We had a little shootout In Olympia WA last night featuring the mighty G70 vs, the fresh off the truck Marantz VP-11S1. :)

Sources were identicle overlayed clips from HD-DVD.

Results.

Sharpness 11S1 easily
Shadow detail 11S1 easily
3d effect/dynamic range in darker scenes G70
3d effect/dynamic range in daylight scenes 11S1
3d effect/overall probably the G70
Color accuracy 11S1 easily
field and color uniformity 11s1 easily
quietness G70 wins

ease of use 11S1 hands down

These were two great projectors! The G70 was well kept and tweeked and I was amazed that this ten year old technology still holds its own against the latest and greatest.

Its clear that most consumers would choose the Marantz for ease of use and solid clean picture. In a blind test switching back and forth between scenes 10 out of 10 would probably also choose the Marantz. It's Sharpness, Color accuracy and uniformity is simply in a different league. BUT we would all be happy with the G70 without a comparison as it's simply a fantastic image too.

Value? you can pick up a beautiful G70 for under $5k but the Marantz costs $20k MSRP.

Now for the downsides. I kinda expected the Marantz to be better. This is a tough call as the owner probably got my expectations a bit too high. This new model was clearly better than their previous 720p units the S3/S4. Yes you could still see rainbows. And if this bothers you dont kid yourself they are still there. faster processing and 1080p resolution hasn't changed this at all. It still uses the best 1 chip DLP has to offer, a 7 segment 6x color wheel. Speaking of which is definately the largest downside of this projector. Its loud. This projector is much louder than others in the industry; Pearl at 22 decibles and the Mitsubishi at 18. Not just the fan was too loud but the color wheel simply has a high pitch squeel that would require a hush box if you're trying to build a top notch theater. This simply cant be overlooked.

They both threw beautiful images and I just wish I had the $5k Sony Pearl there to comare. I think the owners of both the other projectors would have been shocked!

As I said in the other thread, I can't believe you gave props to CRT. I can see Kal using these remarks against you on Curt's website.:)

Some things to keep in mind are that the G70 hadn't been calibrated for colors with a color meter and the 11S1 was pretty much out of the box (I did set the Brightness and choose the gamma I wanted), which may have given the 11S1 a color advantage (since they should come from the factory with pretty reasonable calibration). I think that tse's gamma circuit would have helped the G70 for shadow detail and the G70 owner will likely look into getting one of those. The screen was a 110" wide Carada that is probably about 1.1 gain (regardless of specs), so a pretty large screen for that kind of gain for either projector. For that setup and that size I would suggest the High Power for the Marantz, much like I am using in my theater. One of the guys there (Steve) should get to see it on my High Power in the next couple of weeks.

One thing we really saw was how much more detailed 1080i looked on the G70 than 720p. The difference was striking. There were scanlines with 1080i, but there are some things that could be done to reduce those.

--Darin

wow, can't believe Trollyg actually came over with some interesting and usefull info :eek: 2 things that come to mind
1) 110' wide is WAY too big for a single G70
2) if the 11S1 is louder than a G70 it must be a real screamer :)
I don't doubt any of the other conclusions, like it's been pointed out a 10 year old G70 is still a top performer. I wouldn't call it "mighty" though, it is a nice 8" machine but only a 9 can really be considerd mighty. Nice G70's are actually still selling in the $3K neighborhood so a hell of a value.

I've seen a half dozen G90s. I'd bet the same results would be seen.

the G90 may sway the 3D effect a bit more. Regardless of the CRT the softness of the technology reduces the 3D effect in certain scenes. On daylight scenes the added sharpness of the DLP cleary gives the 3D effect an advantage as there's no destraction from softness or color uniformity.

:rolleyes:

We had a little shootout In Olympia WA last night featuring the mighty G70 vs, the fresh off the truck Marantz VP-11S1. :)

Sources were identicle overlayed clips from HD-DVD.

Results.

Sharpness 11S1 easily
Shadow detail 11S1 easily
3d effect/dynamic range in darker scenes G70
3d effect/dynamic range in daylight scenes 11S1
3d effect/overall probably the G70
Color accuracy 11S1 easily
field and color uniformity 11s1 easily
quietness G70 wins

ease of use 11S1 hands down

These were two great projectors! The G70 was well kept and tweeked and I was amazed that this ten year old technology still holds its own against the latest and greatest.

Its clear that most consumers would choose the Marantz for ease of use and solid clean picture. In a blind test switching back and forth between scenes 10 out of 10 would probably also choose the Marantz. It's Sharpness, Color accuracy and uniformity is simply in a different league. BUT we would all be happy with the G70 without a comparison as it's simply a fantastic image too.

Value? you can pick up a beautiful G70 for under $5k but the Marantz costs $20k MSRP.

Now for the downsides. I kinda expected the Marantz to be better. This is a tough call as the owner probably got my expectations a bit too high. This new model was clearly better than their previous 720p units the S3/S4. Yes you could still see rainbows. And if this bothers you dont kid yourself they are still there. faster processing and 1080p resolution hasn't changed this at all. It still uses the best 1 chip DLP has to offer, a 7 segment 6x color wheel. Speaking of which is definately the largest downside of this projector. Its loud. This projector is much louder than others in the industry; Pearl at 22 decibles and the Mitsubishi at 18. Not just the fan was too loud but the color wheel simply has a high pitch squeel that would require a hush box if you're trying to build a top notch theater. This simply cant be overlooked.

They both threw beautiful images and I just wish I had the $5k Sony Pearl there to comare. I think the owners of both the other projectors would have been shocked!

Nice review TRYG
Props to you.
Steve

Tryg, can the Marantz do black?

I've seen a Ruby and I thought it was really good. The only thing it couldn't do was black- it's black level was "twice" as high as a gamma tweaked CRT, even on a grey screen.

Mark

Tryg, I'll be the first to admit that I haven't worked with a lot of high end digitals, but I have seen the Qualia and the Ruby.

The question I have for the digital guys is: Don't you find some of the sharpness adding an artificial content to the image. The crude analogy I tell my customers is that if you look out a window at a mountain with snow on it, say 10 miles away, you see evergreens that are green, and snow on the top of the mountain which of course is white. You can't see the individual trees from 10 miles away, yet with a digitally projected image, it might show such detail.

This is what CRTers always critique as the artificial sharpness of digital sets. Darin, you know that Wayne here locally switched from a tweaked out 9500LC to a Qualia, as he was looking for that sharpness factor. Personally I like the slightly softer image of a CRT, as it's more natural looking to me.

When I saw your Ruby in April I think, you had it tweaked out really well, but again, there was that somewhat artificial sharpness that's really appealing to a newbie ("holy crap, that's sharp!") as compared to their aging ES focusing 27" TV. I just find that artificial sharpness to be tiring (to my eyes anyways).

It will be interesting to see if I can see rainbows at this year's CES. That's the one reason I could never buy a single chip DLP, I got headaches at the TI booth within 10 minutes of entering it. Twice.

Darin, let me know when you get a Pearl..;)

Tryg, can the Marantz do black?



I dont generally get into discussions of black because I prefer to watch light :)

The answer is yes...for a digital. No, for a CRT. ;)

If the Marantz was dramitically sharper, something is wrong. It should be a bit sharper, but on good HD content, not much. Also, as was said, theat G70 needs to be on a screen about 1.5 foot less in width.

Dave

Interesting read Tryg, thx.

BTW Darin, I too prefer 1080i on my G70 as well. Unless of course i'm watching SD-DVD, then 720p is a clear winner.

I've seen a half dozen G90s. I'd bet the same results would be seen.

the G90 may sway the 3D effect a bit more. Regardless of the CRT the softness of the technology reduces the 3D effect in certain scenes. On daylight scenes the added sharpness of the DLP cleary gives the 3D effect an advantage as there's no destraction from softness or color uniformity.



I emphatically disagree with that statement.

I've never yet seen a digital that didn't throw a very flat image with little or no
sense of "3D-ness" to it.


As for being soft...it depends on the machine. How can you POSSIBLY state that a CRT projector that can resolve resolutions that are BEYOND the native resolution of your favorite digital projector could have a soft image?

It's just not ARTIFICALLY SHARP, that's all.

And yes, that's a real world scenario. The best 9" CRT projectors have NO
problem resolving 2048x1536 test patterns, pixel for pixel. You can't find a
digital projector that sells for less than 100,000 dollars that can do that.
And maybe not even then.

How can it be soft when it resolves higher resolutions than the digital can even display?


CJ

I'd guess the CRT can resolve the high resolution but still have relatively gradual ("soft") transitions between pixels. Which, if you ask me, is a much better representation of reality.

A digital has abrupt level changes from pixel to pixel. (Most of them have SEVERAL abrupt changes due to SDE at some level -- from pixel 1 to inter-pixel gray/whatever to pixel 2.) That's not an accurate representation of what your eye sees in reality. Someone who got used to that abrupt-change look might come to prefer it -- to prefer the artificially "sharp" look.

But I do think it's artificially sharp. If you prefer it, more power to ya, but don't claim it's a more accurate picture.

Guys!

My question is......was the G70 new also? If over 2000 hours prior use it may not have been a fair comparison. A new G70 against a digital anything with a 1000 hours on the lamp is not a fair comparo either.........?

How can it be soft when it resolves higher resolutions than the digital can even display?


CJ

Do the test yourself then report back.

Guys!

My question is......was the G70 new also? If over 2000 hours prior use it may not have been a fair comparison. A new G70 against a digital anything with a 1000 hours on the lamp is not a fair comparo either.........?

That was precicsly my question to Darin. Did that G70 have fresh tubes? Who tweaked it? What were the set up numbers and spot size?

I don't need to see a 1080P DLP to be able to judge the capability........

DLP does rock to an extent and I'm more than sure that the image the Marantz threw was very, very good.

Nuff said......

Cliff

This was held at my place and as far as focus and geometric setup the G70 was as good as I could get it. I had spent no less than 8 hours over the last couple of days doing a final setup. This is after owning the PJ for a couple of years and spending a great deal of time with it. The green tube has less than 1000 hours and is actually the hardest to set up. The Blue and Red have more but both focus well. Center focus was spot on with a bit of drop in focus at the corners. Particularly the bottom right. Again this was not a dramatic decrease. Frankly there was simply no competition in sharpness between the two. The Mits blew the G70 away in this regard. One interesting thing to note is that when the G70 is viewed by itself it is awesome. The picture is stunning. When placed in a A - B test against a 1080p digital the difference in sharpness is dramatic. Yes, as Curt described, I do believe the sharpness is sharper than life. Given a choice, I'll take it. I like it a lot. You could always defocus slightly if you so desired.

The shadow detail of the Mits was far better. While the G70 was much better at blacks the Mits again walked away with the shadow detail. Even when I cranked the brightness up and sacrificed blacks the stock G70 could not compete with the Mits. Some of this may be due to the bias and gain settings however I doubt that this alone would have allowed the G70 to show detail to the same level. Regardless, I do prefer blacks blacker than what the Mits can deliver. I am willing to give up some shadow detail for this.

Darker scenes looked better on the G70 while brighter scenes looked better on the Mits. Interestingly the darker scenes were more 3d like on the G70 while the brighter scenes were more 3d like on the Mits. They both produced close to the same amount of brightness but I think I push the G70 a bit hard and this was a contributing factor to color accuracy and uniformity.

1080i did show a huge amount more detail on 1080 content than 720 on the G70. The difference was quite a suprise. Again, what I found interesting was how difficult this difference was to see without a control. I had setup both 720p and 1080i and watch HD content prior to this comparison. I did see a difference but did not know how big of a difference it was until I had a chance to see the G70 displaying 720p against the Mits and then getting to see it display 1080i against the Mits. 1080i was the clear winner.

The Mits did show rainbows on the rare occasion for me. Conversely on 1080i the G70 showed twitter or whatever you guys call it on brighter scenes. I may be able to resolve this by going to an oval astig setup. I think I'll give this a try.

I am not the kind of guy that is tied to any one technology. I just want what works best for me in the price range I can afford. I think I'll hold on the to G70 for a bit longer!

I really want to thank Darin for taking the time to do this. It's a long haul to my place. I really apprieciate having a chance to do this. Thank You Darin!

Do the test yourself then report back.


Been there, done that. Wasn't impressed by the artificial sharpness of digitals.

Life is not made of little squares. It looks artificial that way.


CJ

This was held at my place and as far as focus and geometric setup the G70 was as good as I could get it. I had spent no less than 8 hours over the last couple of days doing a final setup. This is after owning the PJ for a couple of years and spending a great deal of time with it. The green tube has less than 1000 hours and is actually the hardest to set up. The Blue and Red have more but both focus well. Center focus was spot on with a bit of drop in focus at the corners. Particularly the bottom right. Again this was not a dramatic decrease. Frankly there was simply no competition in sharpness between the two. The Mits blew the G70 away in this regard. One interesting thing to note is that when the G70 is viewed by itself it is awesome. The picture is stunning. When placed in a A - B test against a 1080p digital the difference in sharpness is dramatic. Yes, as Curt described, I do believe the sharpness is sharper than life. Given a choice, I'll take it. I like it a lot. You could always defocus slightly if you so desired.

The shadow detail of the Mits was far better. While the G70 was much better at blacks the Mits again walked away with the shadow detail. Even when I cranked the brightness up and sacrificed blacks the stock G70 could not compete with the Mits. Some of this may be due to the bias and gain settings however I doubt that this alone would have allowed the G70 to show detail to the same level. Regardless, I do prefer blacks blacker than what the Mits can deliver. I am willing to give up some shadow detail for this.

Darker scenes looked better on the G70 while brighter scenes looked better on the Mits. Interestingly the darker scenes were more 3d like on the G70 while the brighter scenes were more 3d like on the Mits. They both produced close to the same amount of brightness but I think I push the G70 a bit hard and this was a contributing factor to color accuracy and uniformity.

1080i did show a huge amount more detail on 1080 content than 720 on the G70. The difference was quite a suprise.

The Mits did show rainbows on the rare occasion for me. Conversely on 1080i the G70 showed twitter or whatever you guys call it on brighter scenes. I may be able to resolve this by going to an oval astig setup. I think I'll give this a try.

I am not the kind of guy that is tied to any one technology. I just want what works best for me in the price range I can afford. I think I'll hold on the to G70 for a bit longer!

Hehe, funny you post RIGHT after me! :D

There is NO DOUBT that DLP will be sharper than CRT FO SHO.

No amount of tweaking could be done to even a G90 to out do the tight focus that DLP provides.

Some call it "false sharpness" like you guys say, but in my opinion, at 1080P that becomes mute.

When you can have a digital that can make the pixels go away at less than a screen width, then your rockin'.

I do however have a question for you in regards to your setup. Do you have gamma control and did you exploit the G70 ability to be able to take advantage of it? This will make a HUGE HUGE HUGE difference in the final output ability of the projector even in shadow detail.

I've come to learn with CRT that gamma control is ABSOLUTELY neccesary to be able to exploit what is possible for the absolute best image CRT can provide.

As far as you pushing the G70 too hard, it is SO EASY to see the blue fall off to expose a 100IRE field from "white" to "yellow". If you didn't see this, then you were not over driving that bad boy.

Congrats to you guys and it looks like Darin and the boys FINALLY got to see what a well setup G70 can do.

Now let's put it up against my G90's. :)

That would be more fair! :D :D :D :D

Cliffy

Guys!

I concur. If I want to see little squares I will tile my bathroom walls!!!!! Messed with a Christie M3000 a couple of month ago here. 1280 x 1024 single chip. It was really freakin' bright, even with only one of the two lamps running. Fair image, better blacks than I had seen on a lamp unit in some while, but the M3K is $25,000 list. My electric bill glitched noticeably higher for that month, and the noise and heat were surreal, drove me out of the room.......

Been there, done that. Wasn't impressed by the artificial sharpness of digitals.

Life is not made of little squares. It looks artificial that way.


CJ

That statement is WAY OFF BASE.

Have you ever seen a 1080P digital?

Hell, have you ever seen a 1024P digital on a respectable size screen?

My G10 looks damn good at a screen width back from 120" diagonal.

This is one of the BIGGEST reasons I considered getting a digital when I pulled the plug on my G90 stack. 1080P digital on a screen 10ft wide and smaller especially DLP which is the SHARPEST digital has to offer right now is stunning and "little squares" are a non issue.

Cliff

Cliffy

You have the audience confused here as someone who acquired Two G90s...... :-)

Not really.. Cliff has stated before that he decided to get a refrence display for now, but when his G90 tubes wear out, digital will be good enough(for him anyhow).

I do however have a question for you in regards to your setup. Do you have gamma control and did you exploit the G70 ability to be able to take advantage of it? This will make a HUGE HUGE HUGE difference in the final output ability of the projector even in shadow detail.I think it would too, as I mentioned in post #3 that tse's circuit would likely help.
Congrats to you guys and it looks like Darin and the boys FINALLY got to see what a well setup G70 can do.Sorry Cliff, but Steve Smith's G70 is one of the best setup CRTs I've seen for what it is, I've seen it many times, and it isn't like I haven't gone around looking at any CRTs.

I would love to do a comparison with a G90, but there is no way this Marantz would be bright enough to compete with 2 G90s in ft-lamberts. I prefer to use it on a High Power, also.

--Darin

This is what CRTers always critique as the artificial sharpness of digital sets. Darin, you know that Wayne here locally switched from a tweaked out 9500LC to a Qualia, as he was looking for that sharpness factor. Personally I like the slightly softer image of a CRT, as it's more natural looking to me.

When I saw your Ruby in April I think, you had it tweaked out really well, but again, there was that somewhat artificial sharpness that's really appealing to a newbie ("holy crap, that's sharp!") as compared to their aging ES focusing 27" TV. I just find that artificial sharpness to be tiring (to my eyes anyways).That's fair. Different strokes for different folks. I don't think square pixels are like real life and neither are soft edges on everything or horizontal lines in images, but as far as natural vs artificial, there are other things that are this way too. If you read Charles Poynton's stuff you will probably see where making your gamma be like real life would mean tweaking your CRT's gamma to be close to 2.2 to offset how the sources are encoded. But people tend to prefer an overall gamma of a little higher than 1.0, so keeping your gamma at 2.4 or so gets you closer to 1.1. Unlike real life according to that, but more towards people's preferences.

In this case the Marantz was probably around 2.2 with the Standard setting from what I've heard (I haven't measured it) and I could see that the CRT had a higher gamma.
It will be interesting to see if I can see rainbows at this year's CES. That's the one reason I could never buy a single chip DLP, I got headaches at the TI booth within 10 minutes of entering it. Twice.I don't think things will change much for you in this area unless you start looking at 3 chippers.Darin, let me know when you get a Pearl..;)I don't think I'll be getting one given that I've already had the Ruby and they are pretty similar.

--Darin

What was the input sources used on the G70? (or did I miss that).

"Sharpness 11S1 easily"

DLP will always be sharper than CRT. But is the sharpness natural, or as the original.

"Shadow detail 11S1 easily"

This Is the one I'm waiting to compare with. And I don't need a gamma circuit.

"3d effect/dynamic range in daylight scenes 11S1" please someone, bring that projector my way.

"Color accuracy 11S1 easily
field and color uniformity 11s1 easily"

Can we make this happen?

Lowly 8" CRT projector at 1920x1080p @ at a whopping 72hz. Do you have any idea what this little stinker looks like at lower rez. JBJR and I was checking it out last night at 1440x960p @ 72 and 1920x960p @ 72. I did not try 1080I and 720P. though. If it got any sharper, it would have looked DIGITAL. But talk about shadow detail...

http://i13.tinypic.com/2n6g6jm.jpg
http://i14.tinypic.com/2d0kps5.jpg

A quick and dirty capture of a scene from gladiator. This Image is from the same HTPC that I run the HDTV files from. It is DVD @ 1920x960p/72hz. It's the same DVD that JBJR and I watch last night. I don't have Gladiator in HDTV.

I'll have to work with the camera for a better image, but for now, check out the sharpness, detail and background detail.


http://i13.tinypic.com/2rhphn5.jpg

I'll have to work with the camera for a better image, but for now, check out the sharpness, detail and background detail.Why would we check out 800x602 images that have been compressed down to about 100KB for sharpness and detail? What is the point of running at 1920 wide and then posting 800 pixel wide images?

And do you have this setup for watching or taking pictures, because normally a picture with a camera will crush the shadow details in a mixed scene if you have the projector setup properly for viewing.

--Darin

Why would we check out 800x602 images that have been compressed down to about 100KB for sharpness and detail? What is the point of running at 1920 wide and then posting 800 pixel wide images?Darin has a good point Mikey. I brought up that very issue when discussing your screen shots with some of the local boys. They are very nice pics though.

I don't know about you guys, but when my G70 is dialed in, I get very abrupt, sharp edges. I'm sure a digital PJ is sharper, but as Dave said, it couldn't be THAT much sharper, as there's just not that much room for improvement. Maybe it's because I have a small screen--85".

Charles if you have your G70 dialed in well, you should check your sources. You should be getting a sharper picture.

PS: I am also of the "there's no such thing as too sharp" school of thought. The one thing I like about digitals is the sharpness. I think the 1080p PJs pretty much eliminate the false sharpness effect.

PPS: Guy Kuo checked the color balance of Steve Smith's G70. It measured virtually perfect. Any LC, color corrected CRT PJ should perform similarly. You can't improve on perfection, so this is one area that digitals can only match CRTs, not beat them.

Why would we check out 800x602 images that have been compressed down to about 100KB for sharpness and detail? What is the point of running at 1920 wide and then posting 800 pixel wide images?

I wondered the same thing when HFF and other pixel folk kept posting images and links on this forum of screenshots from the Ruby and Pearl. I was thinking and saying the same as you, but then I found out that it's easy to capture close up scenes. Things like eyeballs and persons up close was easy, and what i found was difficult was being able to capture background and shadow detail on a camera. especially after the image is compressed. Well, I'm not a camera freak myself, but I've learned that if you're able to show detail and background detail of a projected image. And then compress that image and still show some of that detail. You got something. So it's not the upfront detail and sharpness that I have been highlighting, it's the backgriund detail. I'm going after the really hard stuff.. ;)

Forgot to also mention that the screenshots are CLEARLY showing the ability of the projector to properly resolve at the listed scan rates.


And do you have this setup for watching or taking pictures, because normally a picture with a camera will crush the shadow details in a mixed scene if you have the projector setup properly for viewing.

--Darin

Ahh, good point.. ;) And that's so true. However, I'm showing and illustrating shadow detail and I'm showing it without crushing the detail. So you can imaging what it looks like in person. To include, this projector has never been "properly" setup. That's going to take a couple of days, based on where I plan to take it in setup. I'm actually curing the tubes, so the setup/colors are very basic at best, and that's why the red is so far off. Not sure what you mean by "watching or taking pictures." I did a basic setup by eye, then put the camera on a tripod, turn the flash off, set the timer for 10 seconds, press the button - that's it.

I have two 8500 Ultra's. And as soon as I get a Ruby in here to compare, I'm seeling one of them. Then I'm going to move the tubes from my 9500LC to the second one.


For instance. In the DVD image below, I'm really highlighting the background walls/floor. With the brightness in the foreground (especailly from the piece of metal), I'm still able to bring out the background walls and floor. And in person they are very clear.

http://i13.tinypic.com/2h8d7vs.jpg

Been there, done that. Wasn't impressed by the artificial sharpness of digitals.

Life is not made of little squares. It looks artificial that way.


CJ


There are more "little squares" in this world than you might think. :)

As more and more film cameras are replaced with digital video cameras, the CCDs of these digital cameras have square pixels. So your source will have square pixels from the get go. Many of the HD Discovery channel programs are shot with HD digital cameras. More and more movies are shot this way as well.

Furthermore, even if you have source content from film, how do you think this is converted to a DVD or HD-DVD or Blu-Ray disc. Yes, a digital scanner is employed. These scanners have square pixels.

One of the very few ways to avoid "little squares" is to use film with a film projector.

So whether you like it or not someone in the video signal chain has already decided that video in the future should described by "little squares".

I've got a customer with both a 9500LC and 11S1 shining on the same 95" wide Studiotek 130 (same guy I'm helping fix his 9500 waiting for Curt's boards ;)). Anyway, I've been waiting for new parts for the Marquee, but was able to dial it in pretty decent the other week in spite of the fact. I haven't calibrated the 11S1 yet, but that didn't stop us from doing a few minutes of A/B.

I stuck a neutral density filter in front of the Mrantz just for giggles. Honestly, we were both surprised as to how similar both projectors looked to one another. Again, neither projector is up to it's full potential yet, but it was still a neat thing to see.

CRT is still absolutely excellent, but digital has come a long way. I can't wait to get the new parts for the Marquee and get both projectors dialed in proper. Then we'll do some real A/B testing and I'll get back to this.

For the record, I also have a demo Pearl arriving today. I can't wait to see that as well :)

I love projectors, regardless of technology!

craigr

I would love to do a comparison with a G90, but there is no way this Marantz would be bright enough to compete with 2 G90s in ft-lamberts. I prefer to use it on a High Power, also.

--Darin

What do you mean Darin? I thought CRT's are dim? :D

How much does this Marantz cost?

Cliff

How much does this Marantz cost?

Cliff

I think the best price on the Marantz now is about $16,000. So yes, they are saying that a $16,000 new projector beat a less than $2500 used PJ on some tests.

I'd still take a good 8" CRT and as Phil said there is no way color accuracy on the DLP could be better. My guess is that it was not measured correctly, just eyeballed or measured incorrectly.

Given the price, a 9" stack costs about the same as the Marantz, so that is what the comarison should be. But, these comparisons are interesting because they show what an incredible value an 8" machine is these days. :)

Dave

I think the best price on the Marantz now is about $16,000. So yes, they are saying that a $16,000 new projector beat a less than $2500 used PJ on some tests.

I'd still take a good 8" CRT and as Phil said there is no way color accuracy on the DLP could be better. My guess is that it was not measured correctly, just eyeballed or measured incorrectly.

Given the price, a 9" stack costs about the same as the Marantz, so that is what the comarison should be. But, these comparisons are interesting because they show what an incredible value an 8" machine is these days. :)

Dave

Thats a point that I wanted to bring up. Price.

A G90 stack would be an excellent comparison dollar for dollar, and yes, you are right, a 8" CRT IS AN INCREDIBLE VALUE these days.

The G70 FO SHO is no slouch....... :D ;)

Cliff

you are right, a 8" CRT IS AN INCREDIBLE VALUE these days.

3 years ago, I thought an 8" was a no brainer compared to digital options since nothing at even double or triple the price looked as good.

Today, I think it is even more of a no brainer than 3 years ago. Great AC machines for $1500, great LC machines for $2500! When you consider the picture quality, operating costs, and longevity, the 8" is more of a no brainer now than it was 3 years ago!

Why can't I find any of these guys with wizz bang digitals in Dallas to bring them by and compare them to my (soon to be MP modded) Cine 8 Onyx! :D

Dave

For the record, I also have a demo Pearl arriving today. I can't wait to see that as well :)
Will you be able to compare the Pearl to the 9500LC and 11S1?

Thats a point that I wanted to bring up. Price.

A G90 stack would be an excellent comparison dollar for dollar, and yes, you are right, a 8" CRT IS AN INCREDIBLE VALUE these days.

The G70 FO SHO is no slouch....... :D ;)

Cliff
Price shoppers are not goint to be buying a Marantz 11S1 at $16K street, they will be buying a Pearl at $4K street!

Why can't I find any of these guys with wizz bang digitals in Dallas to bring them by and compare them to my (soon to be MP modded) Cine 8 Onyx! :D

Dave
I suspect If you post your offer in a "lets share experiences" fashion on the digital forum, you might get some takers! :) At the very least you will educate some members on the digital side that there are viable cost effective alternatives available!

If there are no takers, I may be willing to bring whichever family room box I buy in the next month (Pearl or Sharp 20K) up to the Big D!

quote from Cliff
"I do however have a question for you in regards to your setup. Do you have gamma control and did you exploit the G70 ability to be able to take advantage of it? This will make a HUGE HUGE HUGE difference in the final output ability of the projector even in shadow detail.

I've come to learn with CRT that gamma control is ABSOLUTELY neccesary to be able to exploit what is possible for the absolute best image CRT can provide.

As far as you pushing the G70 too hard, it is SO EASY to see the blue fall off to expose a 100IRE field from "white" to "yellow". If you didn't see this, then you were not over driving that bad boy."

I running firmware revision 1.13, there is no gamma correction on this G70 that I am aware of. Just bias and gain.

Yeah, I'm pushing the G70. I did notice a slight yellowishness to the whites in the upper right hand corner when compared to the Mits. Again this was while doing an A - B comparison and not while watching the G70 by itself. Before I had a oppurtunity to see the G70 up against something else I never noticed it. The center of the image is correct.

I run contrast at 69 - 70. I find this numbers to be useless by themselves though.

I have spent far more time on geometric and focus calibration then I have on color although I have spent a great deal of time on color as well. In this I am not suprised that the Mits had better color uniformity that my G70. For me color balance or uniformity has always been a challenge on CRTs. This was true for the Barco BD808s, the NEC 1101, and the G70. I have owned them all and have seen the same issues. Not that they are not correctable but they seem to be a challenge none the less. Specially in the corners. (those damn corners :o )

Lastly, I just want to say that for me this is a hobby not a religon. :) I have owned the G70 for a couple of years now and have spent hours and hours and hours setting it up. I have used the spyderpro 2, the Avia disk, and multiple setup screens from the HTPC in the process but the bottom line is that I have set it up to look the best to ME and to me that is what it is all about! :D :D

Do I need a flame suit??

If there are no takers, I may be willing to bring whichever family room box I buy in the next month (Pearl or Sharp 20K) up to the Big D!Yikes! How long ago did you buy your Ruby? Already not good enough?

This is why sane people don't want to go digital. :D ;)

Ok OK...

am I the only guy here who is REALLY confused reading what Cliff is posting?

Are you bluffing or you really mean what you are saying? :confused: :confused: :confused:


That statement is WAY OFF BASE.

Have you ever seen a 1080P digital?

Hell, have you ever seen a 1024P digital on a respectable size screen?

My G10 looks damn good at a screen width back from 120" diagonal.

This is one of the BIGGEST reasons I considered getting a digital when I pulled the plug on my G90 stack. 1080P digital on a screen 10ft wide and smaller especially DLP which is the SHARPEST digital has to offer right now is stunning and "little squares" are a non issue.

Cliff

Well, I'm always confused, so not sure how that helps anything... :D

Been there, done that. Wasn't impressed by the artificial sharpness of digitals.

Life is not made of little squares. It looks artificial that way.


CJ


This is absolutely not correct. It's easy to see what PJ is sharper and it is not artificial about it. It reminds me of some people 8-9 years ago that said DVD was artificial sharper than the more natural LD....;)

I'm totally shocked and disappointed by this thread. A digital vs CRT comparison on the CRT forum no less and it's so nice and cordial you would think people were talking about world peace or something :)

The old CRT vs Digital debates reminded me of a variation of a line from Rodney Dangerfield - "Wow! Digital vs CRT is a tough sport. Why just the other day I went to go see a hockey game and a CRT vs Digital debate broke out" :)

What I'm seeing out of all digital projectors, regardless of resolution, is something that is simply not natural looking. While it may not be the pixel structure itself (At 1080p on an 8 foot wide screen, each pixel is just a 20th of an inch wide and that IS pretty darned small)
but there is something going on that is visually unpleasant. Sometimes it's definitely scaling
artifacts (when a scaler is in the system) and other times, it's macroblocking, but even if
the feed is very high quality, I still see something about the picture that's simply not right
and it can be hard to define.

I don't quite know exactly what it is that bugs me about digital projection, but it's always there.

Maybe...maybe...it's just too "honest" about what the incoming image looks like. With
artifacting, macroblocking, compression, and who knows what all else going on, maybe
it's just showing the flaws that are just part of the visual digital media at this time. Grey
scales may not have enough steps in them, (insufficient color depth), or the feed that
comes from the camera may always lose something in the translation and compression,
but whatever it is, I notice it.

I can see some of the same things going on directly on the faces of the CRTs of various
projectors, but it doesn't seem to be so noticeable when it's projected on the screen
by all three tubes...if the source is digital or passing through digital equipment, and these
days, that's just about everything, isn't it?

Maybe the current HD video format standards just aren't quite good enough yet? Is
there room for improvement in picture quality? I think so.

Digitals may simply be more revealing of the source imperfections. I accept that possibility.


CJ

I've seen a 1080p digital and I thought was really good.

Two things wrong with it:

1. Black level too high

2. Won't pixel map at 48hz (only 50 or 60hz). Therefore judders for US films.


But tiny "pixels" were not a problem. It was a bit sharper than a CRT (in the corners especially), but it did not look "digital".


They still have to get the black level lower, but just about all the other issues are solved.

As I said in the other thread, I can't believe you gave props to CRT. I can see Kal using these remarks against you on Curt's website.:)No need. The people that frequent Curt's site already know better. :)

I was also surprised that the G70 was quieter (as someone else pointed out) ... I thought the G70 wasn't one of the quieter CRT projectors... (?)

Kal

I've seen a 1080p digital and I thought was really good.

Two things wrong with it:

1. Black level too high

2. Won't pixel map at 48hz (only 50 or 60hz). Therefore judders for US films.


But tiny "pixels" were not a problem. It was a bit sharper than a CRT (in the corners especially), but it did not look "digital".


They still have to get the black level lower, but just about all the other issues are solved.

What was it? I think a Pearl or Ruby? I agree with CJ on the DLPs, they look too digital and unnatural. The image calls attention to itself instead of getting out of the way.

I've found the LCoS not as bad on this front with the JVC looking more natural than the Sony.

I'm with you though, I sure wouldn't mind the corner focus. But, I'm not ready to give up the CRT for that just yet. :)

Dave

G70's aren't bad. A friend of mine had his table-mounted between the seats in his front row, with NO hushbox, within a foot or so of your ears. It was quieter in that configuration than my XG on the ceiling with a hushbox.

What was it? I think a Pearl or Ruby? I agree with CJ on the DLPs, they look too digital and unnatural. The image calls attention to itself instead of getting out of the way.

I've found the LCoS not as bad on this front with the JVC looking more natural than the Sony.

I'm with you though, I sure wouldn't mind the corner focus. But, I'm not ready to give up the CRT for that just yet. :)

Dave

Ruby.

Couldn't fault the convergence either - but it was the second unit he'd owned, the first had bad, bad convergence.

It was good. It wasn't perfect (contradicting a poster's sig).

If the black was better I'd swap a 8" LC for it...but not quite yet (and then there's the $10k..).

Ruby.

Couldn't fault the convergence either - but it was the second unit he'd owned, the first had bad, bad convergence.

It was good. It wasn't perfect (contradicting a poster's sig).

If the black was better I'd swap a 8" LC for it...but not quite yet (and then there's the $10k..).

Yes, there is the Ruby convergence gamble when you buy one. "Will I be the lucky 1 in 100 to have good convergence?!?!?" :p

Well, given its price, the real question is not if you would swap a $2000 PJ for it, but would you swap a good 9" PJ for it?

Dave

I've seen a 1080p digital and I thought was really good.

Two things wrong with it:

1. Black level too high

2. Won't pixel map at 48hz (only 50 or 60hz). Therefore judders for US films.The Ruby will take 1080p48 over the DVI input and display it at a multiple of that (I think it updates the panels at 96Hz). The Marantz 11S1 will take 1080p24 or 1080p48 and display at a multiple of 24 also. The Pearl will take 1080p24 over the HDMI input and display at a multiple of that. I don't know whether the Pearl takes 1080p48. I believe the Optoma HD81 also will do a form of 24Hz with 1080p.

With the screen in this comparison and the tall ceilings, the Optoma HD81 may have done better than the Marantz if installed where it would go up near the ceiling (not an easy thing to do just for a comparison though). With its fixed offset the Optoma doesn't work well in some setups and generally won't work well with the High Power screen.

As far as noise, the Marantz is much louder than other digitals I have gotten used to over the last couple of years. Putting it just overhead and behind like we did in this comparison probably makes that worse as it vents out the front.

--Darin

"The Ruby will take 1080p48 over the DVI input and display it at a multiple of that"

Are you sure Darin? The owner (who's quite knowledgeable) was adamant that it wouldn't.

If it does it takes away one of my strikes against it, leaving only black.

"Well, given its price, the real question is not if you would swap a $2000 PJ for it, but would you swap a good 9" PJ for it?"

Nup, I like to play with CRTs - they suit my eternal need to fiddle, and with a young family they suit my budget.

But I understand why many have.

"The Ruby will take 1080p48 over the DVI input and display it at a multiple of that"

Are you sure Darin? The owner (who's quite knowledgeable) was adamant that it wouldn't.I feed it 1080p48 from a VP50 and it looks like it is maintaining it to me. I don't know if I've actually tried the framerate test pattern built into the VP50. What is it that your friend says, that it won't take 1080p48, or that it converts it to 1080p60? I know it will do the first over DVI, as far as the second I am pretty confident, but you would probably be more in tune with 48 to 60 conversions than I.

--Darin

Mike

How about a few scenes from U571 inside the sub, or from Gladiator in the tent with torch flames in the background?

Digitals may simply be more revealing of the source imperfections. I accept that possibility.


CJ


This I think is right. When I looked for a PJ, one big reason for going for a G90 was it would be sharp, but not as sharp as DLP. For a guy like me, still watching a lot of LD's and DVD's with not reference quality, it would be a good thing not to see "all" in the source. It went to a Ruby, a digital, but more smooth like a CRT than DLP. So I still can watch LD's without seeing all problems in the source in my face.

Btw, LD rocks, MPEG2 artifacts sucks :D


/Mattias

Yikes! How long ago did you buy your Ruby? Already not good enough?

This is why sane people don't want to go digital. :D ;)
Still more than good enough. I am looking for a second system for the family room.

I agree with your point, the G70 is also still good enough! :)

What compromises CRT color accuracy is the color uniformity across the width of the screen.
Looking for sharp image can be misleading. The owner of the G70 says that 720p DLP was sharper by a wide margin and then claims 1080i delivered more details. That is confusing to any reader. When I watched a Ruby off the HD materials it did not look any sharper or detailed than my Nec XG1352LC really. A more condensed image always looks more saturated and smoother which is the case with CRT.
Shadow detail of CRT is hit and miss depending on the material and hardware source played. If a digital can do as dark as (throttle the light source) CRT shadow detail becomes an issue relative to some sources and some materials as well. The screen size was too large for an 8" CRT IMO.

CaspianM;

The DLP was a 1080p projector and never ran at any other resolution. The G70 showed more detail at 1080i than at 720p. I contributed this to the downscaling of the source material from 1080 to 720 by the A1. Both PJs were being feed from their own A1 through HDMI.I have been told many times that the screen is too big. :)

I have been told many times that the screen is too big. :)

how did I miss this.. :eek:

The screen was a 110" wide Carada that is probably about 1.1 gain (regardless of specs),
--Darin

And of course, this made for a perfect candidate for the comparison......why, oh why was this setup even chosen for this comparison.. :confused:

Which Carada? The Carada 1.4 gain is really 1.0 gain. And the Carada screens are not great.

Dave

And of course, this made for a perfect candidate for the comparison......why, oh why was this setup even chosen for this comparison.. :confused:

Let me get this straight. You are really asking why Darin chose a set up designed to make the G70 look bad? You're kidding, right?

Dave

Here we go making excuses again...

Here we go making excuses again...

Hmm, pointing out that a 110" wide cheap 1.0 gain screen is sub-optimal for one of the PJs is making excuses?

OK, why not just test them by projecting them on a light blue wall at 180" wide if appropriate set up does not matter?

Sorry Mark, here your comment is just silly. If someone put studded snow tires on a Porshe 911 then went to the track to test it and reported it was not that great, it would not be inappropriate to point out the test conditions were flawed. That is the only point here.

I also have to question the set up because G70s don't have bad color saturation, nor do they lack significantly in sharpness, but I'll give benefit of the doubt to the set up and not say outright it was bad.

Dave

I have had a friends Ruby sitting under my G70 for a month now why he finishes his room. So theres been plenty of time to a/b. I think the first post sums it up nicely. The Ruby is sharper, brighter, better 3d in bright scenes but as soon as dark scenes arrive its goodnight Barry White. Even more so with Gamma correction.
Which do I prefer ? well for HD for me the Ruby is the winner but for SD well thats another matter. I just cant get a decent image with PAL SD out or the Ruby. I really need to try it with a decent processor.

CRT shadow detail becomes an issue relative to some sources and some materials as well

Yeah, was the source being used ever mentioned in this thread? Pardon my lazyiness, but I don't recall seeing what was used on the BNC's.

With CRT, the source is most critical for best image. And as it is, digital has the lead in source for HDTV, because of it's direct digital connection. CRT on the other hand, is at a big disadvantage. Because of the poor conversion devices that we have to use to convert the digital to RGBHV.

So with the mentioning of the new DVI/HDMI converters and possibly the real jewel of one day having 1080P HD-SDI converters available, we'll then have the right good signal to CRT.

Let me get this straight. You are really asking why Darin chose a set up designed to make the G70 look bad? You're kidding, right?

Dave
Are you blaming Darin for the screen that the G70's owner is using in his theater?

FYI the 11S1 is no light cannon producing << 400 lumens in high contrast mode!

The screen was a 110" wide Carada that is probably about 1.1 gain (regardless of specs), so a pretty large screen for that kind of gain for either projector. For that setup and that size I would suggest the High Power for the Marantz, much like I am using in my theater

Hmm, pointing out that a 110" wide cheap 1.0 gain screen is sub-optimal for one of the PJs is making excuses?

OK, why not just test them by projecting them on a light blue wall at 180" wide if appropriate set up does not matter?

Sorry Mark, here your comment is just silly. If someone put studded snow tires on a Porshe 911 then went to the track to test it and reported it was not that great, it would not be inappropriate to point out the test conditions were flawed. That is the only point here.

I also have to question the set up because G70s don't have bad color saturation, nor do they lack significantly in sharpness, but I'll give benefit of the doubt to the set up and not say outright it was bad.

Dave

hahahahahaha!!!


OK why don't we? Lets test them both on a light blue wall at 180" It is still a level playing field. I bet if we did that you could see pixels!! :p

You guys are funny!! :D :D :D

Does it really matter? None of these tests or shootouts are subjective anyway. It is all a matter of opinion and I hope having some fun! When are the test conditions not flawed? How many of these tests have been done in the perfect environment, with the perfect setup, on the perfect screen, using perfectly calibrated test gear, perfect source material and of course last but not least, a perfectly unbiased audience to review the results? :p :p

Now Now Now don't go dis'n my setup without even seein' it. ;) :rolleyes: :rolleyes: You know, in some areas it might be that the Mits was just better! Could the G70 have been setup better, I'm sure it could have been just like every other CRT PJ anywhere in the world. There is no such thing as perfection. The Mits was straight out of the box.

Color saturation was not one of the items mentioned to my recollection. Last time I checked with Avia it was correct.

Why are you guys suprised that a 1080p digital was sharper then a G70? Or even a G90? That doesn't make much sense to me. :confused: I would think they would be inherently sharper due to the technology and the lens.

I think Tryg and Darin both wrote some pretty nice things about the G70. It actually faired better than I expected. Best of all, we had fun in the process. I hope we can do it again sometime!

I think Tryg and Darin both wrote some pretty nice things about the G70. It actually faired better than I expected. Best of all, we had fun in the process. I hope we can do it again sometime!

I sure do wish that I had a kick ass d!$it*& to put up against my Blended G90 demo in December!!!!! :D :D :D :D

NOW THAT WOULD BE FUN!!!!! :cool:

Cliffy

Yeah, was the source being used ever mentioned in this thread? Pardon my lazyiness, but I don't recall seeing what was used on the BNC's.

With CRT, the source is most critical for best image. And as it is, digital has the lead in source for HDTV, because of it's direct digital connection. CRT on the other hand, is at a big disadvantage. Because of the poor conversion devices that we have to use to convert the digital to RGBHV.

So with the mentioning of the new DVI/HDMI converters and possibly the real jewel of one day having 1080P HD-SDI converters available, we'll then have the right good signal to CRT.

Charles,

Are you using a DVI card or component with the A-1?

I found a marked improvement in sharpness using a Moome DVI card with the A-1 versus component. Text that is nearly illegible over component is quite sharp over DVI from the A-1. Sharpness from my older Momitsu v880 is also much improved over dvi, when compared to RGBHV from the v880.

Now this is may be simply because the moome card is not as good of a component transcoder as it is a DVI transcoder. And the RGBHV conversion from the v880 is not top shelf, but is PDG.

As MP says, how clean a signal that is sent to the G70 is one variable that must be accounted for in any comparison.

Hi Don:

I use a DVI input board in the G70.

The image on the G70 is very sharp, just not as sharp as that of a 1080 line 16:9 DLP digital. To me that only seems reasonable. No matter how finely you adjust the beam there is still some degree of roll off on it's egde. It may be very very small indeed but it is there none the less. How can an electron beam traveling across a phosphor field produce a line with a 100% cut off between full emission and complete non emission? What about secondary emission or how the phosphor reacts at the edge of the beam? Add to that the fact that this effect is being magnified from a portion of the CRT that is 3" tall to one that is 62" tall on the screen. What about impurities or the effect of the granularity of the phosphor on the image. Afterall we use this granularity as a means of setting optical focus. It is the imperfections in the grain that we look for. In fact when setting up a CRT this is visable from the location of the projector. Yes, after optical focus is complete this is somewhat masked by completing the EM focus but it is still there. What about light scatter from the optics? Although I'm no expert I do believe that the HD-18 while not a bad lens is not the best lens out there. As I understand it, these lenses have both glass and plastic elements. Anywho, it is these things and probably others that are contributing factors to differences in sharpness. Let alone the fact that my G70 is incapable of seperating 1080 distinct lines within a 16:9 pattern. When displayed as interlaced they must overlap, slightly. I think on some of the tests I have done on this projector that the best I could manage was in the 900 lines range. I'm not real sure of that number it was over a year ago I was doing these tests.

I sure do wish that I had a kick ass d!$it*& to put up against my Blended G90 demo in December!!!!! :D :D :D :D

NOW THAT WOULD BE FUN!!!!! :cool:

Cliffy

Now that would be freakin awesome! It's not too late, maybe you can make something happen!!

Now that would be freakin awesome! It's not too late, maybe you can make something happen!!

Unfortunately, the only worthy projector the local shop would have to offer me is Sony. Oh well.......... :)

Did I just say that??????? :D ;) :D ;)

Cliffy

Are you blaming Darin for the screen that the G70's owner is using in his theater?

No, but given his agenda, he'd rather not seek out optomized CRTs to compare with.

As I said before, if he wants to compare, it should be by price. You can pretty much get a G90 stack for the price of the Marantz. So, take the Marantz to Art's and compare.

But, if you want to show how great an 8" is against a new $20,000 PJ, find a good example and compare them.

If the point is public service if you will, i.e. to let people know what they can get for their money, compare a well set up G70 or similar against the current crop of 720p DLPs since that is really what your money can get you.

Dave

No, but given his agenda, he'd rather not seek out optomized CRTs to compare with.Some of this stuff is so funny I wonder if you even believe it yourself.
As I said before, if he wants to compare, it should be by price.If you even understand basic economics you would be able to understand that if a little digital which could be had new for $2k and a CRT that could be had used for $2k put out identical images and people found out about it, the market value of the CRT would plummet. Then you could go back to your argument that it would be unfair to compare those two projectors because the CRT would sell for much less.

You can keep complaining all you want. If you want to compare by price, then go compare by price. But I'm not going to quit looking for the best stuff I can find in the area I can reasonably drive my stuff to no matter how much you complain about how unfair it is to do these. If you want to suggest a well setup CRT (or 2 CRTs) within 2 hours drive of Seattle that I can compare to, please do.
You can pretty much get a G90 stack for the price of the Marantz. So, take the Marantz to Art's and compare.At recent prices I've seen, people can't even get 2 G90s used off ebay for what they could get the Marantz for from AVScience new with a warranty, and that doesn't count any of the other stuff required for a stack. But even besides that, there are people who are willing to believe ridiculous claims in defense of one side or another and your's here is a pretty good test of just what kind of ridiculous things people are willing to believe. Instead of taking an evening and driving to somebody's house who is local so we can compare things, I'm supposed to spend around $600 and probably more getting the myself and my projector halfway across the country and back. And besides that cost and time I am supposed to put in instead of driving to somebody's house some evening, I'm supposed to take a projector that I think is inappropriate for the screen Art has in his theater. His 11' wide screen works well for 2 G90s, but I wouldn't recommend it for one 11S1.

At some point I'll head out to Art's place again. He's a cool guy and I know I would have fun whether I took a projector with me or not. But this accusation where I'm not supposed to drive to somebody's house who is local, but am supposed to fly myself and my stuff halfway across the country, is really stretching to find something to whine about. If Art was local, I would be over there as soon as he had time even though I know the Marantz isn't a good fit for his screen and then I'm sure he would come over to my place to see the Marantz in the setup it is usually in.

In the case here I thought Charles had said the screen was 110" diagonal and not 110" wide, but it didn't make any difference to whether I was going over there or not as I wanted to see his setup and also to compare. I know you don't like us to do these, but many people like to see how one of the new 1080p single chip DLPs compares.

I have already asked on the forum more than once if there is anybody in the Seattle area with a 9" CRT that is well setup that we can compare to. So far the only case that looked promising was somebody with a 9" Marquee who was working with Tim and planning on getting some of Mike Parker's mods. After I mentioned that we might do this, Mike suggested a different plan. Instead of driving to that guy's house, that I pay my own way to fly myself out to where Mike is. I suggested that this guy might be willing to foot the bill if Mike wanted to come out and make sure it looked good, so that somebody would be paying costs for a service instead of either of us paying our own costs. But Mike refused to consider it and instead wanted me to spend my money to go out there.

This whole fantasy Dave has made up of me not seeking out optimized CRTs is pretty funny. Going back and looking at the history, I asked on this forum if I could see a well setup CRT before Dave was even posting here. One guy with a 9" CRT said I could come over and see it. But he was in the middle of building his room, and while I appreciated it, things didn't look all that great under those conditions. So, I asked again. People told me to contact Guy Kuo. So I did. And I offered to bring my Sharp 11k with me so he could see it, instead of being selfish and asking if I could see the CRT without offering anything in return. He then suggested that we compare them. So we did. Later he found an issue with something in there that had kept it from looking its best, although I don't know specifically what that was.

One of the guys there suggested comparing the 11k to his G70 at his place and so that is what we did. We had people from each side there and compared them. And I became friends with the G70 owner and we do comparisons sometimes. I've taken my calibration system there and he spent a while tweaking things with it and I also picked up an HD DVD for him. I would say that the comparisons have helped make his setup better as we see things that can be improved (like shadow detail).

Sometime after that first comparison with the G70, a guy who was one of Mike Parker's customers called me and wanted to see my Qualia 004. He came down and then a couple of weeks later called and said he had been thinking about it a lot. So, we talked about it and I said I would take it there to see how one would work in his room. He had a 9" CRT that had been down with some repairs needed for a while and Curt Palme got it fixed and suggested that we compare the projectors while I was there. This guy had been Mike's customer for years and had gotten stuff from him, as well as had KBK out spending hours trying to get things right. The night before I went there Curt reported that the CRT was looking really good.

So, I go there, setup the sources for the 004 just like I normally would. In about half an hour we start looking at things, and the guy preferred the 004. Then people here tried to figure out why. Mike decides that the problem was that the guy was using a long RGB cable, instead of having his source equipment within 6' of the projector with a short RGB cable as Mike said he should. I find it interesting that the guy had been Mike's customer for years and had tried to get help making things look better, nobody here said anything before the comparison about the CRT looking bad, but after I go there and the guy likes the digital, that seems to go on some list as me searching out poorly setup CRTs. If people want to accuse me of looking for poorly setup CRTs because I went to one of Mike Parker's customer's houses, there isn't much I can do about that. :)

And as I have said before, if there is anybody within a reasonable distance of Seattle with a well setup 9" CRT who would be willing to do a comparison, please let me know.

--Darin

Yo double D. I found the perfect 9' CRT for your next comparison. Not sure where this guy lives, but his setup should be perfect for your next comparison. Plus you'll stand a better chance at getting another convert.. :D

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=745027

And as I have said before, if there is anybody within a reasonable distance of Seattle with a well setup 9" CRT who would be willing to do a comparison, please let me know.

--Darin

Darin,

If I wasn't in such a DANGEROUS financial situation right now, I would be more than HAPPY to buy you a plane ticket for the blend meet. It's gonna be a great few days before the meet as well. Clarence and I are heading up to Art's place on Wednesday night to hang out and I'm sure it would be a hoot if you were with us............ :D

Cliff

If I wasn't in such a DANGEROUS financial situation right now, I would be more than HAPPY to buy you a plane ticket for the blend meet. It's gonna be a great few days before the meet as well. Clarence and I are heading up to Art's place on Wednesday night to hang out and I'm sure it would be a hoot if you were with us............ :DI appreciate that. A plane ticket wouldn't kill me right now, but for some reason I was thinking that your meet was on November 9th and I knew I couldn't make that. It is possible that December 9th would actually work for me, but I'll have to see.

--Darin

I appreciate that. A plane ticket wouldn't kill me right now, but for some reason I was thinking that your meet was on November 9th and I knew I couldn't make that. It is possible that December 9th would actually work for me, but I'll have to see.

--Darin

Ummm.... No. That wouldn't be December 9th for you.

That would be December 6th through the 9th to be exact. You would fly into Midway Airport, we would pick you up and bring you to my Indiana location.

From that point we will have a coctail, bullllssssshit for a bit and head to Art's where you will drool over the GOD LIKE CRT picture that CRT stack has to offer. :)

At that point we will all participate in what I call "family". :D

Angela will of course be the life of the party and we will mark our kick ass night in home theater history. :) :cool:

From there, you would hang out with Ken, Clarence, Arli, and I setting up for the meet and enjoying a first hand experience of what 3200X2400 minus 15% has to offer, eat well, have great conversation, and then well, the grand event. ;)

In an ideal world this is what would happen and if you could show up, well, I would be more than happy to make it as comfortable as possible for you. :cool:

When it comes to bringing you back to the airport though, well, you will have to just cab it because I will be too tired and hung over to drive you. :^)

Cliffy

I have already asked on the forum more than once if there is anybody in the Seattle area with a 9" CRT that is well setup that we can compare to.
--Darin

While you're sleepless in Seattle waiting on someone to take you up on your challenge, I too can't seem to find someone local with a Ruby.

Maybe no one in Seattle actually owns a well setup 9" CRT projector, but I'm finding it very hard to believe that there's no Ruby's in the entire Washinton DC, Maryland and Virginia areas.. :confused:

The following image is still at 1920x1080p @ 72hz version2 MPmods / Marquee 8500. The tubes are now new, but not yet finished curing, and the projector is not yet properly setup or calibrated. So this weekend I'm going to post this same image after I finish the setup and calibration. Oh, and i'll also have other images that I've not posted yet.

Got Ruby?

http://i12.tinypic.com/3zi4shk.jpg

Maybe no one in Seattle actually owns a well setup 9" CRT projector

There are at least a handful, but they either aren't around, or aren't really interested in doing a shootout kind of thing.

I know a couple G90's but I'm certain they haven't been properly maintained. Plus a shootout will yield the same results as the G70

Tryg, can the Marantz do black?

I've seen a Ruby and I thought it was really good. The only thing it couldn't do was black- it's black level was "twice" as high as a gamma tweaked CRT, even on a grey screen.

Mark

Make that more like than 10 times as high. Not twice. I wish it were so, but it is not even close.

That last image looks soft to me.

That last image looks soft to me.
I only see softness on the right and left side edges otherwise highly resolved image with somewhat not that great deinetrlacer or it just could be the down converted posted image.

I have had a friends Ruby sitting under my G70 for a month now why he finishes his room. So theres been plenty of time to a/b. I think the first post sums it up nicely. The Ruby is sharper, brighter, better 3d in bright scenes but as soon as dark scenes arrive its goodnight Barry White. Even more so with Gamma correction.
Which do I prefer ? well for HD for me the Ruby is the winner but for SD well thats another matter. I just cant get a decent image with PAL SD out or the Ruby. I really need to try it with a decent processor.

008,
where in Kent are you? I'm in Maidstone.

What I'm seeing out of all digital projectors, regardless of resolution, is something that is simply not natural looking. While it may not be the pixel structure itself (At 1080p on an 8 foot wide screen, each pixel is just a 20th of an inch wide and that IS pretty darned small)
but there is something going on that is visually unpleasant. Sometimes it's definitely scaling
artifacts (when a scaler is in the system) and other times, it's macroblocking, but even if
the feed is very high quality, I still see something about the picture that's simply not right
and it can be hard to define.

I don't quite know exactly what it is that bugs me about digital projection, but it's always there.

CJ

Well said. I enjoy the better DLP's on the market today, but IMO, CRT still comes out ahead in terms of naturalness of image. I'm not saying it's a square pixel versus stacked lines thing, but at the same time, it does seem logical that lines stacked to the point that they're barely touching can be to the human eye completely solid. Whereas with a pixel-based display, there are always going to be dots. My hunch is that although at a normal seating distance, those dots do indeed come together to form a very nice image, our eyes are still picking up something that to the brain doesn't quite translate as completely natural.

But digital is easier (...quicker, more seductive. if once you start down the dark path...sorry, couldn't resist), and has greater light output, making it more suitable for a mixed use room. To each their own.....BUT CRT IS BETTER! :p