stack over any of the three chip DLPs I've seen including the Runco SC1, SIM, Marantz, DPI units. The TI PD demo at CEDIA however was very very impressive with HD over SDI but of course no low end.

The S/N is relevant but visible areas of dithering as well as the sharp to the point of exposing too much of the source is my point. This may well be why the PD unit looked so good or maybe it was just that good. :)

Thanks for the input here.

Art

W.Mayer,
I bow to you for having the SRX110 in your home :)

Question - any thoughts of getting the TI 2k DLP cinema PJ in there? I've seen it on a monster screen and it's pretty nice . . .

TM

art
ohlson
i am sure sony will get pressure to fix it but i think its not easy as some believe otherwise the bug should be not there.

What is your dealers return policy? Obviously money is not a factor here, but certainly quality must be?

Suggestion
------------
Write into the sales contract that any optical misalignment must be less that one pixel at the corners and 1/3 pixel in the central area.

the unit i had was back to the dealer since yesterday.

the plan was to test it some days and i did it.

it was a lot fun to see the future of display technology
and with all the action to make it happen it was very exciting.

i will anyway not purchase the 10000 ansi one.
the 105 with 5000 ansi is more than i need for my screen and this unit is a lot cheaper than the big one at least here in germany.
i can when i sale both qualias for a good price buy one 4k with 5000 ansi but at the end i need 2 units for 3d and that makes it very expensive.

now i wait for informations about the convergence and how to feed
4k pictures from computers.
a new dvi input board is coming later this year also.
let see if the may do it with hdcp.
and lets see may the solve other things as well.

one more problem is if i buy one or 2 units i have to redesign the back of my cinema.
i need a wall air cooling and filtering and much more to run this kind of prof. pr.

like the old 3 chip dlp no one can use it at a normally home cinema and that a problem
because you cant sale such a unit later at least not in germany.

pr. technology is running so fast.
at the moment its like computers 10 years ago.

may i use my qualia since sony make a successor with more light better cr.
"and more pixels".

Thanks a bunch for your brief and informative write up, Wolfgang ^^. This is truly an exciting time.

Here is the most high end graphic card that I could find. From the Nvidia FX4500 data sheet:
Dual dual-link DVI-I output drives
digital displays at resolutions up to
3840x2400 @ 41Hz - SLI capable too

http://www.nvidia.com/page/qfx_uhe.html

but it is not HDCP.

I predict these 4K projectors will take another 5-8 years of development time as Sony adds 12 additional levels of Digital Rights Management (DRM), 11 buried root kits, 10 easter eggs, 9 viruses, ... 3 thumb print, 2 brain and 1 retina scan.
To verify that they in fact authorized viewers, a few quick, painless multiple choice questions are necessary:

How much misconvergence do you see in each quadrant:
a) 1 pixel (I got lucky)
b) 2 pixels (I can still brag a bit on AVS forum)
c) 3 pixels ( maybe those guys who warned me were right)
d) 4 pixels ( I'm glad I didn't buy this from Japan)
e) all of the above ( I need to polish the prism with Turtle Wax)
f) none of the above ( I still use film)

i use my qualia since sony make a successor with more light better cr. "and more pixels".

I hope so and soon . :)

Art

CRT's are totally unlinear. Once conditioned to xenon three chip dlp the colorimetry of these "Calibrated " G-90's and company is laughable. Thense conditioned, you are sensitive to the fact color of analog is totally unlinear depending on program ansi contrast.

My CRT is quite linear and colors look not much different from a well calibrated DLP when the primaries are comparable. What is program ANSI contrast??

Art, seriously, this puts you in a vanishingly small minority of “experts.” The vast majority of experienced viewers, including myself, consider 3000:1 sequential CR as a high level of performance..

That really depends on what you are watching and in what room. 3000:1 looks great with some kind of material, and not great at all with other kinds. For me it matters how a projector handles feature films. When it can handle 90% of shots properly instead of 70% it's a better projector. If it can handle 95% instead of 90 it's still a better projector. The higher the On-Off CR the higher the percentage leaving everything else constant. With 3000:1 one can see lack of depth and haze in anywhere from 10% to 90% of shots depending on the film you watch. On average I would guess 50% of shots do not look as they should. With a Ruby that goes down to 10% or so. With a 100000:1 projector it's basically zero. 3000:1 does not cut it if you want dark stuff to render properly.

I hope so and soon .

art
i think its depends on "when" there will be 3 chip dlp comes to the market.
sony is not bad in marketing and i think when they will see the first
3 chip 1920x1080 comes really sony will offer a pr.that have
-more pixels
-more cr.
-more light out then the 3 chip dlps

and that for the same or less money compare to the 3 chip dlps.
so then the story will repeat what we saw with high end 1280x720 pr. form
ti last year.
no one will buy it.

That really depends on what you are watching and in what room. 3000:1 looks great with some kind of material, and not great at all with other kinds. For me it matters how a projector handles feature films. When it can handle 90% of shots properly instead of 70% it's a better projector. If it can handle 95% instead of 90 it's still a better projector. The higher the On-Off CR the higher the percentage leaving everything else constant. With 3000:1 one can see lack of depth and haze in anywhere from 10% to 90% of shots depending on the film you watch. On average I would guess 50% of shots do not look as they should. With a Ruby that goes down to 10% or so. With a 100000:1 projector it's basically zero. 3000:1 does not cut it if you want dark stuff to render properly.

While this is true if you look at sequential CR in isolation, it changes quite a bit when you also consider other image quality aspects like ANSI CR, colorimetry, uniformity, MTF at 1920x1080, etc. When you consider all of this, what percentage of images look better with each technology?

I will give you an example about colorimetry. The TI P7 calibration of the digital cinema models allows creation of virtual primaries that are essentially perfect and can be switched between Rec 709, Rec 601, or any other standard that’s within the very large color gamut of the native primaries. This, combined with nearly perfect gray scale tracking from just above black to white, yields superb color accuracy. I know that you know all of this.

I think that I can summarize something that we can all agree about and avoid going back and forth about CR. It’s unlikely that anyone will say anything that’s new and we will be just repeating past comments.

I think that all would agree that what counts is overall performance. However, there is a minimum threshold for the important image quality aspects, otherwise the projector is unacceptable. In other words, it does not matter how good everything else is unless this aspect of performance exceeds the threshold. Sequential (on/off) CR is arguably the most important parameter. The threshold for Art seems to be about 10,000:1 and for Mhafner quite a bit higher than that, maybe 30,000:1. For me, it’s 2000:1, especially with optimized gamma. Again, it’s not that I don’t want more, and I am actually almost at 3000:1, but at that level the other performance parameters become decisive.

The SRX has 2 major problems 1: the convegence .. this is not easaly fixed as the panel allignment is so sensitive only touching the screw will be more than one pixel. On my both SRX's they going to change the optical engine to resolve this (i have the first production ones) and they going to resolve this by software adjustment and will going to cost 2 whole pixel lines horizontal & vertical (Software planned March).

2: The purity is not so superb at this moment. Also this is going to be resolved in March with some software / hardware combination they planning to make an system with an capture camera that will be hooked onto the projector and this system will self adjust the projectors purity on pixel block detail.

@Werner ... you coult try our developed silencer unit for it .. it wil cut 30Db of the noise of the projector.

sxrd fan

i was hoping that you also as "someone how have a unit already and saw it already"
also talk about the unit and the convergence problems.

so its sounds great because trade 2 or 4 pixels from a 8 mi. pixel pr. for good convergence
is a no issue.
jvc have such software since long time in all units.

can you please explain a bit more about the "purity"?

may you also hear that sony working on a so called "black box input system"
that makes it more easy to feed true 4k content?

SXRD-Fan do you mean purity = uniformity/shading? For this a selfadjusting system based on a camera system would make sense. Did I understand that correctly that you do adjust or could adjust convergence mechanical via a screwdriver? I have difficulties believing that considering the size of the chips and the resolution we are talking.

Wow, shading. just lik ein the ILA days of the JVC 2 and 300 series projectors.

Memories!

I have heard that getting digital cinema content is very slow to be available. This is even for 2k/1080p content. Until 75 percent of movies are available in digital form I find it difficult ot see a major roll out.
I think it is great if Sony can make a very good 4k projector. Until there is 4k content Sony has time to continue refinement. Still 2006 must be the year when units do some real work.

sxrd fan

i
so its sounds great because trade 2 or 4 pixels from a 8 mi. pixel pr. for good convergence
is a no issue.
jvc have such software since long time in all units.



Even if it were 2K who would really care if you were watching 1076 x 1916 really ?I would defy anyone to know except for a pixel map to show it. Electronic shifting needs to be standard after seeing the Ruby debacle.

Art

SXRD-Fan do you mean purity = uniformity/shading? For this a selfadjusting system based on a camera system would make sense. Did I understand that correctly that you do adjust or could adjust convergence mechanical via a screwdriver? I have difficulties believing that considering the size of the chips and the resolution we are talking.

Well with an pixel space of just 8 micro's it wont be good to fiddle arround with an screw driver :).
There is an nifty thing to try but i don't dare this one ... as you have seen the real nudy's of the optics you are able to push the chip an little bit but seems to be dangerous with just 8 microns per pixel ;)

And yes with the purity i meant Uniformity ... when you see it with full white you will notice blue/greenish blobs.

sxrd fan

may you also hear that sony working on a so called "black box input system"
that makes it more easy to feed true 4k content?

I have not heard yet about these details.

In the next 2 weeks i going to Sony Uk for an training there i will meet some people and they will get loaded with questions from me as iám verry courious about the Sim version of the projector (the rumors say's it wil be 50P & 60P capable!)

At this moment there are an few movies in 4K but still not available as D-Cinema on 4K is still not fully an standard thats been accepted by the movie makers due the content path. if you want to try out 4K content you are stucked with DVS (Raptor or Pronto) or the Mjpeg machine that was shown on the IBC.

About the convegence .... this is really worse when the projector is cold (spec say's let it heat up for at least 30 minutes then you see improvement but even on our both projectors i have 2 pixels off. (Btw exact the same color shift !).
At this moment when i have cases where convegence must be really good i convert the signal back to RGB(HD) and feed it analog and with playing of cable length's of the convertor i use (AJA) i can fix the problem :). (Delaying one color to the others) but it's not nice to do this but ... when it is important it's an option.

Btw @Werner ... in a few weeks i will be in Germany for some 4K testing with 2 projectors in a city close to Dusseldorf.

The SRX has 2 major problems 1: the convegence .. this is not easaly fixed as the panel allignment is so sensitive only touching the screw will be more than one pixel. On my both SRX's they going to change the optical engine to resolve this (i have the first production ones) and they going to resolve this by software adjustment and will going to cost 2 whole pixel lines horizontal & vertical (Software planned March).
Do you mean just for these 4k units, or will Sony be adding software like this for lower cost projectors like the Ruby also? It seems like it would save them money to have some convergence controls like JVC.

--Darin

Do you mean just for these 4k units, or will Sony be adding software like this for lower cost projectors like the Ruby also? It seems like it would save them money to have some convergence controls like JVC.

--Darin

At this moment it's note quite sure what they are planning.
1 source tells me in our situation the fix the opticals and the other source tells that japan is working on the electronic way (like the JVC) (Both Sony sources btw)

Iám not sure if they add this to the Ruby and i did not notice this one on our Ruby (but after seeing the loads of complains i going to test this one tomorrow on our Ruby)

Given the size of the chips and the resolution we have to deal here combined with the temperature differences from cold to operating state I would be surprised if there were zero effect on convergence. Just out of curiosity, how much difference is there between the cold and warm state of the projector (half pixel, one pixel...) and how stable this is once the projector is in constant use? Does this mean 2 pixels off warm and probably 4 pixels off cold? I do not ask this to downrate the unit, I am just curious. Ì have much less problems with non-perfect panel registration than most around here (as long as we talk about one pixel off or less...).

While this is true if you look at sequential CR in isolation, it changes quite a bit when you also consider other image quality aspects like ANSI CR, colorimetry, uniformity, MTF at 1920x1080, etc. When you consider all of this, what percentage of images look better with each technology?

I will give you an example about colorimetry. The TI P7 calibration of the digital cinema models allows creation of virtual primaries that are essentially perfect and can be switched between Rec 709, Rec 601, or any other standard that’s within the very large color gamut of the native primaries. This, combined with nearly perfect gray scale tracking from just above black to white, yields superb color accuracy. I know that you know all of this.

How you judge the overall mix is subjective. No projector does it all perfectly for now, unfortunately. When you look at a picture and ask yourself: What is wrong with it? What annoys me most?
Then the answer depends on what you are more sensitive too and what you miss most. From my experience everybody I had at my place when switching between my CRT and a digital with dark material will first comment on the contrast and depth difference, not a color difference, a sharpness difference, a difference of even shading or a geometry or noise or motion difference. It's the one thing very hard to overlook, IF you see the reference next to it. With brighter material people will notice lumen or apparent sharpness differences and color differences first. Here preferring the digital projector is easy if you like it very bright/large screen and sharp. Nobody so far preferred the digital with dark stuff. Overall it's subjective what matters more to you. But with the frequency of dark material in feature films it's easy for me which way to go to enjoy the picture consistently. The CRT is no slouch with bright stuff either, after all.

SXRD-Fan
Please excuse me for asking but is Sony ever going to ditch those xenon bulbs? It would be great if you could hit a projector head with only the optical energy required for the picture. This would take alot of heat out of the projector. The external light source could hopefully be fiber optically coupled to the projector head.

The shading approach seem inspired by wm. Wm did say he was going to have a look at 4k sxrd. Perhaps Sony has hired good help. Electronic pixel shifting option is good news.

drpp
Why not 2 pixels off and very good when warmed up.

How you judge the overall mix is subjective. No projector does it all perfectly for now, unfortunately. When you look at a picture and ask yourself: What is wrong with it? What annoys me most?
Then the answer depends on what you are more sensitive too and what you miss most. From my experience everybody I had at my place when switching between my CRT and a digital with dark material will first comment on the contrast and depth difference, not a color difference, a sharpness difference, a difference of even shading or a geometry or noise or motion difference. It's the one thing very hard to overlook, IF you see the reference next to it. With brighter material people will notice lumen or apparent sharpness differences and color differences first. Here preferring the digital projector is easy if you like it very bright/large screen and sharp. Nobody so far preferred the digital with dark stuff. Overall it's subjective what matters more to you. But with the frequency of dark material in feature films it's easy for me which way to go to enjoy the picture consistently. The CRT is no slouch with bright stuff either, after all.


This is pretty much where I am on this and in a light controlled facility 11 fL on a CRT is more than enough to give depth to bright materials. Compromises in on off CR shows up in a big and ugly way in films that go real dark which seems like a lot these days.This is where the fixed pixel devices I've seen so far fall short.


Art

Personally, I disagree with wm on that one. At least my system which has been superbly calibrated and without losing shadow detail is estimated to have around that number by Darin.
What is that number around?

Is your G90s' CR really measured at 40,000:1?

My CRT is quite linear and colors look not much different from a well calibrated DLP when the primaries are comparable. What is program ANSI contrast??
Did you ever measured your CRT's contrast ratio or ANSI CR? and what value did you get?

Oh yes there is! There is the Digital Projection HD10k with 2.35 /1.77 AR zoom focus memory, it has hdcp input card, one was already hand built. You can modify the Iris to obtain 3:300 >1 , and it with some lenses it will focus on a Torus screen with a radius of 93% of TD.

Thats IS THE G-90 terminator.

Hi, This is interestesting.

Can you tell me where i can find more informations about this thing ?

Thanks,
Take care
Thomas

http://www.digitalprojection.biz/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_download/gid,23/Itemid,58/

THIS GIVES YOU INFO ON THE stock HD10K. The projector is based on a very successful compact digital cinema platform the IS8-2k that has variable lamp ballast. This one has improved dmd asics and input card modularity (critical for HDCP).

The projector I described above is not the stock projector. It is modded to the hilt.

First both irises in the 2:000>1 lens are reduced by about 2/3. This takes a 10 thousand lumen projector and leaves it at around 3,000-3,500 but the contrast then is 3:300>1. The mod has to be performed at the lens factory to avoid chromatic aberrations. Odyssey has similar mods on his Barco. The Memory Lens option is a custom Factory option available on the 1S8-2k, not optimal with all lenses it requires a special minolta high precision.

The HDCP card is handbuilt at the factory. On lenses 1.8 to 2.43 zoom the depth of field is sufficient for 93% of TD radius' TORI properly focussing.

If you would like more information contact George Walter at Digital Projection and ask for the CINERAMAX modded 10k. :) :) I am sure this thing will cost upwards of $135K.

Odyssey, thank you.

It seems that IRIS play is more effective for LCoS than DLP, or may be not

What is that number around?

Is your G90s' CR really measured at 40,000:1?

Estimates based on Darin's work and Ken's measurements.

Art

Did you ever measured your CRT's contrast ratio or ANSI CR? and what value did you get?

Someone else measured it at > 30000:1 and ~130:1.

i will say this: DLP in digital cinema yields about 1500:1 CR if the room is black (no exit lights, no open door light etc). it's not enough.
I'd say if a 3DLP 1080 can provide us a real D65 on/off 4000:1 and at a brigthness of 20-30 FTL (adjustable), i'd be really happy. Digital Projection will likely do that end of this year.
So that we can play with screens of 150-200". In full cinemascope.
The screen size, constant height (with lens) and colorimetry compensate the absence of 30000:1 CR.
Screen sizes will increase with HD and 1080p machines.

May be this is what you guys need to solve colorimetry, CR, no pixelation, ..... http://bookstore.spie.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=DetailPaper&ProductId=645463&coden=

The screen size, constant height (with lens) and colorimetry compensate the absence of 30000:1 CR.
Screen sizes will increase with HD and 1080p machines.

I'ts looking more and more like we may need to accept that this will be what it is. Although I do think that real CR out of a three chip of close to 10,000:1 may still be possible.

Art

According too a reliable source, all movies this year, except Paramount and Fox will be available in digital as well as film. Also mentioned the Sony 4K projector was working. He mentioned a competitive price of decent 4K (4000x2000) projecters too be in the 45K price range. He thought Sony may have too get to that price if they wanted to sell the 500 plus they would like to this year.

notreally
45k$ for a 4k digital cinema projector not from Sony? I have two questions.
1 What exactly costs 45k$?
2 Who besides Sony has a 4k projector?

gmgav
cr>10000:1 is a step in the right direction for GLV.

May be this is what you guys need to solve colorimetry, CR, no pixelation, ..... http://bookstore.spie.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=DetailPaper&ProductId=645463&coden=
Here's a pic of what your link is reffering to. A massive laser-based GLV (now called the GxL) display at the World Expo. The image can be found on CNET (http://news.com.com/Photos+Tech+wonders+of+the+world+-+page+4/2009-1008_3-5625871-4.html?tag=st.next).

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f99/mdtiberi/expo05_laser_500x362.jpg

the big test with many pictures is on line at

http://www.cine4home.de/

english version will be add soon.

CR > 10,000:1 is a step in the right direction for GLV.The 10,000:1 CR is for 5000 Lumens, just imagine if you cut the light in half.

Great Article Wolfgang but your cinema has been upstaged :http://www.cine4home.de/Meldungen/Coldewey/Messe/B&W_Truck_frei.jpg

cineramax

yes but the screen inside its less than 3m

Peter,
You heretic ! Bow down, bow down before him ! Wolfgang is my hero. :)

Aert

Small update on the 4K ....

The ones produced at this moment are with the new optical engine and that looks much better: Less convegence problem, better contrast ratio. no purity problem.

I can't wait until March when my 2 projectors going to be updated :).

Then the 4K Dci specs ... they demand that the video server must be inside the projector as the rumors say so let's see how they are goint to fit that one in ;).

Also there will be an SIM version what has an different scaling engine thats much faster and will accept 50/60P and more strange resolutions but the main market will be there for flight sims, caves and control rooms.

Also there will be an SIM version what has an different scaling engine thats much faster and will accept 50/60P and more strange resolutions but the main market will be there for flight sims, caves and control rooms.

They should stop making so many variants and concentrate on a color accurate light source.

cineramax

yes but the screen inside its less than 3m

Ah! Sehr Klein.

Peter,
You heretic ! Bow down, bow down before him ! Wolfgang is my hero. :)

Aert

He is my hero too. Hes got the Supervorführaum.

He is my hero too. Hes got the Supervorführaum.
I thought you despise front projection. Only rear projection leads to salvation. :D

Small update on the 4K ....

Then the 4K Dci specs ... they demand that the video server must be inside the projector as the rumors say so let's see how they are goint to fit that one in ;).



All they require is a secure interface. There is a version of HDSDI under review that is encrypted. However 4K has no ideal interface yet. They could easily go with multiple DVI.

the big test with many pictures is on line at

http://www.cine4home.de/

english version will be add soon.



As announced by Wolfgang, the english version is now up on our international site, www.cine4home.com (http://www.cine4home.com)


Probably not as funny as a babelfish-translation, but easier to read and understand ;)

Regards,
Ekkehart, Cine4Home

Hello Ekkehart

Great review. I learned a lot reading it. Great pictures. You guys are having way to much fun. Thanks for taking the time to have this translated and for your efforts along with W.Mayer for sharing all this exciting technology.

The only thing I have to add is really how much image degredation appears to occur with the panel alignment issues. The look of the ladies face demonstrating this issue was exactly why I saw a cast to the image that I couldn't put my finger on at CEDIA when I saw it on what looked like about a 30' wide screen. This really is a shame.

Art

Art
Avsforum member SXRD-fan brings hope up about 4k sxrd!

Now if only they could deliver a 4k SXRD for 4k :)

Now if only they could deliver a 4k SXRD for 4k :)

Here Here!! I'll go along with that...

ken

Wow! This is the first detailed look I have had at the SRX-R110 and there's just no doubt that it is the DLP-killer as far as digital cinema is concerned. 4k is the only format that directors, producers, cinematographers and DPs will go for once they know it exists. It's Hollywood after all and you can guarantee that they will always spend the money for the best of anything. Least we forget, Sony is a content provider as well – powerful stuff. And if it truly is only $45k then it’s a done deal.

There was also a comment in one of the posts that DCI compliance will require the addition of large pieces of hardware since it must be a self contained unit so nobody monkeys with it. A projection both is very large indeed and all Sony would have to do is build a bigger shell and stuff it in; everyone will be happy. :)

How about illuminate that thing with laser light source, firstly, you'll have smaller package...

There was also a comment in one of the posts that DCI compliance will require the addition of large pieces of hardware since it must be a self contained unit so nobody monkeys with it. A projection both is very large indeed and all Sony would have to do is build a bigger shell and stuff it in; everyone will be happy. :)

That was an inaccurate comment. DCI requires no self contained server. They do specify a secure interface which does exist. HDSDI can be scrambled and we have tested that on a DCI spec server. The latest Christie CP2000 firmware already contains DCI spec de-scrambling. DVI with HDCP is also compliant though probably won't be used for DC.

Don't expect Hollywood to jump on 4K all that fast. The costs to produce digital intermediates at 4K is in the stratosphere at this time and for at least the next two years. 2K is still deemed more than adequate for the typical multiplex. Only high budget select features will seriously look at 4K today. Yes a lot of producres and directors want to go 4K.... until they get the bids back. Then 2K is suddenly just fine.

but glimmie, since this is better, hollywood will jump on it within three years and everybody here will get 4 K content for home within 10 years.

What do you know after all ;)

The recently adopted DCI specification calls for every movie to be digitized at 2K and 4K resolutions. This will be JPEG2000, but at least it will guarantee that a 4K digital version of every new movie will be available to the studios to what they are comfortable doing.

Ed

Don't expect Hollywood to jump on 4K all that fast. The costs to produce digital intermediates at 4K is in the stratosphere at this time and for at least the next two years. 2K is still deemed more than adequate for the typical multiplex. Only high budget select features will seriously look at 4K today. Yes a lot of producres and directors want to go 4K.... until they get the bids back. Then 2K is suddenly just fine.

Following that logic then a film print is even cheaper!

What your missing is the big "economic" picture. A film with a $100M production budget is going to spend $30M for prints and advertising with prints being only about a few million. If they're not going to spend that money on release prints then a 4k DI, even at a high cost, is not all that daunting.

Given that 4k is now a real product from Sony at about the same cost as a 35mm film projector there is no reason to spend the money on a 2k projector that is already obsolete. I don't know who thinks that 2k is adequate other than manufacturers who make 2k projectors. If there is no difference in picture quality between what you can get in a home theater versus the cinema then the case for Digital Cinema becomes far less compelling.

Following that logic then a film print is even cheaper!

What your missing is the big "economic" picture. A film with a $100M production budget is going to spend $30M for prints and advertising with prints being only about a few million. If they're not going to spend that money on release prints then a 4k DI, even at a high cost, is not all that daunting.

Given that 4k is now a real product from Sony at about the same cost as a 35mm film projector there is no reason to spend the money on a 2k projector that is already obsolete. I don't know who thinks that 2k is adequate other than manufacturers who make 2k projectors. If there is no difference in picture quality between what you can get in a home theater versus the cinema then the case for Digital Cinema becomes far less compelling.

What are you basing these assumptions on. Because I work for a major DI/post facility owned by the worlds largest film company!

The 4K Sony has some serious problems on an average size screen. It's not bright enough. Yes, that will be fixed at some point but the core issue is the dynamic range of SXRD. More light in does not equal more light out to infinity. At some point the chip will saturate and right now it's with a 4KW light source. An average size screen uses a 6KW lamp.

There have been several studies over the past year and digital capture is actually more expensive and yields inferior DI product to film. Digital distribution is another story. Here digital prints are of higher quality than optical but are not cheaper when you add in the depreciation of the hardware.

Kodak in conjunction with SMPTE and ETC did a study of resolution and found that beyond the first few rows, 4K resolution was not apparent. And you can't say Kodak is saying that to preserve film. It's just the opposite. We have 2K (if you count 1920x1080 as 2K) video cameras now. There is no viable 4K electronic capture solution at this time. And before you go grabbing pdf's of some digital cameras on theh market, keep in mind I said "solution". A camera alone is not a complete capture system. So if Kodak wanted to prolong film, they would be pushing 4K but their not. And if film is so obsolete why did Kodak sell more professional negative 35mm MP stock last year than any other year on their history? It is exactly the explosion of HD and home theater that drove the content needs. However many producers have a budget and film is still the best capture medium today.

And don't kid yourself. Who is getting 2K resolution in the home? I hope you aren't refering to the people with their toy Ruby's becuase that ain't 2K. That's 1920 display pixels fed by a 160:1 compressed stream and in some cases downsampled to 1280x1080. Furthermore you have a REC709 color space further crushed by the 4:2:0 sampling used in broadcast. "Real" 2K is 444 10bit log in XYZ color space uncompressed and with 1556 lines, not the 1080 HDTV compromise. Rule of thumb is 12MB (that's MEGA bytes) per frame. DCI uses JPEG2000 compression running at 250mbs 4:2:2. You aren't going to get that in the home anytime soon.

The recently adopted DCI specification calls for every movie to be digitized at 2K and 4K resolutions. This will be JPEG2000, but at least it will guarantee that a 4K digital version of every new movie will be available to the studios to what they are comfortable doing.

Ed

Where does it say that. I'll check because we have two staff members at my site that are on the DC28 comittie.

DCI supports three formats. 2K/24, 4K/24, and 2K/48. There is no requirement to master in 4K. DCI is a playout specification. Is has no input onthe DI process provided the end DCI spec is met. Furthermore, film capture is going to be around for a while yet. And not everybody embraces DI. So in the near future many films will still finish as cut negative. These can be scanned into a DCI master at 2K or 4K albiet it is cheaper to scan a 4K cut negative than to make a 4K DI. So in that case we will probably see some 4K scans of cut negative.

Glimmie:

Don't get me wrong I am a huge fan of film. I am very skeptical in regards to Digital Cinema from many perpectives the least of which being color gamut (if you have seen a real Technicolor dye transfer print you would know exactly what I mean). I am very familiar with the evoultion of DC standards from the original Tech Council in LA, to the SMPTE study group and through DC28. I can't disagree with you on the technical specs but perception is key to the publics understanding, 4k will always sound better than 2k even though the actual displays may be a bit short of that.

I have also heard but can't confirm that Kodak is indeed pushing, ever so gently, for 4k. There was a presentation they made a few months back, maybe it was Showest or east, don't know for sure.

Actually the DCI spec suggests (since it is not a standard yet) in Section 8.2.2.6 and 8.2.2.7 that the projector should natively display either 4096 x 2160 or 2048 x 1080.

Actually the DCI spec suggests (since it is not a standard yet) in Section 8.2.2.6 and 8.2.2.7 that the projector should natively display either 4096 x 2160 or 2048 x 1080.

Right, but it doesn't say that digital "prints" must be done in a 4K workflow.

4K is a very hot topic but not much is being done with it. It all comes down to cost.

Right, but it doesn't say that digital "prints" must be done in a 4K workflow.

4K is a very hot topic but not much is being done with it. It all comes down to cost.

I so agree with you on the cost issue. I mean if it aint broke...

"...at about the same cost as a 35mm film projector " - where did you see a 4k Sony at the same price as a 35mm film projector. Sign me up! Actually a 35mm film system with lenses (flat and scope) and film platter is about $20k, look what kind of technology it takes to equal it in image performance in the digital domain. The simple elegance of the 35mm system has lasted about 100 years, hard to find a world-wide standard like this where improvments come for free in the form of improved software (ie new film stocks from big K). I heard that the new Superman is over $20M in cost overuns due to problems, delays and performance issues with their digital capture systems.

Kodak in conjunction with SMPTE and ETC did a study of resolution and found that beyond the first few rows, 4K resolution was not apparent. And you can't say Kodak is saying that to preserve film.


What do you define as the "first few rows"?? Wolfgang an me could see a huge difference from 1.2 - 1.4 times the screen width.


Regards,
Ekkehart, www.cine4home.com

What do you define as the "first few rows"?? Wolfgang an me could see a huge difference from 1.2 - 1.4 times the screen width.


Regards,
Ekkehart, www.cine4home.com

With what material? There is no huge difference with normal or any other HD. If you have real 4K material on the other hand there is. But your normal 35mm film negative is not real 4K material. It usually has little to no spatial detail that a 2K version will not show (although with probably some aliasing and a less smooth/analogue impression).

And don't kid yourself. Who is getting 2K resolution in the home? I hope you aren't refering to the people with their toy Ruby's becuase that ain't 2K. That's 1920 display pixels fed by a 160:1 compressed stream and in some cases downsampled to 1280x1080. Furthermore you have a REC709 color space further crushed by the 4:2:0 sampling used in broadcast. "Real" 2K is 444 10bit log in XYZ color space uncompressed and with 1556 lines, not the 1080 HDTV compromise. Rule of thumb is 12MB (that's MEGA bytes) per frame. DCI uses JPEG2000 compression running at 250mbs 4:2:2. You aren't going to get that in the home anytime soon.

Yeah, but it's not really the Ruby's fault, is it. :)
And in the world of Super35 these 1556 lines are no use if you go for a widescreen picture. Discs and digital projectors don't use a 2K 4:3 format. Anamorphic footage on the other hand could be used to make anamorphic HD discs. And with a 4K projector you could unsqueeze without a lens.
Damn, we are stuck with inferior consumer formats/standards 16:9 1080p hardware. :eek:

What do you define as the "first few rows"?? Wolfgang an me could see a huge difference from 1.2 - 1.4 times the screen width.


Regards,
Ekkehart, www.cine4home.com

OK, they said based on my notes from the SMPTE conference "two screen heights". Based on my local Edwards stadium style multiplexes which are only about 3 years old, that's the first few rows.

mdtiberi, still curious as to where you heard the $45k number for the Sony.

Few updates:

Recently i had the technical training at Sony for this projector and was verry funny to take one fully apart even more funny as the arches didn't strike after that :) (Faulty FPGA board but was with reset fixed)

Sony is hard working on the Purity problem and the first proto type of adjusting it is beeing tested (capture camera linked on PC with serial communication to the projecter adjusting it's gamma and 3dmaps) So there finally something comming on.

Rumors say's that they are working on an 20K ansilumen version of the 4K projector but if it's true ? not sure yet.

mdtiberi, still curious as to where you heard the $45k number for the Sony.

I'm sorry, I can't find the link. When I did a google search again I am findiing a wide range, from $50 to over $120k range. Suffice to say, given the disparity, I am not sure at all of the price.

Sony needs to be able to do 20k ANSI lumen!

To be able to do that they must improve on efficiency by perhaps 50 percent.

My hope is that powerful lasers one day can be used instead of multiple xkW xenon bulbs.

Sony needs to be able to do 20k ANSI lumen!

To be able to do that they must improve on efficiency by perhaps 50 percent.

My hope is that powerful lasers one day can be used instead of multiple xkW xenon bulbs.

Oh that laser projector isn't any problem Sony has one functional.
Also an customer of mine is working on a laser projector and just 10W of laser will do 10K ;)

But the biggest problem they all have: Safety as when someone looks into the beam he is for sure blind!.

Oh that laser projector isn't any problem Sony has one functional.
Also an customer of mine is working on a laser projector and just 10W of laser will do 10K ;)

But the biggest problem they all have: Safety as when someone looks into the beam he is for sure blind!.


High power lasers in RGB have been around for a while. The issues are cost and size. I would hazard a guess that 10W in each color would be $500K+ and really really large. Not very practical.

The only probelm with eye safety is if the beam stops scanning and all that energy is dumped into your eyeball. These systems turn off the lasers if scanning fails.

With GLV a vertical line is scanned horizontally. This is at least less energy per area at any given time. A scan stop safety is of course necessary. With laser illuminated spatial light modulators the safety issue might be there but is it recommended to look straight into a film projector at full blast from a close distance?

...but is it recommended to look straight into a film projector at full blast from a close distance?


I so agree. Many people think that just because the light is generated by a laser and not a bulb it is uniquely dangerous. A watt is a watt is a watt, no matter the source, so if it's bright caution is always needed.

I l oo ked int o my Rub y last n ight b y mista ke an d s til l c an t se
verrrry g o od.

if i look into a xenon projector, it is like looking at the sun... splotchy for a little while.

If i look into an industria laser, i get the benifit of a TREMENDOUS amount of light concentrated on one small spot. THe same as that sunlight concentrated to a needle point.

THe two do not compare. n A 20 watt laser could be pulsed to over 200.000 watts

And laser projectors (not GLV) have been around for a while.

I second Dizzman's motion. "A W is a W is a W" isn't right at all. It's more like, "A W/m^2 is a W/m^2 is a W/m^2"... :) And in that case, the laser wins hands down in the danger category.

the single biggest issue in any manufacturer coming out with a "somewhat mainstream" laser based projector is the liability issues. In simulator applications, in corporate applications, these concerns can be mitigated by the scope of the install.

And trust me, there is plenty of business for these types of applications without even thinking about HT.

http://www.extron.com/technology/img/featureappatt1.jpg

THis screen flies out to show the NOC.
http://www.extron.com/technology/img/featureappatt3.jpg

This is now become way OT, however, what Michael and Dizzman seem to forget is context. Certainly a stationary CW or a pulsed beam can deliver a tremendous amount of energy especially in both visible and non-visible regions. But we're discussing RGB lasers in a display application in which the beam is scanning over a wide area. Say a person is standing in front of a screen of a laser projected image. Then that beam is going to move through a persons pupil very, very quickly, in tens of nanoseconds. The deposited energy or radiant exposure (J/cm^2) is therefore very small and that is what is important in terms of eye safety. ANSI Z1361 specifies the "safe" amount of radiant exposure from a laser at 3.85 mJ. At 10 watts of an exposure time of say 100 ns (light passing your eye) is 1uJ, well below ANSI safety recs.

As I stated in an earlier post if the scanning fails then there is a real problem with eye safety and hopefully the fail safe mechanism will kick in before it frys your retina.

And laser projectors (not GLV) have been around for a while.

I don't know what you consider "awhile" but Silicon Light Machines, the inventor of GLV, had a working laser-based display about 10 years ago.

ANSI Z1361 specifies the "safe" amount of radiant exposure from a laser at 3.85 mJ. At 10 watts of an exposure time of say 100 ns (light passing your eye) is 1uJ, well below ANSI safety recs.I see nothing about the spot size here, which means these calculations aren't complete.

But hey, as long as we just discard this "A watt is a watt is a watt" idea, that's fine. I'm definitely reassured by your more detailed explanation that a laser projector need not be significantly more dangerous than a bulb-based one.

20 years ago there were machines that were available that used laser projection. i think that Evans and Sutherland had one. Rare to be sure, and expensive to be sure... but you could buy one. Unlike GLV

I see nothing about the spot size here, which means these calculations aren't complete.

They took into consideration the miniumum pupil diameter of 0.385 cm^2. So the area and time dimension drops leaving joules.

Watts per centimeter squared*pupil area*pulse duration= J*s^-1*cm^-2*cm^2*s=J

The spot size of a laser beam is larger than a pupil? That's a pretty big beam. Honestly, I don't see how that "cancellation" works. I thought the whole point about the potential danger of a laser beam is that you could burn individual spots on your retina.

The SONY Ruby will never yield a full HD resolution, no matter what you feed it, the lens is not even having close that kind of resolution.
I recently had a swiss post production company bringing a DIGIBETA with them.
Their PAL SD content through a SDI Lumagen to my G90 looked almost as good as what I have available for HD. So it is all about compression, and if there is as much as on the HD we are watching it actually sucks.
So I wonder what image I would have had when they would have brought a HDCAM or even SR machine !!!

spatz
I get it. A better source is a better source.
Are you saying the lens in the Ruby can not resolve 1080p? This must be an incorrect statement.

The SONY Ruby will never yield a full HD resolution, no matter what you feed it, the lens is not even having close that kind of resolution.



Imaging how many individual photons hit the screen at any one giving moment. Many multiples of 1920 x 1080. This is the resolution the lens is capable of.

Hearing how much better the optics are on the Qualia and hearing you can clearly see pixels 4 to 5 feet away is amazing. I cannot see defined pixels from the Ruby unless 2 feet or closer to the screen and they are blurred so Im guessing there is some truth to this but given the price of the projector they have to skimp somewhere and for HT use I like the smoothness that maybe a better lens may take away from. We will have to see what next generation brings.

OT> FYI> In a current SONY TV product phase out sheet received yesterday, the 3 qualia products will remain current through 2006 only.

The SONY Ruby will never yield a full HD resolution, no matter what you feed it, the lens is not even having close that kind of resolution.How is it possible to see the screendoor that is much smaller than a pixel if the lens can't do 1080p?

--Darin

I can't speak for spatz, I think perhaps he misspoke, but I think if you look at a lens' MTF, I suppose you could define "resolve" full 1080p and not meet some definition of that while still seeing pixely effects.

I think you might be able to say similar things with a CRT that is attempting to fully resolve 1080p but perhaps not quite achieving it (depending on how you define resolve), while still seeing scanline artifacts for instance.

I am biased towards preferring a smoother image, so I'd probably pick the display that doesn't "fully resolve" a resolution over one that does and makes it look artificial, so I'm not sure it's really that important a distinction anyway...

edit: I have no idea what the characteristics of the Ruby lenses are, so no idea whether spatz' comment has merit. Regardless.

I'm assuming that spatz just heard this comment from a salesman or something.

The fact is the lens is capable of way higher resolutions than 1920 x 1080. Now weather the lens in conjuction with the rest of the hardware is capable of 1920 x 1080 is another story.

I find it very hard to believe Sony would put together and sell a 1920 x 1080 device that doesn't do what it says.

Maybe V8 engines dont actually have 8 cylinders also? ;)

I was talking about FULL HD and I am pretty sure none of you have a source at hand that does full HD. However I would recommend to have a look at a 2k 3 chip dlp and what the lens does there and we can start talking again.
And just for the record I am graduated engineer and some DO know who I am.

I'm assuming that spatz just heard this comment from a salesman or something.

Thas was a plain insult but I forgive you - ignorance is not to be cured as proved again.

spatz
I am trying to understand what you are talking about. If a Ruby was fed with the FULL HD you are talking about what would be lost and where?
1 Will the electronics not map the full source resolution to the sxrd panels?
2 If the panels pass the resolution what happens next?

I think anyone can understand Ruby lenses to be less sharp than 2k 3dlp with cinema grade lenses. I just do not understand the not resolving part. If you are referring to the effects of MC that would vary between units.

The SONY Ruby will never yield a full HD resolution, no matter what you feed it, the lens is not even having close that kind of resolution.
I recently had a swiss post production company bringing a DIGIBETA with them.
Their PAL SD content through a SDI Lumagen to my G90 looked almost as good as what I have available for HD. So it is all about compression, and if there is as much as on the HD we are watching it actually sucks.
So I wonder what image I would have had when they would have brought a HDCAM or even SR machine.


What has the little Swiss story got to do with Ruby's HD resolution? How do you define full HD resolution? Fact is the Ruby can resolve 1920 horizontal lines as provided from an uncompressed 1080i HD signal from a signal generator via DVI/HDMI input. So, what kind of resolution is lacking? Super sharp pixel edges? Temporal resolution due to smear? Color resolution?

However I would recommend to have a look at a 2k 3 chip dlp and what the lens does there and we can start talking again.


Amen brother. I have become addicted to 2k cinema dlp since SHOEAST 04.

I've figured it out now. Just another 3 chip DLP supporter. Hell he probably tells people the Sony 4k projector lens cant pass full HD.

spatz
Use your engineering mind to tell me how many photons (on averarge) hits the screen per pixel for the Ruby. Lets not do the advanced manouver like determining screen size and throw. Lets just assume the pixel is 2mm wide.

bonus points for telling us how many for the much smaller screen door ;)

Lots of biased comments here from both sides of the fence. Hopefully everyone reading can see this and realize both technologies have faults and are not perfect while each do things better then the other:)

funny enough I am not a DLP supporter at all, I do not like them. But they are the only high end projectors available and they have the high quality lenses I am talking about.
Maybe Glimmie should chime in and tell you that what you get as HD at home as very little to do with full HD resolution. For sure the SONY can show all the 1920 x 1080p pixels but they are smeared and lack a lot of resolution.
In fact the only thing you have to do is feeding a QUALIA and a RUBY the same pattern and have them side by side, then you would immediately see what I am talking about.

funny enough I am not a DLP supporter at all, I do not like them. But they are the only high end projectors available and they have the high quality lenses I am talking about.
Maybe Glimmie should chime in and tell you that what you get as HD at home as very little to do with full HD resolution. For sure the SONY can show all the 1920 x 1080p pixels but they are smeared and lack a lot of resolution.
In fact the only thing you have to do is feeding a QUALIA and a RUBY the same pattern and have them side by side, then you would immediately see what I am talking about.

Ok. So you basically say the more MTF the more resolution. We all know that a SXRD and a DLP with the same quality optics don't have the same MTF. The DLP looks sharper and maintains more contrast with higher frequencies due to its mirror chip. The same goes for Ruby versus Qualia due to a better lens. It affects apparent sharpness. There is no spatial detail missing though on the Ruby (convergence issues left aside for now). It's just presented differently. Some people actually like that because it looks more filmlike to them than a DLP with sharp pixel edges.
That we don't have full res HD at home is another issue. It does not change the fact that the Ruby resolves all the detail in static images. For dynamic I have never seen any test results for SXRD or DLP. SXRD has some smearing. DLP has error diffusion. Neither is perfect.

spatz:
In fact the only thing you have to do is feeding a QUALIA and a RUBY the same pattern and have them side by side, then you would immediately see what I am talking about.

i have both pr.side by side
and i can confirm yes you can see it easy with test pattern
but in a running movie the difference is not so big visible even with very good
hd material.

I was talking about FULL HD and I am pretty sure none of you have a source at hand that does full HD. However I would recommend to have a look at a 2k 3 chip dlp and what the lens does there and we can start talking again.
And just for the record I am graduated engineer and some DO know who I am.

Nope My HDW 730's, HDC 950's, MFS2000, JH3, HDW2000's are not HD sources ;)

Oh and i'am not graduated :) but i have this stuff including even higher resolutions.

In fact the only thing you have to do is feeding a QUALIA and a RUBY the same pattern and have them side by side, then you would immediately see what I am talking about.


And what exactly is it that we see then? What I can see is that the Qualia is sharper than the Ruby, but yet it does not show detail. It's just the look of the image that looks more DLP-like with sharper edges. As far as detail goes, they both show the same, even with full HD material as you call it.

And isn't that more to be attributed with the latest generation chip than with the lens? Isn't it true the the "Ruby" has a newer chip that might have slightly closer pixels, adding to a perception that the lens isn't doing as good a job? I understand the lens isn't as good as the Qualia's, but I just find it absurd to blame the lessened sharpness solely on the lens, and I find it even more absurd to say a lens cannot resolve 1080p. How can the tiny little lens on my $250 digital camera resolve 4.5MP? I tell you, it seems to do a fairly decent job.

So finally we have a poster who is having both projectors !
I only want to point out that the major difference between the 2 SONYs is mainly the lens, and that with the compressed HD material we are watching you will not really see the difference. Feeding both projectors a signal from a full HD SR player will yield this difference more clearly as do test patterns though maybe very little difference to most viewers.
And I agree that the lower res lens of the VW100 somehow is softening the picture in a way CRT projectors do.

Oh and i'am not graduated but i have this stuff including even higher resolutions.
I only wrote this because I felt insulted to read that I probably repeat something a salesman said.

In fact I am writing here only about things that I discovered myself and that I want to share. I am not repeating or rephrasing what I have read somewhere else. Actually I think this behaviour by many of the forum posters have made the whole thing a miss in the recent past. No more true reports just bla bla bla bla.

What has the little Swiss story got to do with Ruby's HD resolution? How do you define full HD resolution? Fact is the Ruby can resolve 1920 horizontal lines as provided from an uncompressed 1080i HD signal from a signal generator via DVI/HDMI input. So, what kind of resolution is lacking? Super sharp pixel edges? Temporal resolution due to smear? Color resolution?
This little swiss story is just telling that the HD content we receive through satellite receivers and D-VHS is not even close to what HD can look like. Actually I liked the Digitbeta picture better than all HD content that I have available.
The 1920 pixel on/off picture fed by a generator or PC via DVI of a VW100HT does not look alike the same picture a Qualia 004 or a high end 3 chip DLP would show.
I am talking about this difference and the perceived sharpness (not resolution) has a lot to do with how good the edges or transistions are reproduced by a display. So if the lens is smearing out the individual pixel (I never said that you cannot see the individual pixel of a SONY VW100HT) than this will affect the image but most likely only for HD content that is really adressing each of these pixels in full native resolutions with little or no compression.
And I am not talking about theory, I am talking about what you see if you have had a closer look at both projectors. In the end of the day you do not need no test pattern no HD movie - you bring up the on screen menu of both projectors and what you see is that the one of the Qualia 004 looks much better.

Okay, so now the Ruby resolve 1920x1080? And, how about the G90? I don't think it's as sharp as the VW-100 so is the CRT even worse with "real" HD content?

I really wonder if my english is so bad that somebody cannot understand what I am writing....I see no positive aspect in further contributing here..I leave it to the more educated and experienced guys here to continue.
BTW I am selling SONY VW100Ht in good quantities it is a very good projector for the value, but this is the 20.000+ forum for the best of the best.

Imaging how many individual photons hit the screen at any one giving moment. Many multiples of 1920 x 1080. This is the resolution the lens is capable of.

I thinks there is nothing I can add here, but this was a very scientific statement and I hope somebody else can comment. I am speechless and do not know where to start.

Compared to other lens and even to lens on DLP the lens on the Ruby is soft. The pixels are barley visible and not visible evenly across the screen. Definitely not the quality of 3 chip DLP lens or the lens on the Qualia. The lens on the Ruby is acceptable for movie watching.

Regarding CRTs. I never thought those lens were very good ether. Years ago I had a NEC CRT ( forgot the model ) with all glass lens. These lens were very heavy and were only found on the early CRT before they went to the acrylic lens. These glass lens were the best I ever seen. The difference was very noticeable. I do not care what acrylic lens ( HD series )
non measured up to all glass lens. They said the acrylics had better thermal drift or something but the resolution the glass lens passed was quit noticeable as was the brightness they passed. It was as if someone lifted a layer of grunge off the tubes.

I thinks there is nothing I can add here, but this was a very scientific statement and I hope somebody else can comment. I am speechless and do not know where to start.

We don't doubt the Qualia shows the same HF detail with more contrast/better defined pixel edges as does a 1080p DLP. The discussion was about the proper terrms to describe the difference (sharpness versus resolution versus detail).

yep and I think I could not be misinterpreted in my statements. Mhafner, what projector are using right now ? We met 10 years ago or longer at a trade show in cologne, remember ?
Are you still connected in any way to IMDB ?

yep and I think I could not be misinterpreted in my statements. Mhafner, what projector are using right now ? We met 10 years ago or longer at a trade show in cologne, remember ?
Are you still connected in any way to IMDB ?

Yes I remember. Right now I'use nothing since my CRT is down and repair is taking forever. :mad:
I hope the Ruby successor will be good enough to buy as a second projector.
And yes, I'm still connected. :)

IMDb is a cool website ;)

Mark

Maybe Mhafner can disclose a little more about his involvement in IMDB. :cool:
What CRT do you have, maybe I can help you getting it repaired, I am sure I can, considering that I have close to 100 pcs in stock of all kind, most of them 9 inch, Marquee and BARCO, including several 1209s.

Maybe Mhafner can disclose a little more about his involvement in IMDB. :cool:
What CRT do you have, maybe I can help you getting it repaired
Thanks for the offer. Details with PMs. Concerning IMDb I'm the title manager. You submit a title, it goes through my hands (title=text string, not all data coming with the film).

Michel is far too modest. He was, and is, a driving force behind IMDb which saw it move from the usenet forums and onto the web. In particular, his pursuit of accuracy (which we see on these forums) and data consistency influenced much of the way we see IMDb today.

Mark

Seriously... ARE WE ALL MISING THE POINT HERE?

(Wheeeww - just got back from the bathroom. Was unable to contain myself after seeing this 4k projector!)

4k projectors are a dream come true for Home Theatre!

When you look at how much BETTER standard definition looks when scaled to 1080p, it is VERY easy to see that scaling current and future 1080 content to 4k will yield IMMEDIATE and DISCERNABLE improvements to the picture - with content that IS AVAILABLE NOW. We don't NEED the studios to introduce 4k content at the same time, no more than HiDef needed to exist for people to start buying scan-doublers or scalers of old.

I'm VERY excited about the fact that in a very short space of time (3 years?) we will be able to bring some of these projectors home! (albeit in a slightly smaller package, please)

Don't forget that JVC and others are also working on chips just like this also, so there should be some good competition in this new space. (I think it's safe to say that TI are going to have great difficulty getting these resolutions out of DLP in a relevant time period.)

Also, if they can get 10,000 lumens out of the 1.55 inch chips, they should be able to get 2,500 lumens out of the current 1080p chips.

The only issues that stand in the way are new scalers that can process and output 4k signals, as well as a connection to support it.

QUESTION - what is the maximum resolution supported by HDMI??

QUESTION - Is there anything stopping HDCP from being implemented over HD-SDI??

QUESTION - Is there anything stopping Sony (or others) from shipping future, consumer-friendly 4k units with an on-board scaler to take 1080p and scale it to 4k ??

Question - Is there anything that would stop them from having (as is standard on the Ruby) the ability to accept 1080 inputs at 48, 50 AND 59.94 scan rates?

I don't know about everyone here, but this is VERY VERY exciting to me as a consumer. I can see myself shelling out quite large to upgrade my current Vantage HD and HD2K to climb aboard a 4k scaler and projector combo, along with new receiver/amp equipment to get 7.1 96/24 or 192/24 sound.

If Sony and JVC lay out consumer versions of these 4k LCos chips in 2007 - then count me as sold. The 1080 stuff may end up being sold in all kinds of white-goods stores, leaving the high-end market looking to these new standards...

Could I be that wrong on this?

I would love it if someone could give me any answers possible to the above questions, or at least a sanity check if they think I am that nuts :-)

I do not believe that in less than three years we will have made for home cinema 4K projectors with internal or outboard scalers for HD to 4K .You may see these in homes but they will be not be ready for prime time as we are seing now with HD.

Art

rdjam,
Not everyone agrees that increased resolution produces a better picture. I know Scott(tse) at VDC doesn't put a lot of stock into it. I guess with a VDC 9500 you could scale 4:3 SD up to 2048x1536. It would be an interesting experiment to find out how many people would like the scaled image.

Ericglo

rdjam,
Not everyone agrees that increased resolution produces a better picture. I know Scott(tse) at VDC doesn't put a lot of stock into it. I guess with a VDC 9500 you could scale 4:3 SD up to 2048x1536. It would be an interesting experiment to find out how many people would like the scaled image.

Ericglo

Yes, it is a pretty subjective point. :-) However, I personally love upscaled SD on a 1080 display. I'm excited about scaling up 1080 to 4k as it would maximize the detail that is in the 1080 picture and make it that much more filmlike.

Art - yes, it's a stretch, I know, but a man's gotta have dreams! :) Only three or four years ago I was dreaming of having a 1080 projector at home. Three years is probably too short, but I'd hope that 4 will bring this into reach. If I estimate I'd upgrade my projector every 3 or four years, that means I'll probably buy one more 1080 projector before something higher res is available.

rdjam,
Not everyone agrees that increased resolution produces a better picture. I know Scott(tse) at VDC doesn't put a lot of stock into it. I guess with a VDC 9500 you could scale 4:3 SD up to 2048x1536. It would be an interesting experiment to find out how many people would like the scaled image.

Ericglo

Hmm, I miss a lot of posts, but do you recall where he said this? This seems to fly right in the face of basic imaging, so I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn't quite say this, because he would be flat wrong. Just curious.

I personally love upscaled SD on a 1080 display. I'm excited about scaling up 1080 to 4k as it would maximize the detail that is in the 1080 picture and make it that much more filmlike.

as i point out already here
there is no big improvement to scale 2mil. pixels to 8 mil. pixels at 1 time the screen wide
sit back.
you cant compare that to sd to hd.

it sad but that was one the result of my 4k test.
feed 4k is at the moment to difficult but that will be the goal.

i am very sure that 4k pr. for consumers will be out 2007-2008 because of the pressure that the 2k 3 chip and single chip dlp will make.
it at the moment it is not possible(possiblle yes but the cost are to high) to make a 4k dlp but not so difficult to make a 4 k lcos.

Hmm, I miss a lot of posts, but do you recall where he said this? This seems to fly right in the face of basic imaging, so I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn't quite say this, because he would be flat wrong. Just curious.

He has not spoken about this on the forum to my knowledge. He told me this over lunch. I pointed him to the thread by Mark Hunter and whoever the other person that did the upscaling thread. He was aware of the thread and just made a remark that he thought it didn't improve that much or was blurry or something like that. I didn't flesh it out, but you are more than welcome to PM him. Personally, I thought it did look better, but Scott has more knowledge and credibility than me. I give his opinion weight because of this.

Ericglo

He has not spoken about this on the forum to my knowledge. He told me this over lunch.I don't want to speak for him, but as you guys know going to a higher resolution with a CRT can actually degrade the images (like when the CRT can't resolve it as well) and maybe that is also part of this.

And some people just like really sharp and I wouldn't be surprised to see some people prefering a lower resolution image which they perceive as sharper, under some conditions.

--Darin

I don't want to speak for him, but as you guys know going to a higher resolution with a CRT can actually degrade the images (like when the CRT can't resolve it as well) and maybe that is also part of this.

And some people just like really sharp and I wouldn't be surprised to see some people prefering a lower resolution image which they perceive as sharper, under some conditions.

--Darin

Again, not sure what his exact thoughts are. On the CRT, he can use a VDC 9500 that can do 2048x1536. I would guess that using a resolution much lower would be plenty sharp say SD doubled.

Ericglo

I personally love upscaled SD on a 1080 display. I'm excited about scaling up 1080 to 4k as it would maximize the detail that is in the 1080 picture and make it that much more filmlike.

as i point out already here
there is no big improvement to scale 2mil. pixels to 8 mil. pixels at 1 time the screen wide
sit back.
you cant compare that to sd to hd.

it sad but that was one the result of my 4k test.
feed 4k is at the moment to difficult but that will be the goal.

i am very sure that 4k pr. for consumers will be out 2007-2008 because of the pressure that the 2k 3 chip and single chip dlp will make.
it at the moment it is not possible(possiblle yes but the cost are to high) to make a 4k dlp but not so difficult to make a 4 k lcos.

Wolfgang,
I know you are privy to lots of inside info but this sounds incredibly optimistic since the three chip full 1080x1920 DLPs won't be out till the end of this year.

Art

Art, I'd like to make one point that does add some credence to what Wolfgang is saying:

The Qualia 004 only stays current until the end of 2006- it's gone for 2007, and I've heard some "whispers" about a replacement premier projector in the same vain (probably labelled SRX-____ if it's SXRD, and possibly even a GLV....one never knows what goes on in the Sony skunkworks). :D

If Sony hopes to really push the envelope with their SXRD technology, they need to stay ahead of the TI curve. They release the Ruby almost a full-year ahead of even 1080P single-chips, they've had a 1080P projector that can mostly compete with 1080P 3-chip designs for almost 2-years (albeit not to the same level of light-cannon-ability as Christie, tec.) AND, they actually deliver some of these SRX-105's and SRX-110's to theater chains this year.
-All of this allows Sony to say: "Look, we're well ahead of TI when it comes to product development and release, we have been for 3 years (this is by CES 2007). Sony is 'still' the leading-edge in imaging technology."

-now doesn't that sound like a statement you'd hear from a Sony marketing-guy at either a CEDIA or a CES?

----discuss amongst yourselves---- :D

Dan

I urge Sony to license AISYS from Canon and improve on light output. This must be more economical than going to 4k for higher light output.

The big question is if AISYS can be implemented with sxrd and give the market
- high resolution 1080p or better
- high light output 2000+ ANSI lumen
- high contrast 3000+:1 , with possible use of auto iris for even higher on/off

Ohlson, can you be more specific about AISYS?

Wolfgang,
I know you are privy to lots of inside info but this sounds incredibly optimistic since the three chip full 1080x1920 DLPs won't be out till the end of this year.


art
let say it this way.

i am 99% sure that sony will have pr. out in 07 with more pixels than 1920x1080.
its may "only" 2560x1440 (thats 4 mil. pixels and double from the 2 mil.)
but also possible that they do real 8 mil. pixels or something in between all of them.

resolution is almost no problem for lcos but for dlp and sony will use that antwantage.

Well, it certainly sounds great ! I was hoping for more CR and more light before more resolution however. Perhaps my selfish desires color my thoughts. It just seems that with Sony's present home theater offerings, resolution is forth on the list of things which need to be seriously addressed.

Art

Art S.
Canon must be clever somehow getting 3500 ANSI lumen (claimed) from just one 270W bulb. That is their sx6 model.

The big IF is if Canon could keep half of those lumens and significantly increase the on/off. One way might be to use improved panels. Does anyone know whose panels they are using.

If Canon can have good light output with lcos perhaps Sony can learn to do that too without resorting to big 4k panels. 4k will be an excellent choice for those considering 1080p 3DLP but below that market another solution needs to be found.

I think getting more light is not the reason for 4k panels - but would love to settle for 4k and lots of light anyway :)

All I know is that the Qualia and Ruby are relatively anemic in light output and have at best OK on/off CR. This isn't even to mentioning the QC panel registration errors. I'd just feel that we would be there if these things would be addressed first then the uber HD resolutions.

Art

art.
i think we can see a improvement in every way "resolution,cr........" at the same time.

mattias
the canon pr is "only" so bright because the develop the unit for max. light out and they don't care about cr. and much other things that are important for home cinema use.
this is no secret and all other companys that use lcos can do it if the like.

art.
i think we can see a improvement in every way "resolution,cr........" at the same time.


Well, I'd certainly love it if it transpires this way but lately I wonder what the thought process is. The Ruby could have been built to output enough light for a 12' wide screen rather than a 9' wide. It could have been built with electronic adjustment of the panels so registration errors of less than one pixel would be possible as JVC does. It could have been built with enough light at the get go to allow for diminuition along with a static iris that goes way down and it would have native on off CR rather than the give and take DI CR it has now. All of these things are out there now but no one will put them into one PJ. This is the concern for me when we start putting 4K at the top of the list.

Art

W.Mayer
I think it is as you say but I still believe that Canon is more efficient in using light, why?

Qualia 004
1100:1@1500 ANSI lumen or close to those figures , you know them best. This is at D65.

Canon sx6
1000:1@3500 ANSI lumen claimed. Lets be optimistic and say that it can be 1000:1 at D65. What will the lumen be then, 1500?

My point is that Sony uses a 700W bulb and Canon a 270W bulb. I am just guessing there is room for improvemnet of light output from Sony even with high contrast as a goal.

did the canon have a uhp lamp or a xenon?
uhp is a lot more efficient than xenon.

yes, the bulb type partly explains the possible difference but not all of it. Remind me again how many percent more D65 lumen/watt do we get from UHP.

Will we see any significant bulb improvement shortly? I know Philips might introduce CPL bulbs, a technology that extends to at least 450w. http://www.hcinema.de/pro/anzeigen.php?angabe=projectiondesign10kconcept
Hopefully CPL could have something up on both UHP and xenon.

However for this section of the forum kW xenons and 4k is probably the laid out road ahead.

All I know is that the Qualia and Ruby are relatively anemic in light output and have at best OK on/off CR. This isn't even to mentioning the QC panel registration errors. I'd just feel that we would be there if these things would be addressed first then the uber HD resolutions.

Art

Art, that is overstating things. The Qualia may be anemic compared to an SRX-R, but come on now. It's still significantly brighter than your G90s, and corner-to-corner brightness is far, far more uniform. An HD daytime shot looks like daytime right to the screen edge on an 004. On a G90, the same shot looks realistic in the center only; at the sides, things are dim. Put it another way: The Qualia gives you a window on a bright scene; the G90 gives you a bright spot within a tunnel.

I'm not putting the G90 down, mind you. It has many strengths and is especially well suited to DVD content because of the terrific black level and contrast which allow it to shine in dark scenes most notably. But, the 004 has it's merits, too, especially with HD content.

As for registration errors, it's true that some Qualias are better than others, but we're still speaking of the exception rather than the rule. Just as we are with G90s that are starting to become known a bit for video board failures. Most G90s in the field are fine, of course. And most 004s are within a pixel, to a pixel-and-a-half in my experience.

Furthermore, the registration problem -- when it exists -- is almost always on just one far side of the 004's projected image. Dead center is almost always dead perfect. Plus, 004s that have gone back to Sony to have their engines worked on because of an unacceptably large error on one side, come back looking almost perfect edge to edge. So, was it a quality control issue to begin with, or was the projector knocked about in shipping and the delicate chips became slightly misaligned?

By the way, I'm expecting to have an SRX-R110 in the very near future which should make for an interesting three-way comparison among the 004, a G90 just back from Sony Service, and the SRX-R. The inputs will be a bit tricky until the DVI card for the SRX-R is released by Sony in July, but hopefully we'll manage until then.

...I only want to point out that the major difference between the 2 SONYs is mainly the lens...

That, and the physical size of the chips which have a smaller surface area in the VPL-VW100 as compared to the Qualia 004.

Any idea as to how well the SONY 4K series handles an off-axis projection booth location with regards to keystone correction?

Art, that is overstating things. The Qualia may be anemic compared to an SRX-R, but come on now. It's still far brighter than your G90s, and corner-to-corner brightness is far, far more uniform. An HD daytime shot looks like daytime right to the screen edge; on a G90, it looks realistic in the center only. At the sides, things are dim.

I'm not putting the G90 down, mind you. It has numerous strengths, as we know, and is especially well suited to DVD content because of the terrific black level and contrast. But, the 004 has it's merits, too, especially with HD content.

As for registration errors, it's true that some Qualias are better than others, but we're still speaking of the exception rather than the rule. Just as we are with G90s that are starting to become known a bit for video board failures. Most G90s in the field are fine, of course. And most 004s are within a pixel in my experience.

Furthermore, the registration problem -- when it exists -- is usually just on one far side of the projected image. Dead center is almost always dead accurate perfect, and four-fifths of the image is within a pixel or so. Plus, 004s that have gone back to Sony to have their engines worked on because of an unacceptably large error on one side, come back looking almost perfect edge to edge. So, was it a quality control issue to begin with, or was the projector knocked about in shipping and the delicate chips became slightly misaligned?

Anyway, I'm expecting to have an SRX-R110 shortly which should make for a very interesting three-way comparison among the 004, a G90 just back from Sony Service, and the SRX-R.



That, and the physical size of the chips which have a smaller surface area in the VPL-VW100 as compared to the Qualia 004. Plus the lamp, of course.



Paul,
No question the 004 is brighter out of the box than one G90 that's why I have two. Wolfgang tried stacking two and couldn't do it . The Qualia is anemic relative to three chip DLP and remember it has a CR of 1950 :1 at it's best. This isn't even very good by fixed pixel standards. The registration errors on the Ruby are well documented and I can tell you that I have no fringing edge to edge visible within two feet of the screen with my stack. Ask thebland about his panel errors on his 004 and he says he "just lives with it" I will grant you the uniformity for any fixed pixel device over my G90s.

Look at Wolfgang's images of how far off the 4K unit was . This looked just like what Dan Francis and I both saw at CEDIA in that large demo room and the 4K PJ.

I don't think I'm overstating the panel errors,lack of CR ,black, and insufficient light at high CR at all. The Ruby has only about 400 lumens after very little use. My point in this is just that the one box solution for big screens still hasn't been invented IMO.

I may have to ultimately accept some of this but I'd rather not .

Art

I might get a chance to view the 110 at Showest. Is there anything in particular that I should look for. I asked for a shootout between the Sony and a NEC dlp cinema projector but I'm not sure that can happen.

I might get a chance to view the 110 at Showest. Is there anything in particular that I should look for. I asked for a shootout between the Sony and a NEC dlp cinema projector but I'm not sure that can happen.

Panel registration errors at edges text etc .( visible color fringing at 1x sgreen width viewing distance),color uniformity black level at low APL .

Good luck getting a shootout. :rolleyes:

Art

I might get a chance to view the 110 at Showest. Is there anything in particular that I should look for. I asked for a shootout between the Sony and a NEC dlp cinema projector but I'm not sure that can happen.

I have a booth that's higher than the top of the screen, needing 125% shift.

That works with the long throw Qualia lens, but it does not seem that the 4K offers such a vertical shift, nor keystone correction to compensate.

Could you ask if there can be a solution for that problem?

Anyway, have fun!

please try to find out if it is true that in summer sony
will have a solution about the convergence but by shifting each panel electronically
in x and y pixelwise(like jvc did it) and
if its also true that sony works with nvidea together to feed 4k content from computers
with only 2 dual link dvi cables.

it will also helpful to ask them about a hdcp input and a digital iris.

http://news.sel.sony.com/pressrelease/6538

seams there is a 18000 ansi version in the near future.

sony please offer us home cinema freaks a 5000 ansi version with hdcp and di.

Wolfgang,
I hope you get your wish ! :)

And it looks like at forum appropriate pricing: :D

The LMT-100 media block and Screen Management System are expected to be available in May and June, respectively, with pricing for each still to be determined. SXRD 4K projectors are currently on the market at suggested list prices of $98,550 for a 10,000 ANSI lumen model and $66,750 for a 5,000 ANSI lumen model.

Art

art

may you are right about the qualia successor about resolution see pm.

I'm still dying for one of these 4k at $25k :) - maybe the 5000 AnSI version !

I think it is safe to say that the success of 4k sxrd depends heavily on true 4k content.
I would like to know how many kW of xenon power is needed to generate 18000 ANSI lumen from the upcoming sxrd projector.

sxrd-fan reported on improvements to the design. Did they show at Showest.

I think it is safe to say that the success of 4k sxrd depends heavily on true 4k content.
I would like to know how many kW of xenon power is needed to generate 18000 ANSI lumen from the upcoming sxrd projector.

sxrd-fan reported on improvements to the design. Did they show at Showest.

Hi Ohlson,

Don't want to sound like I'm disagreeing with you on this, as no doubt 1080 came into it's own on the back of 1080 content being available also, so you are certainly correct.

However, I - for one - intend that my next setup will have a much bigger screen than the 120" I have now. From my experience, 2.35:1 material on the 120" screen just doesn't immerse me, as my viewing position is quite far back.

So I'm looking at something at least twice the size.

In this context, I would very much welcome a 4k setup (of 5000 ANSI minimum) that can scale 1080p to the larger size. I feel that for my situation it would be a great improvement on what 1080p would look like at that size.

So although I might have stuck myself in the "top percentile" situation here, I do look forward to these projectors becoming more sorted soon.

.02 worth again :)

Good luck getting a shootout.

Actually he will have the next best thing just by walking back and forth from the SONY ballroom into the NEC. Them, Kodak, Imax and DTS are all outside the convention floor in ballrooms.

The program content will be different though.

WOOO-HOOO! New 3 NEC Starus projectors on their way with built in HQV and input card (hdcp possible, I know). The nc800c for screening rooms ( home cinema) and post production

http://www.necsam.com/press/read.cfm?Press_ID=f08175ba-a6de-4d7b-b80c-78dc3a528f4d

http://www.ubergizmo.com/photos/nec-projector_large.jpg

art

may you are right about the qualia successor about resolution see pm.

Wolfgang,
I didn't get a PM from you, could you resend it ?

Well the shootout could not happen. My viewing of the Sony was quite nice, picture seemed real good but the source was a video off a server with what I understood to be ultrahi bandwidth and resolution. I was told there is no source material planned at this resolution. The NEC dlp's premiered "Cars" which also looked awesome but it is difficult to compare picture quality between an animated film and a video source.

Vegas, Did you see the new NEC models th 1500 and the 800. Do they have the same input card and rialta processing of the 2500?

CINERMAX
What has changed since iS8-2k? Is it more than a change of model number? Are you not looking for a home theater adapted version of the 800 or is that as easy as ordering a high contrast lens?

Light output
Ruby is taking a lot of heat for reduced light output as the xenon bulb ages. Do cinema/digital cinema xenon bulbs age more gracefully?

CINERMAX
What has changed since iS8-2k? Is it more than a change of model number? Are you not looking for a home theater adapted version of the 800 or is that as easy as ordering a high contrast lens?

Light output
Ruby is taking a lot of heat for reduced light output as the xenon bulb ages. Do cinema/digital cinema xenon bulbs age more gracefully?

The new NEC starus projectors have built in input modularity (as in hdcp), a realta scaling engine to scale 1920 x 1080 to 2048, motorized anamorphic adapter, super precise lens memories, constant brightness over time lamp housing, new asic. With a high contrast lens these should do 3500>1 add a high contrast screen and voila. I am excited about these. I wonder if they can frame accelerate 1080p24.

Peter,
This projector just doesn't cut it with the standards we are beginning to come to know for the home.You are hoping for 3500:1 when 5000:1 and 6500:1 native are becoming accepted. Why would one want to scale 1080x1920 to 1080x2048 ? :confused: Is it using the old chip... must be since the new chips are 1080 x1920 with better CR potential. I just can't believe that someone would invest in one of these in the next few months with in just a couple more we will see devices that would hammer that.

Art

Any idea as to how well the SONY 4K series handles an off-axis projection booth location with regards to keystone correction?


The SRX does'nt have keystone correction so you may need an warping engine to solve this.
The only thing it has is an vertical shift for 50% of screensize.

In Berlin @ Kinopalast i was projecting in the projection booth off axis with the SRX and we used an curved screen so you did'n notice the keystoning so much.
In this case the boot was located on screen top so that was not so much off axis.

It seems that sony has to fix an lens for off-axis projection :)

SXRD-Fan
Any update on 4k sxrd´s current state and progress?

CINERMAX

Light output
Ruby is taking a lot of heat for reduced light output as the xenon bulb ages. Do cinema/digital cinema xenon bulbs age more gracefully?

The large scale projectors all have widley adjustable lamp current. You simply adjust for light output. At a point you won't make 14fl anymore. But even before that you will notice the current is getting high and it's time for a new lamp. This is a daily setup in the studio enviornment. Sometimes even several times a day if several projects are going through the room.

At a local theater? Well if there's light on the screen the bulb must be OK. :rolleyes:

Peter,
This projector just doesn't cut it with the standards we are beginning to come to know for the home.You are hoping for 3500:1 when 5000:1 and 6500:1 native are becoming accepted.


Why would one want to scale 1080x1920 to 1080x2048 ?
Art

I say that this projector is a better overall projector than what you are expecting from the new 1080p 3 chippers.

The movie theater screen perforations suck up a lot of light for which the dcinema lenses are designed for. with modification and an anamorphic lense the image is breathtaking.

I want to use a cinema dlp anamorphic lens and hence need that type of scaling.

SXRD-Fan
Any update on 4k sxrd´s current state and progress?

At this point not really much news, still waiting for the new engine.
The only thing public is the press release from sony that they have an 4K server (The japan Mjpeg thing only 4:2:2 at this moment) and that the will come out with an 18.000 Ansi lumen version of the SRX.

Only update from my side is that my projector's are being used right at this moment in our studio for shooting some scenes for the movie Black Book thats directed by Paul Verhoeven.

This is the first time Paul is using rear projection as an background for shooting (difficult) scene's

Foto's of that will foloow soon !

Just curius and reading the thread in this hi end thread, but i know cost is not discussed on the forums in any form, so just curius, how much money does this all cost and how much do you yourself make per year in this buisness? If you could PM me and tell me this information I would really apreciate it, it would help me to set goals and marks for what I would eventually want in my future.

I'd buy a 4k LCos when it reaches $30k list price...

I say that this projector is a better overall projector than what you are expecting from the new 1080p 3 chippers.


So you are contending that you already have a projector that is better than what I'm expecting for the future? :D

Art

The Near Future , Yes.

I have confirmed that the SRX-R's latest software allows convergence adjustment of 3 to 4 pixels up or down, and side to side. So, the registration issue seen in the photo on the first page of this thread is now easily resolved as long as the error is across the entire screen. If it's confined to mostly one side or quadrant, the error is difficult to completely compensate for.

Software updates down the road will no doubt add more flexibility if convergence errors are found to be problematic along a line on one part of the screen but not the other.

pf

thats good news.

now if sony can add hdcp and a dvi input ( if they like to do it they can do it easily )
and a di (not so easy) they are may surprised how many units they can
sale for big home cinemas.
for e cinemas dlp is the clear winner till today so sony should look into this market.

Yes ,great news Paul ! It would have been a shame if such a great device had had feet of clay.

Art

pf

...for e cinemas dlp is the clear winner till today so sony should look into this market.

It may be the winner for now of the initial battle, but the war is hopefully not over. Commercial DLP looks like crap -- I'll take even well-worn 35mm film over it any day. I pray that the war is now joined and that Sony starts to make inroads in the commercial theatre market with the SRX-R.

Sony is coming out with an 18,000 lumen unit, as we know, plus a server, so their intentions seem clear. The SRX-R-110 will put a measured 13.5 FL on a 50-foot wide screen with new lamps (it has two), which is beyond the Sony spec. So, the 18,000 lumen unit should have enough light output for most commercial theatres.

pf

i call my soure that is the europe chief engineer responsible for the 4k pr.

i told him about your info regards the convergence.

he told me that he can not confirm it .
he also told me that he hear that this is may a option for the new bright 18k ansi lumen one but not for the 105 and 110.

he also point out the the dvi input boards that are coming in july 06 will have no hdcp
and if you like to feed 4k you need still 4 dvi input boards.

from where is your informations?

hope his informations is wrong and your is right.

Hmmm...

Well, the convergence adjustment software I told you about comes from hands-on experience on an SRX-R110 last weekend. Red and blue are adjustable against green. Your engineer just hasn't received his download, I suppose.

Since your source isn't up to date, I wouldn't take his word that the new DVI input board will not have HDCP just yet. Nobody at Sony here seems to know for sure one way or the other. I'm optimistic. But then, I always am, so don't take my word for it.

Either way, I'd bet my bottom dollar that an HDCP compliant card will come sooner or later, and I'm usually right about these things. (I'm optimistic, but not always humble. ;) )

Are the 4k sxrds waiting for a new interface standard. Sony must find or develop one practical 4k feed into the projector.

W.Mayer
Might it not be that Sony wants to keep these models strictly for the professional market and thus the no hdcp thing. 4k in a friendlier prosumer package is to be expected at some point. Sony needs a reply to 1080p 3DLP. Such a 3DLP offering is looking like 4Q2006 to 1H2007.

Small update ... Our SRX's going to be in Prague for the pre-premiere (i believe not the full movie) from the bond movie :) (Special showcase from Sony pictures for their 50 key accounts)

And ... end of June in Venice for an event with Sophia Loren with an projection on an huge Cruiseship (On the side of the ship!)

Ot for this topic but only for the forum thread ...

We now also have the XLM 25 in stock ... 28K centerlumes in 1920x1080 from 1 6Kw Xenon source (25K Ansilumen)

So there goings to be some testing been done who wins: 2 stacked SRX's or 1 XLM25 :)

SXRD-Fan
How many kWs of xenon does Sony employ to push 18k ANSI lumen?

Might it not be that Sony wants to keep these models strictly for the professional market .

Maybe ,but this will not stop Wolfgang ! :)

Art

SXRD-Fan
How many kWs of xenon does Sony employ to push 18k ANSI lumen?

Well ... we may assume it will be an lot as the panels are not so efficient as they now use 4kw for 10.000 so i thing they will push it to 2 times 3.5kw bulbs to reach it. Anyway i still don't have exact details of the 18K version and i wont believe we will invest in these on an short term.

For examle my XLM25 produces 25.000 ansilumen with 6Kw bulb ... offcourse the tecnique used is much different and the contrast ratio is much lower and it has an HOT spot thats more worse than the SRX as the SRX has some techniques to reduce hotspots.

But in comparison to the powersupply's for example .. the ones used in the XLM are much smaller and it's fitted with 3 of them.

The XLM is actualy water cooled (closed internal system) but it generates more noise on 25K output then the SRX when i reduce it to 10K the noise is the same so i will also start developing an silencer for the XLM as we have done for the SRX (cutting the noise with 40%)

SXRD fan,
I missed where you are located ?

Art

Small update ... we now have 4 of those beauty's ... only one disadvantage i have to send the other 2 back for engine replacement ;).

I don't know how much this may have been mentioned, but I just want to remind anyone contemplating purchasing this projector that it's native 1.85. So, you would purchase a 1.85 screen instead of 1.78 if you're going to be buying that, as well. Send me a PM if you require more information.

Hmmm...

Well, the convergence adjustment software I told you about comes from hands-on experience on an SRX-R110 last weekend. Red and blue are adjustable against green. Your engineer just hasn't received his download, I suppose.

Since your source isn't up to date, I wouldn't take his word that the new DVI input board will not have HDCP just yet. Nobody at Sony here seems to know for sure one way or the other. I'm optimistic. But then, I always am, so don't take my word for it.

Either way, I'd bet my bottom dollar that an HDCP compliant card will come sooner or later, and I'm usually right about these things. (I'm optimistic, but not always humble. ;) )

Hi i am innstalling to 105 in the ceiling and i nead to adjust the convergenc wehr can i find the software for it

my dealer here also like to get it to
adjust the convergenc from the demo unit but till today no one knows anything about it.

so same question where i can found it?

may someone is up to date.

I'd be the first to admit that three chip DLP has the best color reproduction available in any technology used in front projection this isn't news and hasn't been for a very very long time...Art




At the risk of annoying CINERAMAX, there is absolutely nothing -- I repeat, nothing -- superior about 3-chip DLP as it currently exists, compared to CRT or 35mm film, subjectively speaking. As Art says, it's all promise so far, w/o realization.

Yes, some of the calculated measurements are good, but the proof of the pudding is always in the tasting. In a theater, where it counts, the 3-chip DLP viewing experience is decidedly lacking. Put plainly, the images look terrible. It's to the point now where I avoid digital cinemas when I'm simply out to a movie to enjoy myself (as opposed to seeing the digital version of a movie to compare it to the film version for business).

I know I am in the minority on this, but I am hardly alone. Digital cinema, as TI is currently practicing it, simply is not there yet. Maybe the new commercial DLP cinema gear will be better, but that certainly is unproven at this point.

my dealer here also like to get it to
adjust the convergenc from the demo unit but till today no one knows anything about it.

so same question where i can found it?

may someone is up to date.


Back on topic:

W.Mayer, TOREK,

1. I presume you know how to get into the service menu for the SRX-R. It's the same button press sequence as for any other Sony projector.

2. However, to perfom the convergence adjustment requires that the projector has the latest software. If you're projector doesn't have the latest software, you can get it from the Sony Service Tech website easily enough. You'll need a dealer to get access onto that site.

3,. You must download the upgrade software from the site to a laptop. Then, you can upload it to the projector from the laptop.

4. You'll have to get under the hood of the projector to get to the software activation switch (just as you do with the Qualia 004) which should be on the inside near the lamp, if I recall correctly. Without resetting the software, the upgrade will not be complete.

Once you have the newest software, you'll be able to easily adjust the convergence.

PF

I have just recently begin to really enjoy Hi-End video... I need the education but I did see "Revenge of the Sith" at the Ziegfeld Theater in NYC. The picture was excellent in my humble and honest opinion. I mean , yes it appeared artificial, at times but (and this coming from an ex-photographer who has practiced, briefly, the Zone System) Film is a different kind of artificiality. Yes for now film has more resolution and more fidelity but, there was a clarity in the picture and an absence of noise that I have not seen in many movies shown on 35 mm film. I could be wrong... I would not go as far as calling what I saw "terrible".

Furthermore most of what I see from film in most Cineplexes are horrible, lately I did see "The Sentinel" at one of them in Miami, Fl " Geometric distortion was incredible. Level of light in the Theater was enough to read a newspaper.. I mean, one more reason to build an HT... So Cineplexes are not the references be it for film or Digital Cinema...

P.S. In photography, my (and many others) gold standard was the Kodachrome 25 and the Ilford CibaChrome for paper... I still have a Leitz Slide Projector.. from time to time I do pull it out to see how good 35 mm photography is.. blows CRT, DLP or whatever out of the water in all areas... plus a level of brightness CRT cannot begin to match

FrantzM,

That's very interesting because I also saw "Revenge of the Sith," at the Ziegfeld as it's just a few blocks from my home on Central Park South. The Ziegfeld has always been my favorite theater because of the screen size, but I rue the day it went digital. So, unfortunately, I was far less pleased than you. Except when the image was the result of computer generation, I could find nothing redeeming about Sith's picture quality. The color fidelity was terrible, I thought. It looked like early LCD digital home projection. I was completely unabsorbed by the action, the plot, the images -- all of it. I squirmed throughout.

This isn't the first digital disappointment, either. I've seen many digital presentations now such as "Spiderman 2," "War of the Worlds," "Batman Begins," and "Hitchhikers Guide," to name but a few. All were quite disappointing in terms of picture quality, especially color fidelity.

What a shame. I still remember the first 20-minutes of "Independence Day," at the Ziegfeld years ago as being one of the visual highlights of my years of Hollywood film viewing. An uneven movie, to be sure, but those giant screen images totally pulled you in. But that was 35mm film, of course.

Hi PF. No annoyance, for a 50 wide perforated screen maybe 3 chip dlp is not so good. But on a 16 foot wide contrast enhancing screen it's another story. The color is as pure as it gets, not so with sxrd, the color is all over the place. I say for dlp the solution is a specially modded digital cinema piece with their best anamorphic lens on a remote controlled turret, and a Torus. Im going to build one of these (14 footer) next year, you can come see it. I promise you it will seem like 70mm.

At the risk of annoying CINERAMAX, there is absolutely nothing -- I repeat, nothing -- superior about 3-chip DLP as it currently exists, compared to CRT or 35mm film, subjectively speaking.
I'm not an expert here, but I had thought that the "rainbow effect" in DLP was caused by the chips switching to various colors being shown by the color wheel.

Would a 3 chip DLP system eliminate this problem and allow the DLP chips to concentrate their cycles on better reproduction of each color?

Hi PF. No annoyance, for a 50 wide perforated screen maybe 3 chip dlp is not so good. But on a 16 foot wide contrast enhancing screen it's another story. The color is as pure as it gets, not so with sxrd, the color is all over the place. I say for dlp the solution is a specially modded digital cinema piece with their best anamorphic lens on a remote controlled turret, and a Torus. Im going to build one of these (14 footer) next year, you can come see it. I promise you it will seem like 70mm.

Now, that I would like to take a trip to see.

I hear you about the perfs and DLP. Makes sense.

But why do you say the color of the SRX-R is all over the place? That's not the feedback I received from my calibrator.

FROM MERCURY NEWS:
Sony unveils digital projector as theaters gear up to dump film
GARY GENTILE
Associated Press
LOS ANGELES - After more than a decade of talking about it, movie theaters and studios are finally rolling out digital projectors that show sharper, brighter images without cracks, pops or hisses.

This weekend, Sony Electronics will enter the field with a projector that displays the sharpest resolution envisioned under a set of standards issued for digital cinema.

Movie studios last year agreed on such technology standards, which will allow components made by different manufacturers to be interoperable. Those components include the projector itself, the computer that stores the movie and sound, software that compresses the huge digital files and security systems that prevent piracy.

And, after years of debate about who would pay for the systems, studios and companies that sell digital cinema systems agreed to share the cost.

Studios stand to save millions each year by delivering digital versions of their films to theaters instead of the clunky film prints that get scratched and dirty after only a few weeks and have to be replaced.

But the studios agreed to forgo those savings for 10 years in order to finance the cost of replacing current 35-millimeter film projectors with digital cinema systems.

Two financing groups have been established to install projectors that display images with "2K" resolution, or about 2 million pixels - dots of light that make up a digital image. The main benefit of 2K projection is a more stable, consistent image, although one trade-off is that color is often not as deep and rich as that provided by film.

Both groups hope to have hundreds of systems installed by the end of this year and as many as half of the nation's 36,000 screens within the next 10 years.

This weekend, Sony will begin a test of its new "4K" projector, which displays images at 8 million pixels horizontally.

The company has installed one of the projectors at a theater in Los Angeles that will show Sony Pictures' "The Da Vinci Code." The company, in conjunction with National CineMedia, a joint venture of AMC Entertainment Inc., Cinemark USA Inc. and Regal Entertainment Group, will install projectors in two other theaters next month in yet to be determined locations.

Movies can be distributed in one of several ways. In the current test, the Sony projector will play the movie from a computer disk. Movies can also be beamed to theaters via satellite or sent over fiber-optic cables, as is the case with a similar test in Japan being conducted by Warner Bros. and Sony Pictures.

The 4K projectors promise richer color and better contrast that draws moviegoers into the image. The major difference, however, will be seen by those who sit closest to the movie screen, who will see sharper images without noticing individual pixels, which can occur in a theater with 2K projection.

Sony recently tested its system using a clip from the 1965 classic "The Sound of Music." When it was projected in 4K, viewers were able to pick out two hairs sticking up from Julie Andrews' head and see details of the weave in her dress.

"Anything that enhances the visual experience, that better supports the artistry, the story of the motion picture being exhibited, anything that raises the bar of higher quality is a benefit to the moviegoer," said Andrew Stucker, general manager of the digital cinema systems group at Sony Electronics.

The increased quality is strongly desired by theater owners, who are looking for ways to attract more business, especially as home theater systems become more sophisticated.

"There's a strong desire to differentiate cinema from home and that's where 4K comes in," said Michael Karagosian of MKPE Consulting.

But in the end, Karagosian suggests, moviegoers will not base their decision to visit the local megaplex on technology alone.

"It's a social experience and at bottom line it's about the content," he said. "I may remodel my kitchen, but I still like to go out to eat once in a while."

Digital projectors are installed in about 500 U.S. theaters today. That number is expected to rise to about 1,500 by the end of the year.

Current digital projection systems cost about $100,000, with 4K systems expected to be higher initially, although the price should come down once the market develops.

Ultra-High-Definition Digital Projectors To Be Tested
Sony will begin testing the latest generation of high-definition digital movie projectors at a Los Angeles theater showing The Da Vinci Code this weekend, with plans to install similar projectors in two other theaters next month, the Associated Press reported today (Friday). The so-called 4K projector offers twice the resolution of 2K projectors currently operating in a handful of theaters across the country. According to A.P., they also "promise richer color and better contrast that draws moviegoers into the image."

Hi PF. .... not so with sxrd, the color is all over the place. ......

Hi

Educate me here, what do you mean by this statement? I have not noticed this at all but again, Iam only now beginning to get into high-End video and to me the Sony SXRD stands very high in PQ and color purity...

Hi

Educate me here, what do you mean by this statement? I have not noticed this at all but again, Iam only now beginning to get into high-End video and to me the Sony SXRD stands very high in PQ and color purity...

THERE IS NO UTILITY IN PLACE TO CONTROL the white field uniformity linearity issues, and the misconvergence adjustments of srx projectors. The white field uniformity and color linearity issues are native to LCOS's TRANSMISSIVE/REFLECTIVE tehcnology, in contrast 3 chip dlp can have perfect color as it is purely reflective (mirrors) and with a good bulb and correct filters it will yield a very linear, very stable, accurate color gammut. One that presents PHOTOREALISM without any additional coloring. LCOS has analog like non-linearities, and while there could be a resolution advantage to SRX on very large venues, on a 14 foot wide screen cinema dlp is strikingly perfect, specially when irised down. Unlike a good cinema dlp projector that very closely conforms to the CIE triangle, an SRX projector can produce a gamut 105% that of CIE, the enhanced color mode in Qualia.

The problem with all the cinema projectors is that they use perforated screens , which do have a contrast enhancement element to them by virtue of having blck dots in them. When cinema projectors are used on a flat screen they are lacking for on off contrast, the solution is to carefully reduce by 2/3 rd the aperture.

The fixed iris mod can be done to any digital cinema or srx projector.

CINERAMAX

I have learned a lot of things video from this Forum so bear with me:

Is White Field uniformity in SXRD intransically inferior to DLP?
Same with Color Uniformity?

CINERAMAX

I have learned a lot of things video from this Forum so bear with me:

Is White Field uniformity in SXRD intransically inferior to DLP?
Same with Color Uniformity?

Yes, Mathias. A three dlp projector with a xenon bulb has essentially perfect white field uniformity and linearity easily covering every hue in the Billion colors perceived by man accurately. Not so with LCOS, it can be very beautiful looking (because of the high chroma modes) just not that accurate. The cause of this is the transmissive part of the "writing" lcd in LCOS, where you have a writing lcd at very low power, this is where the non linearities arise.

Well .... recently i had 2 engines update with the new ones that are sold now and WHOW ... what an difference ..... Uniformity is near perfect now and theconvegens is now back to 1 pixel and damn ... what a work to swap the enigines .... (as we have blowed up one projector ;))

Pics will follow soon.

Yes, Mathias. A three dlp projector with a xenon bulb has essentially perfect white field uniformity and linearity easily covering every hue in the Billion colors perceived by man accurately. Not so with LCOS, it can be very beautiful looking (because of the high chroma modes) just not that accurate. The cause of this is the transmissive part of the "writing" lcd in LCOS, where you have a writing lcd at very low power, this is where the non linearities arise.


Cineramax

I simply do not understand your point... Please clarify

Cineramax

I simply do not understand your point... Please clarify

Yes please do !

Art

http://www.spatialight.com/Technology/lcos_e1.jpg

Cineramax

:confused: ???

Actually, non-linearities are useful in the dark areas.

FrantzM,

That's very interesting because I also saw "Revenge of the Sith," at the Ziegfeld as it's just a few blocks from my home on Central Park South. The Ziegfeld has always been my favorite theater because of the screen size, but I rue the day it went digital. So, unfortunately, I was far less pleased than you. Except when the image was the result of computer generation, I could find nothing redeeming about Sith's picture quality. The color fidelity was terrible.

How do you judge color fidelity? The Sith 2K screenings I saw were not terrible at all.

Ok as promised some new nudy's of our SRX'projectors when the new engines getting installed.

(ps we have the luck to have 4 of the 110's now ;))

http://jerome.vliegerforum.nl/d/987-2/DSC02592.JPG
http://jerome.vliegerforum.nl/d/990-2/DSC02593.JPG
http://jerome.vliegerforum.nl/d/993-2/DSC02594.JPG
http://jerome.vliegerforum.nl/d/996-2/DSC02595.JPG
http://jerome.vliegerforum.nl/d/1002-2/DSC02597.JPG

How do you judge color fidelity? The Sith 2K screenings I saw were not terrible at all.

Hi

I, also, really would like to understand PF opinion. How is Color fidelity judged? I did find the PQ, excellent , sometimes a little artificial sometimes then again it IS Science-Fiction, so..

Ok as promised some new nudy's of our SRX'projectors when the new engines getting installed.

(ps we have the luck to have 4 of the 110's now ;))


Man, that's better than porn! :D

srdxfan

very nice pictures.

as you well know the unit how do you see the possibility to add an fix iris to trade
light out and encrease cr.
and can you do it?

i hear but its not confirm at that moment that some units have problems with dust.
i also hear that it will be easy to clean parts from the optical block from dust.
after i see your pictures i guess it will be not easy.

about the new software.
because there is some times different software in us to europe can you please
tell me the software part no.

did you ever see a dead pixel with the 4k so far.
i week ago after i saw a lot of qualias in the past i found one qualia that have a dead pixel in red.

Interesting. I can fix that thing. Off the cuff, I'd say I can subjectively increase the shadow detail, depth, color depth, etc, by about 50%. This would amount to the apparent point (darker scenes, or scenes with complex dynamics) where the projector's image 'seems' to go 'flat', to be at least 50% better.

Sad thing is, though, one could easily fix a 35 film projection system via similar methods. :) There's alot more CR in film than what you've seen, you know.

Interesting. I can fix that thing. Off the cuff, I'd say I can subjectively increase the shadow detail, depth, color depth, etc, by about 50%. This would amount to the apparent point (darker scenes, or scenes with complex dynamics) where the projector's image 'seems' to go 'flat', to be at least 50% better.

I've missed seeing your posts lately!

I'll bet I could improve those attributes by 52.7% +/- .3%. :D

srdxfan

very nice pictures.

as you well know the unit how do you see the possibility to add an fix iris to trade
light out and encrease cr.
and can you do it?

i hear but its not confirm at that moment that some units have problems with dust.
i also hear that it will be easy to clean parts from the optical block from dust.
after i see your pictures i guess it will be not easy.

about the new software.
because there is some times different software in us to europe can you please
tell me the software part no.

did you ever see a dead pixel with the 4k so far.
i week ago after i saw a lot of qualias in the past i found one qualia that have a dead pixel in red.

Hi Werner,

It might be possible to fit an Iris but ... you have to find the right point to put it and this might be hard but best place seems to be somwhere around the shutter. (or why not modify the shutter and dril an hole in it ;))

Dust is not an huge problem as dust cannot go into the panels as they are filterd.
The optical blocks self are sealed and all other parts you can clean with some filterd air (beware of air supply's without de-humidyfier and with oil addition!) the most dust you will have are at the chromatic mirrors and offcours burnt in dust in the lamhousing but that wont be any problem.

I have now 4 of these baby's (2 are for temporary replacemant as our others we had to modify with the new engine's and modifications on the cooling system (new fan ducts and some strips on the lamp housings) and non of them have dead or hot pixels and our projectors are verry often used as we rent them to events, showcases and so on. (Btw today they where on an shootout with some viper cams verry Yummie !)

With the software i have i ment the gamma table, 3d tables and so .. every engine is supplyed with an cd that you have to upload to the projector. In thos tables stand all te corrections to get an clear picture. Unfortunally i dont have new firmware yet (only the update with the bugs we discoverd with the 003 boards).

Then some updates on the 004 boards (DVI) they are an bit late with it and Sony expects to have them somewhere in July.
The 18k version of the projector wont be an projector but an engine like you see normaly in the cinema's with an added light bulb (just like the barco D-cinema projectors) but .. no full details yet recieved.

And last but not least our other beauty the XLM 25 (25k Ansilumens) is going to be upgraded to an 8K lightbulb (standard 6k) and will output 30k Ansilumens (!).
Unfortunally only 2K resolution ;).

Would it be possible with one of these to watch 4 simultanious 1080p streams like the quad picture above but with different souces? That would be absolutely killer for Football season?