Ok, after the debate in spotmatic's thread about which projector is the sharpest n 1080p material I started this thread to save spotmatic's thread from being brutally high jacked.

First we need to set the output resolution to 1920x1080p@75Hz.
Then we need test patterns that are native 1080p.
I use Philips Test Pattern Generator for this.

You can find it for free here:
http://www.benchmarkhq.ru/fclick/fclick.php?fid=263

After installing the program do this:

1. Select resume.
2. Set the program to full screen.
3. Under program settings set to use 16:9 screen ratio.
4. Go to User Def Resolution.
5. Select Vert Resolution Bars and 1:1
6. Take pictures of your center, top, bottom, left, right sides and also the corners.
7. Select Hor. resolution Bars and 1:1
8. Repeat step 6.
9. Upload the pictures to imageshach.us uncompressed.
10. Post the links to respective picture here.


After following those steps you will truly know how well your setup resolves 1080p@75Hz.


Lots of pics to shoot but that is the only way we can know for sure how well either projector resolves 1080p.
As soon as I have anything nice in my theatre again to setup I will post some pics but right now I don't have the time to put something together.

So who will be the first to step up and take this challenge on?

why would any US user run 1080p75?

Very little of this makes sense.

First, why 75Hz?

Second, you're only going to achieve 1080p72, compressed raster on a G90, a modified Marquee, or possibly a 1209 (although nobody has posted screenshots of the 1209 in this mode yet). No ifs, ands, or butts, and anyone who disagrees feel free to post crosshatches at said resolution and I will retract my skepticism.

Thank you, drive through.

Very little of this makes sense.

First, why 75Hz?

I agree with this not making much sense, but do see the 75hz as being the better test for this.


Second, you're only going to achieve 1080p72, compressed raster on a G90, a modified Marquee, or possibly a 1209 (although nobody has posted screenshots of the 1209 in this mode yet). No ifs, ands, or butts, and anyone who disagrees feel free to post crosshatches at said resolution and I will retract my skepticism.

Thank you, drive through.

But before anyone post any screenshots on this, where did you get that you cannot get anything above 1080P 72hz on a compressed (16:9) raster?

I agree with this not making much sense, but do see the 75hz as being the better test for this.

For a pure resolution test, yes, but you'll never watch any non-PC generated content at 75Hz due to judder so 75Hz is academic.

But before anyone post any screenshots on this, where did you get that you cannot get anything above 1080P 72hz on a compressed (16:9) raster?

I'm not sure I said that, but my point was, to the best of my recollection, nobody has yet posted screenshots at (or above) said resolution on any PJ besides a Marquee or G90.

Ok, let's make it 72Hz then.

You also need to specify which camera you are using and what lens and settings you have on it.

Why does it make little sense to do it like i described it?
Also no cheating with vertical size.
Measure the picture height so you get whatever value you would get if you divide your screen width with 1.78.

And the camera should be set to take the pictures at 5 Mega pixels.

Ok, let's make it 72Hz then

No, keep it at 75hz. Allow for some headroom, which you'll need at 72hz anyway. I'll download the pattern later..

SMPTE 1920x1080P @ 75hz - true 16:9 aspect:
http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/5127/img0113ft1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

You also need to specify which camera you are using and what lens and settings you have on it.

Why does it make little sense to do it like i described it?

Because there is no commercially available content shot at any frame rate that is an even root of 75. 24 is close, but no cigar. But if you're just doing this for demo purposes, that is fine.

I'll need to find my memory stick, then get back to this later with the suggested pattern.

1920x1080P @ 75hz
http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/247/img0115cb2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img488.imageshack.us/img488/3595/img0116sg4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img488.imageshack.us/img488/6710/img0118sq7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

I'm not sure why you guys are bothering with this. I have the biggest penis in the forum. :p

Cliffy

I'm not sure why you guys are bothering with this. I have the biggest penis in the forum. :p

Cliffy

Yep, it's no more than a pissing contest. or who has the largest penis contest, and that was my reference to it not making much sense.

A screenshot contest is senseless, especially since it's almost impossible to reproduce what you're really seeing.

But hey, if the Barco boys wants to play, let's play. But what would it prove..:confused:

Ok, after the debate in spotmatic's thread about which projector is the sharpest n 1080p material I started this thread to save spotmatic's thread from being brutally high jacked.

First we need to set the output resolution to 1920x1080p@75Hz.
Then we need test patterns that are native 1080p.
I use Philips Test Pattern Generator for this.

You can find it for free here:
http://www.benchmarkhq.ru/fclick/fclick.php?fid=263

After installing the program do this:

1. Select resume.
2. Set the program to full screen.
3. Under program settings set to use 16:9 screen ratio.
4. Go to User Def Resolution.
5. Select Vert Resolution Bars and 1:1
6. Take pictures of your center, top, bottom, left, right sides and also the corners.
7. Select Hor. resolution Bars and 1:1
8. Repeat step 6.
9. Upload the pictures to imageshach.us uncompressed.
10. Post the links to respective picture here.


After following those steps you will truly know how well your setup resolves 1080p@75Hz.


Lots of pics to shoot but that is the only way we can know for sure how well either projector resolves 1080p.
As soon as I have anything nice in my theatre again to setup I will post some pics but right now I don't have the time to put something together.

In the other thread, you mentioned how you doubt that Gino's setup is as sharp as the 909 and I have to respectfully disagree with you.

At the resolution that he is running his projectors BLENDED and in 4:3 phosphor, his setup is every bit as sharp if not sharper.

I've also seen MP's mods and I can attest that there is a good chance that at 1080P/75hz even though Gino does not have LUG tubes chances are that it will be resolved.

I don't think that my G90's with LUG tubes would resolve 72hz at 1080P though.

Cliff

?

Here is unmodded BG1200 -92, with fast test setup using 1080p 72Hz.

http://img295.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ennen1fn5.jpg

Not perfect, but I try to get it better soon...

Edit. I used Nicon coolpix S2, it's small pocket camera.

Here is unmodded BG1200 -92, with fast test setup using 1080p 72Hz.

http://img295.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ennen1fn5.jpg

Not perfect, but I try to get it better soon...

You just increased the value of the BG1200. :)

In the other thread, you mentioned how you doubt that Gino's setup is as sharp as the 909 and I have to respectfully disagree with you.

At the resolution that he is running his projectors BLENDED and in 4:3 phosphor, his setup is every bit as sharp if not sharper.

I've also seen MP's mods and I can attest that there is a good chance that at 1080P/75hz even though Gino does not have LUG tubes chances are that it will be resolved.


Hey hey Cliff, you raised a very valid point! Why didn't I think of that :)

In the other thread, you mentioned how you doubt that Gino's setup is as sharp as the 909 and I have to respectfully disagree with you.

Gino's set up might be. Is a Quee no matter how modded as sharp if set up the same? I have my doubts. But, can a Quee 4:3 compete with a 909 16:9, possibly.

I love screen shots and test patterns. I look at screen shots on my uncalibrated computer display. WTF if the computer display isn't color calibrated. No need. I can imagine. Anf test patterns. I absolutely won't watch anything else in my HT. Everything else is a complete waste of time. Anybody want to buy all my audio stuff. Don't need it any more.

How many poor souls here are lost drifting ainlessly in color space?

Like I said, I like C cups.

Thanks.

Gino's set up might be. Is a Quee no matter how modded as sharp if set up the same? I have my doubts. But, can a Quee 4:3 compete with a 909 16:9, possibly.

How about an Ultra with LUG's, HFQ900 lenses, and a super fast clean video chain (VIM and VNB's)?? Same tubes and lenses as found in the Cine9? It may be close in a 16:9 raster, but the Ultra has to have the edge easily in a 4:3 raster vs a 16:9

Ile:
Nice picture, can you also follow the instructions outlined in the first post and use Philips Test Pattern Generator?



Mark:
I think most monitors out there are calibrated well enough to tell the difference between black and white and be able to determine how well the lines are resolved don't you?
Of course this is not the final word on this and of course you can't tell everything from a screenshot since there are so many things you have to factor in such as camera, skills, lenses and so on but what you CAN do is tell the difference between the people with sets who knows how to handle a camera which unfortunately rules me out...


Gino:
I really hope you have replaced those god awful thomson focus yokes in your sets or else I seriously doubt you can get close to the true performance the P19lugs would give in a better unit such as the 1209, 1209s or 909. =)




So nobody wants to follow the simple steps I lined out?
Pity, it sure would give a good idea of things.

How many poor souls here are lost drifting ainlessly in color space?

I'd like to see what these projectors look like with 480p...Yes 480p!

Because there is no commercially available content shot at any frame rate that is an even root of 75. 24 is close, but no cigar. But if you're just doing this for demo purposes, that is fine.


That's so untrue. Half the content in the world is shot at 50i/25p, both of which work fine at 75hz.
Everything I record with my HD tuner cards will playback at 75hz (or 100hz).

But I agree that for the test, 72hz is more meaningful for the majority here.

Oh honey, fire up the popcorn machine. I brought home some really nice test patterns for us to watch tonight.

Oh, by the way Chip, your birthday's right around the corner. The kids and I thought we would get you that HD DVD player and a couple of movies you've been talking about.

No thanks dear. As long as I have these test patterns to look at, I'm fine.
Go buy yourself some new shoes or something :rolleyes:

Chip

Oh, by the way Chip, your birthday's right around the corner. The kids and I thought we would get you that HD DVD player and a couple of movies you've been talking about.

No thanks dear. As long as I have these test patterns to look at, I'm fine.
Go buy yourself some new shoes or something :rolleyes:

Chip

LOL.. I knew you would get a kick out of this..:)

I really hate people who doesn't bother to read the first post in a thread and just think it's a good idea to post a witty response about something not having a damn thing to do with the subject at hand.
This thread was started because people were/are hijacking spotmatic's 909 thread with bickering about which projector is better like some 5 year olds in a sandbox.

You seem to completely have missed the point of this.
The ONLY way you can determine if one projector does 1080p better than the other is by looking at static resolution test patterns which reveals how well the projector is capable of resolving the resolution it is being fed.
You won't tell how well a projector performs by posting hundreds of meaningless screenshots from stills of a motion picture!
If you are skilled with the camera you can make the Barco 801 look like the bell of the ball. Compared to some dope who has an 909 and doesn't know how to take pictures.

This thread was intended for people who WANTS to participate and know how to install a program and take som pictures and upload them to imageshack for the rest of us to see.
It was NOT intended for jerks talking a bunch of bs about only watching test patterns all the time on their projector.
That's just childish and infantile behavior and doesn't really bring anything new to the table.
So if you want to participate, great! Be my guest.
If you don't want to participate. Then DON'T!

Getting really tired of some people's elitist conduct on this forum...


So please next time you feel the urge to add to your post count by writing something completely uninteresting and with no face value to the topic at hand.
Bite your hand and move along and resist the urge of being "witty".

Ile:
Nice picture, can you also follow the instructions outlined in the first post and use Philips Test Pattern Generator?
I used 16:9 SMPTE test pic from Philips test pattern generator first page.

But I didn't follow other instructions, because I took that picture last year for other purpose. Can't do better for now, because projector isn't installed yet.

This thread was started because people were/are hijacking spotmatic's 909 thread with bickering about which projector is better like some 5 year olds in a sandbox.
You're saying I'm a 5 year old? :mad: (along with Cliff, Mike, Andy et al)

Your writing is pretty good for a five year old. Bet you'll soon turn 6, correct?

Tried the 1080p test yesterday, only at 50 Hz, 1:1 bars are not resolved by my 6PGxtra. Who of you guys is willing to pick it up for free? You also get a tip for crrying it up from the basement ;-)

Your writing is pretty good for a five year old. Bet you'll soon turn 6, correct?

Tried the 1080p test yesterday, only at 50 Hz, 1:1 bars are not resolved by my 6PGxtra.
I've had enough... you win, you're clearly too clever for me. Who would have thought the 6PG would have had a hard time resolving 1080p50? :rolleyes:

As soon as I'm finished getting it all set up I'll follow the instructions. Still working on the details. 9500 Ultra, LUGs, Mike's V2 mods, 03VIM, 10F lenses, Frankenyokes, and even Moome's new Marquee card. Will that hack it for ya? :) Working on the frankenyokes currently.

Because there is no commercially available content shot at any frame rate that is an even root of 75. 24 is close, but no cigar. But if you're just doing this for demo purposes, that is fine.



you forget 50Hz content, all the BBC stuff (docs,sitcoms, ...) ,
all PAL video and every DVD sold in PAL countries.

even the BBC doc Planet Earth was broadcast in 50Hz HDTV.

so 75 Hz makes perfect sense for all 50Hz countries.


Michael

As soon as I'm finished getting it all set up I'll follow the instructions. Still working on the details. 9500 Ultra, LUGs, Mike's V2 mods, 03VIM, 10F lenses, Frankenyokes, and even Moome's new Marquee card. Will that hack it for ya? :) Working on the frankenyokes currently.


so Moome's new HDMI card will do 1080P 72 Hz.

there's no mention of this on his site.


Michael

It will, but it's out of spec ;) You have to have an HTPC to do it since there's no scalers that will run that rez over HDMI sadly.

It will, but it's out of spec ;) You have to have an HTPC to do it since there's no scalers that will run that rez over HDMI sadly.


any problems with porches and settings so the Moome card will accept it ?

Michael

I haven't gotten to play with it enough yet to see. Still piecing everything together. I just did it quickly as part of my testing when I was Beta testing the card for Moome.

You're saying I'm a 5 year old? :mad: (along with Cliff, Mike, Andy et al)

Actually, he said some "[people were] bickering...like some 5 year olds in a sandbox". This construct is called a simile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simile). Given that a simile by definition compares two unlike things, it would be more accurate to say that he was saying you were NOT a 5 year old.

It will, but it's out of spec ;) You have to have an HTPC to do it since there's no scalers that will run that rez over HDMI sadly.

If you lower the horizontal resolution from 1920 to about 1800 so you are doing 1800x1080@72, it is within the spec of the chip used (and also within the spec of the HDFury and some scalers will let you do this).

Thanks, didn't know that. It still does work at 1920x1080 but I admit I haven't done a lot of close-up resolution testing using it.

You're saying I'm a 5 year old? :mad: (along with Cliff, Mike, Andy et al)

Gino,
I think your safe. I do believe he was talking to me. :D At least I thought so until he used the word "Elitest". To truly be a "Elitest" you must have one or two of the following One or two G-90's, one or two super-charged 9500LC's or a big honkin willie. Oh well, one out of three will just have to do. ;)
If you have to have one of the previously mentioned projectors for the force to be with you, then you may as well start referring to me as the Sith Lord. With AmPro's being clearly dispatched to the dark side of the force, I guess it's back of the bus for me :p

I'm crushed :(

I like C cups. My big honkin' willie fits just right between them.

Cliffy

Actually, he said some "[people were] bickering...like some 5 year olds in a sandbox". This construct is called a simile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simile). Given that a simile by definition compares two unlike things, it would be more accurate to say that he was saying you were NOT a 5 year old.

That may be, but it doesn't mean he is not implying I have the same bickering qualities of a 5 year old.

I've had enough... you win, you're clearly too clever for me. Who would have thought the 6PG would have had a hard time resolving 1080p50? :rolleyes:

PG Xtra at 1080i 75hz. Which has the same requirements as 1080p 37.5hz. Could I push it to 50hz? Maybe - but I sold the Xtra.


http://members.optusnet.com.au/~mswilcock/mypic44.jpg


At 1080p 75hz (if it would scan that high) the 1920 lines would be all grey, but the 1080 lines would be the same as the pic.

Xtra is a damn fine Air Coupled projector - pick of the bunch.

PG Xtra at 1080i 75hz. Which has the same requirements as 1080p 37.5hz. Could I push it to 50hz? Maybe - but I sold the Xtra.

At 1080p 75hz (if it would scan that high) the 1920 lines would be all grey, but the 1080 lines would be the same as the pic.

Xtra is a damn fine Air Coupled projector - pick of the bunch.

Nice picture Mark, looks soft and contrast not too good but i imagine it's your camera. The challenge is the 1920 vertical lines. I thought the 6PG's topped out at 80Mhz?

PG Xtra uses a 130mhz output amp.

And yep, it was sharper in person - I have a 5 year old cheap Sony Cybershot, and it was held by hand.

Those boxes are 12mm per side - the lines are about 1.2mm wide. Pretty impressive for a projector you can pick up for $200 (I did once :) ).

I push the XG to 1080i 100hz (to reduce interlacing field lines to basically unnoticable), and it's not quite as sharp at the 1:1 level, due to the LC lenses, but plenty good enough for little 'ole me. 1:1 lines are still visible.

1080i 72hz or 96hz is more than an acceptable compromise for me. You guys can spend ten times as much to get 1080p 72hz - I just can't do that. And betcha 1080i 72hz or 96hz looks 90% as good....well, unless you want a 8m wide 2.35:1 screen ;)

PG Xtra uses a 130mhz output amp.

And yep, it was sharper in person - I have a 5 year old cheap Sony Cybershot, and it was held by hand.

That camera was the main reason for not doing better with that shot. I also have a PG Xtra, and though it was never tested for this, I think it's one of the best CRT projectors made. NEC did not take short cuts in their video chain design. Based on what was available at the time, they chose some of the best components for their video chains. 130mhz amps on the neck boards in the PG xtra was over kill based on the PG xtra's specs. The XG's are nicer still.

Here's a few shots of the same or very similar patterns taking from my Marquee. some time back.

http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/3631/hpim2013an5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/5707/hpim2020el6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/2760/hpim2023ez6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/8843/hpim2026lp7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/9599/hpim2029fl4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Could you confirm what those pictures are Mike?

The Border is also off putting as you see the border space more than you do the scan lines.

They are from the DeskMate For Windows test pattern set.

At that resolution, you're not likely going to see line structure.

I'm planning an upcoming mini meet, where I'll be displaying these and other patterns. It's not so much the bandwidth with these patterns, as it is, the accuracy of the pedestals, and the cleanest of the video chain.

So nobody wants to follow the simple steps I lined out?
Pity, it sure would give a good idea of things.

Ok, How about I try and do this........

I have the ability to run a 1209s and a 909 next to each other - Ive been trying to get mine up (Cliffy style post :D ) for some time now .

I will then try and follow your steps.


I think screen shots based on the SAME situation are a good thing - or as close as they can be.

Currently I have to say that whenever Clarence takes pictures they always seem to have the edge over others.

People should just obey the rules set out or get as close as they can, this is for me really a bit of fun, get involved, dont be the person on the sideline bitching about it who did not really want to be there anyway !

Lets see what the weekend brings :D .

Ok, How about I try and do this........

I have the ability to run a 1209s and a 909 next to each other - Ive been trying to get mine up (Cliffy style post :D ) for some time now .

I will then try and follow your steps.


I think screen shots based on the SAME situation are a good thing - or as close as they can be.

Currently I have to say that whenever Clarence takes pictures they always seem to have the edge over others.

People should just obey the rules set out or get as close as they can, this is for me really a bit of fun, get involved, dont be the person on the sideline bitching about it who did not really want to be there anyway !

Lets see what the weekend brings :D .

I agree. And I'm also beginning to find out that there's a sweet spot to the screen, and to find it, you'll have to move the camera closer.

Clarence is just plain gifted at this. He has an eye for this stuff, and for some reason I'm not able to see how he does what he does. I have a second collage demo disk from him that was distributed at the last meet. I've been playing with it from time to time. And have posted some shots from it yesterday. the more i look at the clips on that demo disk, the more it engages me. And I keep finding myself playing it over and over. And every time I play it, something else amazing in those selected shots jump out at me.

In order the get the best from test patterns, you'll need very clean AC and cabling.

I agree. And I'm also beginning to find out that there's a sweet spot to the screen, and to find it, you'll have to move the camera closer.

Clarence is just plain gifted at this. He has an eye for this stuff, and for some reason I'm not able to see how he does what he does. I have a second collage demo disk from him that was distributed at the last meet. I've been playing with it from time to time. And have posted some shots from it yesterday. the more i look at the clips on that demo disk, the more it engages me. And I keep finding myself playing it over and over. And every time I play it, something else amazing in those selected shots jump out at me.

In order the get the best from test patterns, you'll need very clean AC and cabling.

I've been sitting here scratching my head and laughing about this whole thing. There is no real comparison to be had here unless everyone uses the same equipment and photographer to do it.
Also, Mike just said something that I said over three years ago. For ultimate resolution, your screen makes a huge difference. Like most DIY'ers here I started out with a painted screen. I scratched and saved for a very expensive name brand screen. Although the name brand screen has bettern color rendition, it's ability to hold that light in a tightly focussed spot just ain't there. As I put a higher priority on the more film-like appearance, I left the name brand screen up.
For years we CRT'ers have had the ability to project a better image than what we pay for at the local cinima.

Chip

1080i 72hz or 96hz is more than an acceptable compromise for me. You guys can spend ten times as much to get 1080p 72hz - I just can't do that. And betcha 1080i 72hz or 96hz looks 90% as good

Actually, after comparing my 1080i to 1080p on a G90, a 9500, and a modded 1209/2 with some of the same HD sources, I'd say it looks better than 90% as good. In fact, even some of the owners of these PJs couldn't tell much of a difference most of the time. ;)

I've been sitting here scratching my head and laughing about this whole thing. There is no real comparison to be had here unless everyone uses the same equipment and photographer to do it.

Yep--very true. At some point in every one of these "lets take pictures to compare" threads this gets brought up. :)

And while we're on a roll here, without some kind of control, what's to stop me from using one of those test patterns at 800X600 and telling you it's something else ;)

Chip

And while we're on a roll here, without some kind of control, what's to stop me from using one of those test patterns at 800X600 and telling you it's something else ;)

Chip

Or how about just setting it up for a 72" wide image instead of a 92" or 96" wide image? :)

Or how about just setting it up for a 72" wide image instead of a 92" or 96" wide image? :)

Well, once the image is set on the tubes phosphor, it's going to be THE same that's projected on the screen, as far as the test go. So, if the image on the tubes face is resolved, what difference would a smaller screen make?

And once you examine that, you may arrive at why we use smaller screens to look at higher resolutions. A smaller screen makes it more difficult to discern the resolve power. While a larger screen would spread that same test out wider, and make it easier to see between the lines (resolve).


Both of the following images are 1080P - Both are showing clear and distinct background detail. Both are also showing the better color pallet/pastel colors achieved when 1080P is fully resolved, and both have equal sharpness in both foreground and background. so with test patterns aside, the best proof is the image:
http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/1606/img0168ko7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/543/img0140jb9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

I don't have a HD DVD player yet. The only thing for me to watch at 1080P is up-scaled DVD which I think looks like crap. I think 1440X960P is eye candy or as it's going to get for std def DVD. I can punch up 1080P from my tp generator and it looks great. I am not one with the digital camera. I have a Sony 5.1 mega pixel DSC W1. If someone can tell me what settings to use, I'll set up the tripod and give it a shot.

I don't have a HD DVD player yet. The only thing for me to watch at 1080P is up-scaled DVD which I think looks like crap. I think 1440X960P is eye candy or as it's going to get for std def DVD. I can punch up 1080P from my tp generator and it looks great. I am not one with the digital camera. I have a Sony 5.1 mega pixel DSC W1. If someone can tell me what settings to use, I'll set up the tripod and give it a shot.


You don't really need to be able to do 1920x1080P exact. You can get away with the rez you posted and do well. What you don't want is anything interlaced.

So you may find 1440x960P being a very good rez for your system, and that it would give you very good high def performance. And you should also start with 1920 as the horizontal, and try various vertical rates below 1080.

With HD, find the sweet spot of your projector. But find it with your eyes also on background detail.

Or how about just setting it up for a 72" wide image instead of a 92" or 96" wide image?

]And while we're on a roll here, without some kind of control, what's to stop me from using one of those test patterns at 800X600 and telling you it's something else

You could also just increase the H & V size and so make scan line more visible........


What I hope is that people post true and honest pictures, and I actually find this kind of thing good as it helps learn about others projectors, and might even help some to better their own setup. I find posts like this fun and that is what they should be used for.

What should NOT happen is people post FALSE pictures and information as we know has happened in the past. I have seen ratio changes, streches, image touch ups etc. THOSE THAT DO THAT KNOW WHO THEY ARE :eek: , Keep this a fun thread.

If people decide there is a better way to run this kind of thread then mention it, we should all be able to discuss options. This is NOT a "pi$$ing" contest, so dont turn it into one.................

My "FUN" thread on the evil twin got this similar reaction from some people - it was always just for fun, and mainly as Steve and I had a friendly Quee vs Barco shootout from different countries. Several people mentioned that the pictures would be unwatchable - OF COURSE - that was never the intention, it was just to see what was possible - for those that did not see it Steve and I both hit over 400Mhz running on our machines - BOTH of us ran out of steam on our graphics cards so Barco won by default as its closed to "A" in the alphabet :p - See it was all for fun.................

As it happens I believe the Standard Barco 1209s is sharper than a Standard Marquee 9500LC - Thats my personal opinion and I ask that others respect that, I also believe that the reason so many people are able to modify the Marquee is because the scope is there to do so.


Lets see your pictures :) .

You don't really need to be able to do 1920x1080P exact. You can get away with the rez you posted and do well. What you don't want is anything interlaced.

So you may find 1440x960P being a very good rez for your system, and that it would give you very good high def performance. And you should also start with 1920 as the horizontal, and try various vertical rates below 1080.

With HD, find the sweet spot of your projector. But find it with your eyes also on background detail.

It's not a issue of if mine will do 1080P as much as the artifacts introduced when I scale to std def DVD to 1080P vs 1440X960P. As I said, test patterns from my tp generator and text from the OSD of my scaler at 1080P are sharp as a tack. What I need is a native 1080P source which I don't have now. Today I hope to get some time in peaking the neck boards on my experimental 4600HD as the blue is not doing a very good job of 1920. R and G are doing well but may be improved.
I have to work on my pix taking skills today also. :o

And betcha 1080i 72hz or 96hz looks 90% as good....well, unless you want a 8m wide 2.35:1 screen ;)
You'll have to ask Adam Pasey that since he has seen both. That is of course if you can't make the trip up yourself one day :)

Here's my first pix post with PJ not even warmed up

Re : "And betcha 1080i 72hz or 96hz looks 90% as good....well, unless you want a 8m wide 2.35:1 screen"

You'll have to ask Adam Pasey that since he has seen both. That is of course if you can't make the trip up yourself one day :)

I just ran 1080i 72hz and then 1080i 96hz - Scan lines about 2mm high :eek: .

When running the blend each pj is running 1080x817 so really need to run 1080i on a single PJ to check that.........

Anyway the good thing is it takes about 30 seconds to add a new resolution to my scaler so easy to test.