I am now the proud owner of a Barco Graphics 808s, which is lounging comfortably in my company's break room.

Aside from a few scuffs and a non-latching remote door, the case is quite nice, and physically it seems to be really good - the lenses in particular look great.

Turns out the guy I bought it from is an engineer who ends up with old A/V kit from his job, but he cares more about a big picture than quality and after getting some honkin' set-your-hair-on-fire LCD projector he decided he'd never take the time to set up the Barco. And since he never ran anything but S-Video to it, he didn't seem to realize how good it is!

As per my previous post, my biggest concern was some obvious burn on the blue tube. But it seemed fairly consistent from the photo.

Unfortunately I forgot my VGA->RGBHV cable on the way down (picked up the projector coming back from an emergency trip to Orlando) so I had to test with the S-Video out. But I was mainly concerned with brightness levels and consistency on the blue tube, so I just threw R/G/B screens full at it. I wasn't able to detect any patterns or gradients in the blue output; full white had a definite pinkish cast but that's hardly surprising given the thing wasn't really set up at all.

Until I get a chance to feed it a solid signal and calibrate it a bit more I won't know for sure, but it looks like the tube will be OK for the meantime. We'll see.

Anybody have any advice on some tests to run? I'm planning on setting it up for a couple weeks on a (beefy) desk pointing at a wall, in a light controlled room, and doing a full setup before I hang it in my HT room and do a complete *re*setup.

ITurns out the guy I bought it from is an engineer who ends up with old A/V kit from his job, but he cares more about a big picture than quality and after getting some honkin' set-your-hair-on-fire LCD projector he decided he'd never take the time to set up the Barco. And since he never ran anything but S-Video to it, he didn't seem to realize how good it is!. that's what happens when the janitor brings home high tech. equipnment from work. Oh wait, you said he was Engineer, I'm guessing a Sanitation Engineer. :D


As per my previous post, my biggest concern was some obvious burn on the blue tube. But it seemed fairly consistent from the photo.I wasn't able to detect any patterns or gradients in the blue output; full white had a definite pinkish cast but that's hardly surprising given the thing wasn't really set up at all. you can re-set it up till the cows come come but a pink or yellow tint will always be there with burnt tubes. Sounds like you are going to have some fun thoguh so just learn how the machine works, enjoy the big pic, and start looking for new tubes. :)

There are some possibilities, and I'm scouring eBay fairly regularly - but tubes for the 808s seem fairly rare (something I knew getting into this).

Given that the blue wear appears at first blush to knock its output down fairly evenly, and only by 10% or so, I'm still not sure why I can't pull the R and G down by 10% each to match the wear on the blue tube, and take a brightness hit in exchange for evening the color.

That said, I haven't had time to look at the output carefully, so time will tell.

Because it's not just brightness... white will no longer be white.

You can compensate a bit, but as everyone has said, wear is wear, kinda like worn rings in an engine. RUn it, but it won't be perfect. Play with the gains in the color balance menu, but yeah, at $1300-ish for a new Sony tube from VDC, it's probably not worth buying one.

Because it's not just brightness... white will no longer be white.

OK, either I'm misunderstanding something completely here or I'm not explaining myself well!

From the start, my understanding is:

R / G / B tubes fling light at screen. Equal R/G/B output from each tube means white image (for the sake of argument, assume blank white input. Full on for each tube).

If you turn the B tube down 50%, bang, you get yellowish white.

Turn the R and G tubes down by 50%, and R/G/B are at 50% and thus you get gray.

So, if the B tube has a problem that scales (not *limits*) its maximum output to 90% of that of the R and G tubes (imagine in RGB format where you can only go to 240 instead of 255, say), if you scale the R and G tubes back to balance you get neutral color again, but a bit less bright.

On the other hand, if the burn has a *limiting* effect rather than a *scaling* effect, *scaling* the R and G tubes ought to result in a bluish gray at target intensities under the B limit threshold, and then a snap to a yellowish gray at the threshold which would fade to neutral at the top.

But based on what I know about burn, I think it's a scaling issue and not a limiting one.

Of course, if my assumptions are wrong it's all out the window, but that's what I'm trying to narrow down. If I'm going to play this game I want to get the rules straight before I go on the field!

From the start, my understanding is:
R / G / B tubes fling light at screen. Equal R/G/B output from each tube means white image (for the sake of argument, assume blank white input. Full on for each tube). If you turn the B tube down 50%, bang, you get yellowish white.
Turn the R and G tubes down by 50%, and R/G/B are at 50% and thus you get gray.! well you are stubborn aren't you? :) It's not light only output, your blue tube is BURNT DARK BROWN. Try this, take a Brown Gel Filter, like they use in theatres and such, and put it in front of a perfect tube. That tube will not make Green or Blue light no mater how much you crank it up. :eek: ;)

Because it's not just brightness... white will no longer be white.

I already told him this in his other thread. :rolleyes:

OK, so what you're saying is that the tube will output light, but light of the wrong color to begin with? From looking at the thing myself, the blue coming out of the tube looks plenty bright and 'bluey'. So what's going on?

OK, so what you're saying is that the tube will output light, but light of the wrong color to begin with? From looking at the thing myself, the blue coming out of the tube looks plenty bright and 'bluey'. So what's going on?

The light coming out is actually "bluey brown" as Dragan was getting at.

The light coming out is actually "bluey brown" as Dragan was getting at.
Dave, I'm "saying it ain't so" , so Peri doesn't have to :D

If you can live with it, fine. Live with it :) But don't think that merely cutting your other colors will compensate.

Look, guys, I'm using the knowledge I have to ask questions about my situation in an attempt to gain more knowledge. When faced with "It just won't work", I have two choices: Take it on faith, or ask more questions to find out *why* it won't work.

After quite a bit of flogging, I got the answer: The issue isn't simply a cut in brightness of the affected tube, but a spectrum shift of the tube's color output.

In effect, this makes the problem more complicated but actually shouldn't make it impossible to solve, with reasonable complexity, assuming output levels stay roughly linear. It's still a filtering problem. But clearly this isn't the place to brainstorm - better to toe the party line and STFU.

Thanks for the help. When I get it done, I'll be sure to post some downsampled, compressed digital photographs, taken at random color temperatures and exposures, of a random scene, from a movie shot on undetermined film, through undetermined lenses and postprocessed with undetermined machinery and color calibration, in order to prove that my setup is correctly calibrated to an unstated and impossible standard. 1080p.

Guys, I'll throw my opinion in here.. I had a 1271 for two and a half years with a blue tube that was a 6 out of 10, and strange raster wear as if the projector was beside someone's couch firing at a screen centered on the couch. I set it up properly, maxxed rasters and all. Oh boy yes you could easily see the wear on screen. An all blue field of course showed bright blue around the edges with a "bluey-brown" darker goofy shaped trapezoid in the middle. The OP could possibly use his overlay idea, maybe also compensating for the extra "browny" tint that the blue will produce.

He'll NEVER get a perfectly color balanced picture out of the machine with that tube, no. BUT He will certainly get a pic thats easier on the eye than what I had until he can fork over $$ when he is lucky enough to find a tube. Also, since that worn blue raster probably isn't maximized, running the other two tubes dimmer may help conserve them until he can replace the blue.

PeriSoft, I'd say give it a go, but don't expect perfection. You'll end up with a slightly dimmer image, yes, but you should definitely have closer to what you are supposed to see without the extra work. And soon, after you sit there watching it and going WOW, you'll be itching to get the new tube and see what the PJ can really do. Just as I stated earlier today in another thread, make due with what you have, and just hang on for the ride until you can get better. In this hobby, we all strive to keep going up, and only some of us have reached the top( I definately am not there yet) :)

Look, guys, I'm using the knowledge I have to ask questions about my situation in an attempt to gain more knowledge. When faced with "It just won't work", I have two choices: Take it on faith, or ask more questions to find out *why* it won't work.

You were told *why* both in your original thread and here.

In effect, this makes the problem more complicated but actually shouldn't make it impossible to solve, with reasonable complexity, assuming output levels stay roughly linear. It's still a filtering problem. But clearly this isn't the place to brainstorm - better to toe the party line and STFU.

This statement shows that you don't understand the problem. It is a filtering problem, but filters LIMIT certain frequencies. You cannot use another filter to put the frequencies back--this is simple physics. The burn on the tube is eliminating frequencies of the blue light. No filter on the blue can put those back, nor can the red or green tube make these frequencies.

If you think anything but a new tube will solve the problem, you simply do NOT understand the issue.

When I get it done, I'll be sure to post some downsampled, compressed digital photographs, taken at random color temperatures and exposures, of a random scene, from a movie shot on undetermined film, through undetermined lenses and postprocessed with undetermined machinery and color calibration, in order to prove that my setup is correctly calibrated to an unstated and impossible standard. 1080p.

Yep, a good photographer can take a screen shot that looks better than the PJ does in real life. But unless you photoshop your picture, white won't be white. That is not acceptable to most of us. It may be acceptable to you--only you can decide. If so, have fun with it.

Dave's exactly right: the brown "filter" takes away frequencies, and nothing you can do (short of removing the "filter," i.e. a new tube) will put them back. It doesn't just dim the blue, which you could correct for by dimming the R and G, it **changes** it.

And believe me that a changed primary color will make a BIG difference in all resulting colors. You may even be able to set it to get a perfect 6500K "white" (though I doubt it), but everything else will be wrong. See e.g. my post on filtering Marquee 8500's (http://www.curtpalme.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5604&highlight=gels) for some background. Marquee tubes are a little off in G and R. G is a little too "yellowish" and R is a tiny bit "orangey." But those small differences make a VERY noticeable difference in the resulting colors -- enough so that people are willing to spend $500 for lens upgrades to fix it. Your "brownish blue" is a LOT farther off the mark than those Marquee tubes, and will make a significant difference in all colors that include any blue -- which is ALL colors except pure red, pure green, and shades of yellow in between. That's just the way the optics works.

(It would be very interesting -- to color geeks anyway :) -- to check your blue's color coords with a colorimeter and see just how far off it is.)

You may find it's acceptable and be happy with it. If so, great. But you can't fix it unless you get a different tube.

Perisoft, Please do post pictures when you finish, of course unaltered. I am willing to bet that if you can cut down the red and green output, and also cut down the brown(I am sure this might be quite difficult) with your overlay, you'll have some impressive results, although I am sure not perfect. Of course this will mean determining how much brown the blue tube is putting out in the wear area, compared to the unworn area. When you post them, make sure you get the most accurate screenshots you can(guys in here such as Clarence are the resident experts at this). Put up screenshots of the image as the PJ displays it on its own, then the overlay. I am sure there will be a worthy difference between the two, even with the missing blue frequencies lost by the wear. Of course I have to agree with those missing frequencies, you'll never get an exactly color calibrated pic, but still.

You idea has merit, and if you can make it work nicely, I am sure there would be others out there that will be interested in your technique to apply to their own system if they have a worn tube, and no way to replace it for awhile. Most everyone in this forum is here to find out how to make their setup better in one way or another.

The only thing I think you are shooting too high about here is 1080p. I am not sure of the best resolution for your PJ, but I know that Mike Parker in particular has spent quite a long time modding 8" machines(mainly marquees) to be able to handle 1080p properly. Your machine stock may sync to it, but its doubtful the tubes will be able to display it pixel for pixel. Especially with your overlay idea, pixel for pixel is going to be important.

Marquee tubes are a little off in G and R. G is a little too "yellowish" and R is a tiny bit "orangey."

Although Gary knows this :) I'll clarify for the newbies. This is true of ALL CRTs.

When I get it done, I'll be sure to post some downsampled, compressed digital photographs, taken at random color temperatures and exposures, of a random scene, from a movie shot on undetermined film, through undetermined lenses and postprocessed with undetermined machinery and color calibration, in order to prove that my setup is correctly calibrated to an unstated and impossible standard. 1080p. well it's nice to see your finally on board with the accepted Wisdom around here :D Look, I know we can be hard on people but you have to undertsand that most of us have been into this for years. We obsess about every little detail and having a brunt tube is akin to having your eyes gouged by a hot ice pick. If this is your first projectoro, even with a burnt tube, it will be blow you away , for at least 3 weeks............ After that it will suck :D

Look, I know we can be hard on people

Speak for yourself. I'm the nicest guy around here. ;)

Perisoft, Please do post pictures when you finish, of course unaltered. I am willing to bet that if you can cut down the red and green output, and also cut down the brown(I am sure this might be quite difficult) well he might even have to turn the Brown tube off comepletely to compensate for the burnt Blue, that thing was roasted. :D Speak for yourself. I'm the nicest guy around here. ;) well since I remembered to take my meds last nigth, I'm going to nominate myself as the nicest guy on the forum today, truly a friend and helpful guide to all. :D

well he might even have to turn the Brown tube off comepletely

LOL. RGB - Red, Green, and Brown. :)

Lol you smartaleks, I meant cut down the brown output from the computer source in his overlay, just like he is cutting down red and green. NOT the PROJECTOR lol. This isn't going to be easy, dropping red and green output, along with cutting down the frequencies of brown resulting on screen from the burn. Its all a matter of filtering down certain areas of the spectrum at the source to compensate for what the projector shows on screen in in its current state.

Look, guys, I'm using the knowledge I have to ask questions about my situation in an attempt to gain more knowledge. When faced with "It just won't work", I have two choices: Take it on faith, or ask more questions to find out *why* it won't work.

After quite a bit of flogging, I got the answer: The issue isn't simply a cut in brightness of the affected tube, but a spectrum shift of the tube's color output.

In effect, this makes the problem more complicated but actually shouldn't make it impossible to solve, with reasonable complexity, assuming output levels stay roughly linear. It's still a filtering problem. But clearly this isn't the place to brainstorm - better to toe the party line and STFU.

Thanks for the help. When I get it done, I'll be sure to post some downsampled, compressed digital photographs, taken at random color temperatures and exposures, of a random scene, from a movie shot on undetermined film, through undetermined lenses and postprocessed with undetermined machinery and color calibration, in order to prove that my setup is correctly calibrated to an unstated and impossible standard. 1080p.

Please do post the pictures, I'll be happy to look. :)


There are tons of burned tube projectors out there that can look great with *most* video. As long as you aren't watching "Fargo" every night, you will most likely achieve a good looking picture.

I'm not sure anyone stated this point either about "burn" of the phosphor of a projection tube, it is LITERALLY burn.

The phosphor coating is permanently changed by overexposure to the electrons which are used to bombard it to make it emit the limited spectrum of light that is useful.

As an example of how burn can change color, think about your skin and the sun... it is conceivable that you could filter the output of your blue tube to bring it back to "blue" but I would bet that the reduction in over all light output would be far too severe to be of use...

Also, there are a few strident posters here who prefer to be abrasive, use your "ignore" button, it works great !

PS: Output levels won't necessarily be reasonably linear. Blue is already a non-linear output color compared to red and green with several projector manufacturers adding circuits just to deal with that fact. It's part of the reason blue is often the first color burned, or the worst...

Prices going up on parts projectors with burnt tubes, just compensate. Glad I saved my old BG808s tubes. :) :D

I appreciate the responses and good humor you guys took my equally abrasive post with. I was in a bit of a mood this afternoon as work priorities mean I will not be able to go down to my apartment in Brooklyn to see Armin Van Buuren DJ tomorrow. :mad:

If I had the time, I'd rig up my DSLR and some C code, and have it auto-build a filter table by projecting series of target colors and comparing the real output, and that ought to compensate pretty well (as well as possible) if you tune it right. But then I'd have to come up with a way to apply the thing on a per-pixel basis to output from FFDShow; probably possible with a plugin, but that would take a while to implement.

I'm a bit of a 'fix it in post' kinda guy; tons of AV people will think nothing of throwing $20000 at a line quadrupler that does the work of a $500 PC with FFDshow but would never consider hiring a guy to custom write software to linearize the output of his system. (Yes, I understand some of the reasoning behind the components vs. PC stuff, that's not the argument I want to start now.)

Maybe it's time I started another business. Then I can be sure of missing the *next* Armin show too... :p

It also occurs to me that these days, software might be able to better accomplish the tasks of a lot of the linearization circuitry in CRT projectors, even down to the level of convergence and geometry...... hmm...

it is conceivable that you could filter the output of your blue tube to bring it back to "blue"

Actually, it is not possible. Where is Chiem when we need him, he was able to explain physics. But, since you think it is possible to do the impossible, I'd love to hear how you think you would accomplish this and achieve proper color points.

Also, there are a few strident posters here who prefer to be abrasive, use your "ignore" button, it works great !

You are probably talking about me because you love me. We could lie to him or we could let him believe what he is saying is true. How would that help him or someone else finding this thread? It wouldn't. Sorry, I'm a big fan of the truth, so I believe I'm missing your point. As an aside, you might find it interesting that I get PMs almost monthly asking me or thanking me for the help. I'll forward the ones that need help to you since you obviously feel you can do a much better job.

I don't think the issue is so much telling the truth as telling it in a way that's insulting to the truth-receiver. I, and others new to this game, may not know much about CRTs, but I'm not an idiot, and I like to understand things I'm involved with.

That doesn't mean I don't appreciate help or advice - but it does mean that I would rather someone say, "The spectrum will be off, so if you compensate you might get within N% but you can never 'fix' the problem" than, "It's not possible; get another tube, and screw you if you don't like my advice". See where the difference is?

The fundamental issue you're overlooking is target 'quality'. The eye is fantastically good at 'fixing' overall color skew (white paper looks white even in a room full of incandescent light bulbs that "really" make everything yellow). The eye is also fantastically good at picking out inconsistencies *within* scenes. So the question for *me* is, can I move the problem from being one that is obvious to my brain's image processing bits to one that it tends to miss, a-la defocusing the blue tube?

There may be guys here who insist on having everything "accurate". To my untrained brain, that doesn't make much sense given that the source material isn't calibrated to any particular standard to begin with, and was subject to everything from film type to print quality to DVD post production to whether the director forgot to take his sunglasses off before scene 57. As far as I can tell, when it comes to movies, there is no "right" - at least, not within the last few percent.

If I can get to within that margin, I'm happy. And when I ask, "How will this work, and can I compensate somewhat using this technique?" I'm not asking, can I make this exact to *your* standards, but rather, can I make it to *mine*.

And that's why I want to know what the issues actually are, so I can judge for *my* taste, rather than a pat, condescending, "Run along, little boy, you can't possibly understand that your picture will suck."

I give up, your right. I'm sure you( and you alone :D ), will be very happy with thishttp://www.perisoft.org/barco808s.jpg

(Just figured I ought to update that image so it reflects how Draganm actually sees that tube... :D )

If the corners were rounded of a bit more I'd say someone was making grilled cheese on it!...... :) :)

LOL. that's pretty funny.Still doesn't change the fact that original is only a little better than that. ;)

I'm *so* going to be eating my words now if the thing turns out to be total trash that I can't stand. But I never have been able to leave well enough alone...

I agree with Perisoft. And, i am very curious to see how well his technique works. So what if it isnt going to be ISF perfect. it will look much better than just running the Pj as is with no compensation. THAT is his point. Not all of us can afford perfection right this second, and some of us including myself like to find ways of making things better using what we have. I have a poor man's home theater, but let me tell you, other than being ISF calibrated, I dont think I am going to get my image much better than it is already, all because I have used what materials I could get ahold of in an intelligent way to achieve the result I have.

It's not a matter of " Will this be perfect if I try to rig it?". Its a matter of "What do you guys think of this idea of using what i have to make things a little better?"

Harsh words and strong opinions and put downs serve no other purpose than to piss people off, and don't do much good at all.

Harsh words and strong opinions and put downs serve no other purpose than to piss people off, and don't do much good at all. they're not much good at all, but it's a tradition now so i'm afraid we're obligated to piss people off and make them feel stupid. :D

Harsh words and strong opinions and put downs serve no other purpose than to piss people off, and don't do much good at all.

I looked through this and his previous thread about this same thing and I don't see put downs. I see him asking questions and people answering. He doesn't like the answers so he states something that is false. He is then told again the answer and has had the problem explained to him at least 4 times. You are correct, we should probably just ignore people after this point since they don't want to know, but we were actually trying to get him to understand. Any "harsh words" (of which I don't really see any) are only in response to having to explain the same thing over, and over, and over, and...

I looked through this and his previous thread about this same thing and I don't see put downs. I see him asking questions and people answering. He doesn't like the answers so he states something that is false. He is then told again the answer and has had the problem explained to him at least 4 times. You are correct, we should probably just ignore people after this point since they don't want to know, but we were actually trying to get him to understand. Any "harsh words" (of which I don't really see any) are only in response to having to explain the same thing over, and over, and over, and...

What the hell, I need a break from work anyway. You want to play forum hardball? Here we go. Put on your seatbelts, ladies and gentlemen, the ride is about to begin.

My first foray into this whole mess was - and here I request you use your imagination and do a classic "dreaming" blendy-wavy-fade -

Presumably, the burn has some maximum extent, which results in a maximum decrease in light output...
...which nobody contradicted. In fact, let me quote the responses that I got (at least, the ones that didn't say, "Try it; it might not be too bad"). I'm going to include everything relevant; I'm not cutting any information people gave about the problem:

...there's really nothing you can do to make it look better...
There is no way white will be white with that blue tube.
...to which I responded:

"Unless I'm misunderstanding something, as long as I can sacrifice a bit of brightness, ... I should be able to knock the levels down a bit ... Will the burned area clip or have nonlinear response in a way that would prevent what I'm describing?"
Please note that here - in the first response I made since seeing people say "it won't be white" - I explicitly ask if there is something other than a pure level drop that would alter my assumptions.

...and then I got the responses:

Part of image quality is how bright the image is. Unless you plan on running a REALLY small screen, I don't see how you are going to knock the R and G down far enough to get a decent looking picture with a decent white.
This post implies, from the perspective of someone who doesn't already know the answer, that it is, indeed, purely a levels issue.

Further, we get:

...good color balance on that machine [is] a fantasy.
(I) can't get over the Foobar that pops up her... There is NOTHING you can do with a burnt tube except suffer with the nasty pic.
...and then, in this thread, I said I got the PJ and it looked a bit pink, and did anyone have any suggestions for tests. In response I got:

...you can re-set it up till the cows come come but a pink or yellow tint will always be there...
it's not just brightness... white will no longer be white.
...and then I asked what I was missing. This is - please count - the second time since my initial post I ask for clarification.

well you are stubborn aren't you? It's not light only output, your blue tube is BURNT DARK BROWN.
...which is basically saying nothing new. I asked, "Why is this going to be a problem given that I can't see anything off with the blue output" and got, "It's really bad."

And then, finally, the answer:

The light coming out is actually "bluey brown" as Dragan was getting at.
You want to be pedantic? There's your pedantic. I put forth a hypothesis with clearly stated underlying assumptions that went unchallenged, and the only responses I got for two threads were variations of, "It won't work." In every post I made every attempt to be deferential to people who obviously know a lot more about this than I do, and I made every effort to be extremely clear in my writing, specifically so people could point out where I was wrong!

Nobody, however, pointed out where I was wrong until the bitter end, instead preferring to repeatedly let me know merely that I was wrong, and mock me for being obstinate when I asked how.

Then, when someone gives me the information I was after, I say, "Ah hah, I get it", post a joke to lighten the mood, and issue a mea culpa. And, after this, you suggest that I should have been ignored from the start and call me a liar!

The worst bit is that through it all I've been getting private messages expressing support and sympathy - but clearly people don't feel comfortable saying so "in public". So, what the hell, I've never bothered to shut my mouth before. Let me speak for all the people who don't want to stick their necks out, and say, in the finest forum tradition -

STFU, GBTW.

I miss CJ Johnson, and now it's like he never left. :)

PeriSoft, let's ignore your other thread, where you asked the same questions and got many of the same answers before you ever posted here, and just look at the posts in this thread:

Post #1, You: I got a new projector! White looks kinda pink but I can fix that.
#2, Dragan: No you can't, the tubes are burned, the pink or yellow cast can't be fixed.
#3, you: I think I can fix it, just knock down G and R to compensate.
#4, madpoet: it's not just brightness, white won't be white any more.
#5, Curt: You can compensate a bit, but you can't fix it.
#6, you: I assume the blue is just brightness-limited, so I can fix it.
#7, Dragan: You are a bit stubborn, aren't you? (You forgot to include his :) in your quote.) Your tube is BROWN. You can't make the right color with it.
#8, Person99: I told him that already.
#9, you: You're saying the light is the wrong color? It looks "bluey" to me.
#10, Person99: It's actually "bluey brown," as Dragan said. (How you figure that's pedantic, I don't understand. He's just trying to get it through to you but you're not listening.)
#11, Dragan: I'm sayin' it ain't so. (? :))
#12, PJ Moore: Peri, listen to these guys, they're right. The color is wrong. You need a new tube.
#13, madpoet: If you can live with it, great. But you can't fix it by cutting G & R.
#14, you: You guys are saying "it won't work." I want to know *why*. (They've already told you several times!!!) But "clearly this isn't the place to brainstorm, just STFU." (!? just a bit of attitude here...)
#15, Sonynut: give it a try, it won't be perfect, but you might be satisfied.
#16, Person99: We already told you *why* several times. If you think you can recreate the missing colors, you don't understand the physics. (A bit blunt, but 100% true.)
#17, me: Dave's right, the colors are gone, you can't put them back. And that makes the blue wrong, which will make other colors wrong.
#18, Sonynut: It's a creative idea, give it a shot.
#19, Person99: Gary screwed up :), all CRTs colors are off.
#20, Dragan: Gave you some good-natured sh!t.
#21, Person99: Some fantasy about being a nice guy. :D
#22, Dragan: He'll have to turn off the Brown tube! And no, *I'm* the nice guy...

Etc, etc, yadda yadda. Bottom line: you had an idea, people tried to tell you the problems with it, you persisted, they explained the problems more, you kept persisting, ...

I can understand people getting a bit impatient with you after you've ignored what they've told you several times and you keep insisting they don't know what they're talking about. And (in spite of their claims of being the nicest guys in town) Person99 and draganm can, ahh, sometimes be a bit abrupt. (I think that was very tactful, don't you think guys?? :D :D) Trust me, you got off easy.

You've got some really cool ideas about writing an inverse transform to try to compensate for the burns. As I said over on your first thread, it's a great concept and everybody here would be very interested to see the results of it. It may be enough to make that toasty projector very usable. But we would all be extremely surprised if you were able to completely FIX the effects of the burn. As Dave and others said, once you take away those blue frequencies, you CANNOT replace them by reducing R & G or boosting B. You can make it look better, but you can't make it look like a clean tube. Only a clean tube will do that.

Now, brush off your bruised ego and go try your experiment. You may come up with something really great. In the meantime you might consider that when half a dozen people who understand the concepts tell you there's a problem with your assumptions, just maybe they know what they're talking about. And maybe you shouldn't interpret "No, it doesn't work that way" as "STFU."

I appreciate your concern for my ego, but it's fine - I'd rather judge myself based on my marriage and my business than by the opinions of a few guys on a forum!

What we have here, as they say, is a failure to communicate. I have a feeling that to *you* guys, who knew that "your tube is brown" meant, "your tube won't put out blue light", I was being obstinate.

But if you come in without that knowledge, "your tube is brown" is a statement of fact. Yeah, I saw it, it's brown; you already said that. So?

I have nothing to gain by obstinately refusing to understand that my PJ will suck. It will end up sucking or not sucking regardless of my or your beliefs about it. My goal is not to win a forum flamewar or "be right" but to achieve the goal of having a pretty nice home theater projector. I don't particularly care how I get there, and I don't care if I'm wrong a lot along the way to that goal!

So, with all that out of the way, I think we can come to the following conclusions:

-My projector will not produce purely blue light.
-Therefore, its usefulness as a K-Mart promotion tool is limited.
-Mentioning 1080p is to this forum as a spark is to a half-full gas can.
-I am under a lot of stress at work, and am taking that out on guys I don't know.
-Curt Palme is highly technically proficient.
-Draganm is caustic.
-Person99 is among the vanguard of an alien attack fleet bent on world domination, and will resume his horrible lizard form when Central Command issues the order to commence Operation DeadPlanet.

For what it's worth, I apologize if I crossed any lines. And, for what it's worth, I doubt that my inverse transform idea will work to compensate for a color shift. The idea was to compensate for spatial errors, not color space errors, per se, and to regain some of the lost spectrum from a busted blue tube would require a considerably odder method.

Which is, of course, not to say that I won't think about it.

But if you come in without that knowledge, "your tube is brown" is a statement of fact. Yeah, I saw it, it's brown; you already said that. So?I thought of an analogy. Let's compare color frequencies to letters. Let's say Red is A - I, Green is J - R, and Blue is S - Z.

If you have proper colors coming out of your tubes, you have all the "letters" in your alphabet, and you can read any text. But the "brown filter" in your blue tube is *removing* frequencies from your blue light -- like removing letters from your alphabet. Let's say it removes S, T, and U. You still have V - Z, so it still looks "bluey," but it's not a full correct blue. Any text you read is going to be missing critical letters.

Boosting the blue can't replace the missing S T U letters -- it just adds more V-Z letters. Reducing red and green reduces the A - R letters. Neither of those can fix the S T U's that are missing. (Or the S T F U's either. :p)

That's why we're saying you can't fix it. That information is GONE. You might be able to make it "good enough," but you can't make it right.

But you ARE right about Person99. :D :D

If yo ak me, I ill hink I can make i compleely wachable. Yo'll ee! Yo'll all ee! :D

http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q167/none74/Jennifer_custom_desktop.jpg

This is a screen shot from a Barco 701s I had.

I'm posting it to encourage PeriSoft, the tubes in this projector were burned almost BLACK.

It didn't look this good with lots of white in the scene(of course...), but for a LOT of video, you could not tell the tubes were burned AT ALL.

Not everyone needs perfect tubes to be content with the image a projector makes... :)

Great... nobody told me that burnt tubes would force everything to 3:4! :D

she looks ill in that picture, like she's ready to Yak. Oops, was that a "Caustic" comment? :D

she looks ill in that picture, like she's ready to Yak. Oops, was that a "Caustic" comment? :D

Hey, I don't care how good your PJ is, it's still not going to fix lousy acting! :)

Plus, maybe she *was* going to yak. Think about that the next time you watch a movie about a group of people survivng on a life raft for three months, and recalibrate your projector frantically until they look right! :D

I appreciate your concern for my ego, but it's fine - I'd rather judge myself based on my marriage and my business than by the opinions of a few guys on a forum!

-Curt Palme is highly technically proficient.
-Draganm is caustic.
.

Well there's your first mistake. You trust a woman you know well over some male strangers that you don't? :eek:

There, was I caustic too? Really, I really want to me caustic once in a while. I'm known all too well 'round here as that damn polite Canadian, and I'm tired of it. :D

person99 is really a lizard?

Ok

person99 is really a lizard?

There's no call to be insulting lizards on this forum....

There's no call to be insulting lizards on this forum....


Does this mean I cannot call my brother a worm??.... :confused:

I don't have permission to be caustic. I was told to STFU. ;)

Nah, you're good, it's just Person99. And there's a statute of limitations on a STFU, probably one thread or 48 hours, whichever comes first... ;)