:eek:
Nah, I'll still probably use my CRT too. :D

Anyway, I just got a Sharp DT-500 on Ebay. I couldn't pass up a $1,400+ DLP with an adjustable iris for $730 on ebay with a new lamp. I set it up on my 9'2" super high gain silver torus (most likely above 4.0 gain. Someone said it could be as high as 10). I calibrated it, set the iris to on to get max contrast and best blacks. Damn, this thing is still a freakin light canon on my screen. :eek:

So, I put in some HD trailers from my 360 and was blown away. The ANSI contrast is out of this world stunning, the black levels are very good and helped out by excellent dark detail. The DT-500's blacks are better than CRT in mixed scenes by a lot, but not as great as CRT in super dark scenes (but closer with my back light). 90% of the time it having worse absolute blacks than my CRT doesn't seem to matter as much as with my 4805, especially with back lighting. This may be because it has darker blacks than my 4805, higher contrast and also clearly better dark detail, which can create a more realistic dark scene with more depth, not to mention my setup is different. See below:

Now, most people aren't doing what I'm doing, but I have a red rope light around my silver screen. This can't be used with a typical screen though in a room with light colored walls. It works perfectly with my silver screen though.

When I use it the effect is like using a neatral density filter on a 0.5 gain gray screen or lower for the blacks while using a 4+ gain screen for the whites. Do the math. It's like multiplying the on/off contrast multiple times. I can put my hand over the lens for a fade to black to compre to true black and the difference is much more subtle than with the back light off. The back light really keeps your eyes irises from opening too much during dark scenes and it really helps out with the blacks and contrast of a digital. Absolute black with the rope light looks like charcoal. Not pitch black, but at the point where it doesn't really look like anything you'd think of as "gray".

I downloaded "Mercy Reef" (The Aquaman Pilot) in HD with my 360 to actually watch something in HD and the PQ on this blew me away. The sharpness, the clarity, the colors, the ansi contrast, the dark detail, the blacks, etc just all blew me away on my setup. Torus + Backlight basically makes the DT-500 look like a near 20,000:1 projector. I'd love to see it with the RS1 with this setup. There is certain times when the CRT will render a certain image better, but with a clearn source the DT-500 has wow factor for sure. They both have their advantages, but after seeing good HD on this thing with a back light CRT's advantage is basically one thing. Absolute black, which now seems to only matter 5-10% of the time with the material I have tested thus far.

Here's a screenshot taken with my crappy camcorder with one light on to show the ambient light abilty with my screen (Iris is on and it's in low lamp mode). I had to miscalibrate the image though to capture if half way right. The image needed to be moved a bit to the right to be perfectly on the screen, but pay no attention to that. The screenshot doesn't come close to doing the HD image justice, but you can get an idea of the ambient light quality. :eek:

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/8745/ff4ku6.jpg

http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/6810/ff4488yh9.gif


Now, I kind of hate the I like this pj so much, especially with good HD. I'm loving the simplicity and the quality on my setup, but I still fear the $400 lamp going KAPLOOY! out of nowhere. So, it's making me want to upgrade my CRT or fix my NEC 6PG. lol. Maybe I should use my CRT for DVDs and my DT-500 for HD gaming and HD movies only so I don't use it too much. :)

This pj has a very short throw, so I am kind of considering blending it with a CRT on an 11.5' wide gray screen or a silver screen with a back light. The quality would be unreal. The CRT addition would increase the contrast by rasing all levels accept absolute black. The DLP would retain the high ANSI contrast. Either that or bulding a big RPTV set out of it. :)

I'm addicted to projection, both CRT and digital (I love different things about both). I bought two Sharp DT-500's and an IN76 in days because the deals were too good to pass up and I have now added them to my two CRT projector collection and CRT HDTV. :eek: Admittedly I got the other two digitals hoping to profit. :p

Who all here owns both digital and CRT? I'm just really impressed with the kind of quality you can get in front projection today for the price compared to a few years ago.

What's with the red around the screen???

What's with the red around the screen???

It's my backlight. I don't know why I had it on with the lights on. It doesn't benefit anything that way. :p

It's an LED rope light and it needs to be straightened out a bit. :) Its purpose is to improve the contrast and black level of a digital to approach CRT level contrast and blacks. It also reduced eye strain. What it does in the dark is keeps your eye's irises from opening too much during dark scenes or fade to blacks and it creates contrast causing the blacks of a digital to look much darker in dark scenes. A fade to black looks WAY darker. Without the rope light a digital fade to black will cause your eye's irises to open a lot to let in all that light, but with the back light your eyes irises won't open as much make black much darker.

So, it's a lot like taking a 4,000:1 digital (which this one rates) and turning into about at least a 20,000:1 projector (probably more). The effect is like using a neutral density filter and a gray screen for absolute black while using a 4+ gain screen for the whites.

The reason the blacks of a digital looks so black in mixed scenes (even blacker than CRT) is because there is enough contrast (ie brighter light) around black to make your irises close and see darky gray as black.

If I added enough back light I could probably make fade to black look like true black. The rope light in person is actually surprisingly pleasing and not distracting. The lights aren't so bright that they take away enjoyment. It enhances it with a digital due to the improvement.

The human eye has the most advanced dynamic irises, much moreso than the fancy ones put in a digital projector to improve the contrast, so the one way to improve the black level and contrast of a digital is to stop your irises from opening too much during darker scenes and fade to blacks. The way to do that is to have a surrounding light that creates some contrast with the light coming out for absolute black. It works brilliantly with the DT-500.

That's all good...BUT IT'S RED!!

If you want a back light it should be 6500k, not RED :eek:

Especially if you're trying to use the argument that the red will bias your pupil slightly closed to help your digital PJ look black. There's a reason that military and pilots use red filters on their flashlights: to preserve their night adaptation by NOT closing the pupils any.

a red light around your screen?? Dude....that is bush league!

I'm always interested to hear CRT to digital comparo's though...you should definitely upgrade to an LC crt though...may as well use the best.

So you really think HD looks better on your digital? I figured a 1080i CRT would blow away a 720p digital. I assume your digital is 720p right?

Especially if you're trying to use the argument that the red will bias your pupil slightly closed to help your digital PJ look black. There's a reason that military and pilots use red filters on their flashlights: to preserve their night adaptation by NOT closing the pupils any.

Is that for real? Well, I don't know what to tell you. A fade to black looks quite a bit blacker compared to it off during fade to blacks. lol. It looks like charcoal. Not pitch black, but convincingly e enough black. Maybe white would make it look blacker then? I still think there is room for improvement. If another color willl do better then I'm getting me one ASAP! :D It creates contrast around black so it does make it look darker. Here's a small sample of proof. The effect isn't as dramatic here, but you might get an idea. That below is the same shade of dark gray. The effect is bigger seperately.

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/5243/backlight4xe0.jpg


Green and white do have a more noticeable effect though:

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/1433/backlight3ih1.jpg

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/2166/backlight2dx2.jpg






That's all good...BUT IT'S RED!!

If you want a back light it should be 6500k, not RED :eek:


Is there a reason why it matters? Where does one get a 6500K led rope light? Either way the image looks identical to me with it on or off as far as color balance goes. The only difference I notice with it on is charcoal blacks that look black even on a fade to black. Not pitch black like when I cover the lens, but convincing enough and of course the white level is jacked up due to the gain. All in all. It's a great setup for a good digital like the DT-500.

Is there a reason why it matters? Where does one get a 6500K led rope light? Either way the image looks identical to me with it on or off as far as color balance goes. The only difference I notice with it on is charcoal blacks that look black even on a fade to black. Not pitch black like when I cover the lens, but convincing enough and of course the white level is jacked up due to the gain. All in all. It's a great setup for a good digital like the DT-500.

Why it matters to have D65 bklt!!..Bcause that would be your reference to which every thing else is compared to in your eyes. You are biasing all your spectrum with red bklt in final analysis.

Until you haven't seen a dialed-in XGLC, G70, EC8500LC I say your judgement is only halfway true. :) Thrust me. Regardless of color your implementation is actually wrong.

Of course, a D65 backlight will only be "correct" if you also have a D65 **WALL**. If you put a white light on, say, a blue wall, your eye will see blue and that will bias your eyes just as much as a red light.

Is [the night vision red thing] for real?

Yup, having been both in the army and still a pilot, I can assure, it's real.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_vision#Biological_night_vision for a bit of the explanation.

Of course, a D65 backlight will only be "correct" if you also have a D65 **WALL**. If you put a white light on, say, a blue wall, your eye will see blue and that will bias your eyes just as much as a red light.


The thing is, my back light is not "on" the screen; It's behind it. It doesn't make my silver screen look different at all whether it's on or off or if there is an image on or off of the screen. The human eye and brain doesn't react to different color temperatures anything like a camcorder would. A camcorder can't handle different color temperatures well in the same scene, but the human brain can. That's why we don't see completely innaccurately the way a camcorder sees. Our brains are much more adaptable.

Again, I can turn the light on or off and I see zero difference in color temperature and the light doens't make the screen by itself look ANY different whatsoever.

I'm thinking of trying white light for deeper blacks or maybe green. I'm not a big fan of green, but whatever makes the blacks looker darker I'm all for if it's easy on the eyes.

If there is a difference or change in color temperature it is a 0.0001% change. :)

I couldn't pass up a $1,400+ DLP with an adjustable iris for $730 on ebay with a new lamp.I can pass on it, no problem. ;)

If I had your CRT PJ, maybe I would go digital too. But probably what I would do is quit spending money on digital PJs and get a decent CRT PJ instead.

Someone please explain this backlight thing to me. I don't understand why you would want a backlight of any color.

I can pass on it, no problem. ;)

If I had your CRT PJ, maybe I would go digital too. But probably what I would do is quit spending money on digital PJs and get a decent CRT PJ instead.

True, if you have a good 8" machine or better, this is hard. I keep trying to go digital to do a 2.35:1 screen, but the only ones that even approach good enough are over $5000 so I stand pat.

Someone please explain this backlight thing to me. I don't understand why you would want a backlight of any color.

Bias lighting of non-D65 is pointless and detrimental. But, even a D65 backlight doesn't make as much sense with a CRT FP (or any FP for that matter), but with a smaller brighter screen. In this case, they can make the picture look better. See this:
http://www.keohi.com/keohiHDTV/accessories/backlighting.html

You don't really need them with FP as the screen occupies a larger part of your field of vision and it is not too bright to cause eye strain or color shifts. Further, they will actually make it harder for you to see low level details without raising black levels. Then, you'll never get the full fade to black we CRTers love. :)

Dave

Someone please explain this backlight thing to me

Oh boy, this is going to get really interesting...

:confused:

Dave is right. With a small bright screen like a direct-view CRT, watching it in a dark room will give you a lot of eyestrain. Your pupils open up wide because most of your field of vision is black, and then the bright screen is very harsh. It's like having a flashlight in your eyes in a dark room. Turn on some lights in the room, and your pupils shut down, making the screen less bright and eye-straining.

With a big screen like we generally use, especially since the luminance levels are MUCH lower than a direct-view screen, this is much less of an issue. The screen is big enough to fill much more of your field of vision, so your pupil adjusts to that.

Backlight can still help perceived black levels, which is what MTyson is after. The backlight causes your pupil to shut down, which means everything looks darker. Your whites look darker too, but proportionally the whites don't look that different. The blacks, being low to start with, look MUCH darker if you subtract some from them. It's just like what would happen if you turned on the room lights, except none of the light goes onto the screen to wash out your image.

MTYson, I know the light is behind your screen. So is your wall. Shining a white light on a blue wall is just about like shining a blue light on a white wall. Either one results in a non-white color being perceived by your eye. That should result in a color shift being detected by your eye, but I doubt it's terribly serious. Apparently you don't notice it, so don't worry about it. I'm just saying there's not much point in replacing your red light with a white light if the wall isn't white. It might make a difference but not much.

True, if you have a good 8" machine or better, this is hard. I keep trying to go digital to do a 2.35:1 screen, but the only ones that even approach good enough are over $5000 so I stand pat.



Bias lighting of non-D65 is pointless and detrimental. But, even a D65 backlight doesn't make as much sense with a CRT FP (or any FP for that matter), but with a smaller brighter screen. In this case, they can make the picture look better. See this:
http://www.keohi.com/keohiHDTV/accessories/backlighting.html

You don't really need them with FP as the screen occupies a larger part of your field of vision and it is not too bright to cause eye strain or color shifts. Further, they will actually make it harder for you to see low level details without raising black levels. Then, you'll never get the full fade to black we CRTers love. :)

Dave

I prefer backlighting with a digital than using it for CRT. CRT's only benefit from it is halos/ansi washout is greatly dminished when there is a bright object on a mostly black scene.

Now, most people using back lighting aren't doing what I'm doing, so the effect is MUCH less dramatic. Most place the light actually be behind the screen and the only light is coming from behind the back of the screen lighting up the wlls.

One thing I can do with my CRT and back light (though I almost never use the two together) is raise absolute black a few notches to get more low end dark detail without being able to notice it getting brighter than true black. It takes a certain amount of light to be able to actually tell there is light on the screen. It's pitch black until you get to your past your eyes' contrast limits.

For the guy who asked I'll tell you what I see with my DT-500, which is what I said above.

1: For a fade to black it's llike using about a 0.5 gray screen (or lower gain) with a neutral density filter. A full fade to black looks charcoal. It's pretty convincingly black. Not pitch black, but good. Not something you'd call "gray".

2: The Silver torus is 4+ gain most likely so the white level is 4x higher than on a 1.0 gain white screen. So, combined with the fact that the blacks look darker than what I mentioned above it's like multiplying the on/off contrast multiple times.

Dave is right. With a small bright screen like a direct-view CRT, watching it in a dark room will give you a lot of eyestrain. Your pupils open up wide because most of your field of vision is black, and then the bright screen is very harsh. It's like having a flashlight in your eyes in a dark room. Turn on some lights in the room, and your pupils shut down, making the screen less bright and eye-straining.

With a big screen like we generally use, especially since the luminance levels are MUCH lower than a direct-view screen, this is much less of an issue. The screen is big enough to fill much more of your field of vision, so your pupil adjusts to that.

Backlight can still help perceived black levels, which is what MTyson is after. The backlight causes your pupil to shut down, which means everything looks darker. Your whites look darker too, but proportionally the whites don't look that different. The blacks, being low to start with, look MUCH darker if you subtract some from them. It's just like what would happen if you turned on the room lights, except none of the light goes onto the screen to wash out your image.

MTYson, I know the light is behind your screen. So is your wall. Shining a white light on a blue wall is just about like shining a blue light on a white wall. Either one results in a non-white color being perceived by your eye. That should result in a color shift being detected by your eye, but I doubt it's terribly serious. Apparently you don't notice it, so don't worry about it. I'm just saying there's not much point in replacing your red light with a white light if the wall isn't white. It might make a difference but not much.

Gary, I've tried the back light with a white screen and it's terrible. It destorys the color balance. A white screen is NOT my silver pvc torus though. I see absolutely no difference whatsoever with the torus. None whatsoever. Not even the slightest tiniest bit of difference no matter how hard I look. This screen rejects the hell out of ambient light and this rope lights bounce light is nothing this screen can't handle with ease. As you can see by the photos above this screen and the DT-500 looks like a giant RPTV with my light on.

About the whites, I don't notice any difference in whites. They are blindingly bright. The whites are much brigher than the rope light. I think for a back light to have a noticeable effect on the white level it would have to be brighter than peak white or a lot closer than what I am using.

I can shine a 500-watt work light directly on my screen and still get a decent image with this thing. That's how good this screen rejects light. If the screen wasn't so amazing at ambient light rejection I'd agree that the rope light would noticeably affect color balance. With a white screen it is destroyed.

are you sure you even know what a nice image is??

I can safely say that none of us would ever backlight our projection screens...and nobody would ever want to watch a movie with a big red illuminated border around it...

Personally, I find this ridiculous...but if you enjoy it and like it, then I'm all for you using it!

get an LC crt projector and then report back...

Ben

are you sure you even know what a nice image is??
Ben current inventory is 1 working entry level ES focus CRT and 5 low end DLP's, nuff said. For what he spent on all that stuff there could instead be a nice 8" EM focus set there now, possibly even an LC model. Each to his own though, some people like to own one thing and make it the best possible and others like to Hoarde Bose speakers. ;)

are you sure you even know what a nice image is??

You do know that's opinion, right? lol. But yeah, I'm sure. :) I do also know there are varying degrees of nice. It's not just Amazing and Crap, just like the world isn't black and white. There are shades of gray.

I know that everyone thinks I have the best image they've ever seen and they brag to others about it (I'm referring to my CRTs I set up; most haven't seen my new DT-500 with HD yet), especially when someone else claims to have a good setup. :p

I have yet to see a better home theater and my CRTs generally stomp the theater and unlike most people here I actually run a low end gamma curve on my silver torus, so I get great dark detail without ruining the rest of the picture. Not many do that and that means YOU aren't seeing as nice of an image as you think you're seeing. :D


I can safely say that none of us would ever backlight our projection screens...and nobody would ever want to watch a movie with a big red illuminated border around it...

Is there a point somewhere in there? lol. Who really cares if you would or if anyone else would? If that's the case though why does everyone that sees it prefer the light to be on? The light around the screen isn't as distracting as you might think either, at least not with a digital since it improves the image to the eyes. I thought it would be distracting at first (I had to see the effect it had on blacks), but it actually turned out to be oddly pleasing and everyone else likes it. It seems to make the image jump out more and look richer, especially the blacks (I generally leave it off with CRT, btw). Of course it's obvious why it does that with a digital. It's a way to control your own eyes dynamic irises a bit.

I originally bought the backlight because I desperately wanted to get rid of my CRT and go digital, but the blacks were lacking a bit for my tastes, so I tried to find a way to get more CRT like blacks from a digital and I found it.

BTW, maybe one reason why you or no one else would run one is because A) You guys all run CRTs and B) If you run digitals too maybe you never thought "Hey, if DLP blacks look blacker during mixed contrast scenes than a CRT than surely I can get a deeper black the same way it achieves those blacks in mixed contrast scenes........by creating contrast around black.". I get creative and try to improve things however I can.


Personally, I find this ridiculous...but if you enjoy it and like it, then I'm all for you using it!

Yes, near CRT like blacks from a digital is so pointless. :rolleyes:


get an LC crt projector and then report back...

Too Overpriced, unfortunately. I'd like to have one though. They are no longer the deals they once were when digitals were overpriced. Digitals have improved leaps and bounds and nowadays a 720p DLP that cost $4,500 2 or 3 years ago can be had for under a grand in some cases.. Guy Kuo, you guys all remember him right, from his tweak threads? Well, he was the guy who also said the Optoma H79 was better than his Barco 808 about 85% of the time. The Sharp DT-500 is right at that level, except it's quite a bit brighter. With the backlight it's taken to another level. BTW, Isn't the ANSI contrast of an LC unit still quite a bit lower than DLP?

Who all here owns both digital and CRT? I'm just really impressed with the kind of quality you can get in front projection today for the price compared to a few years ago.
I own a Sony G70 CRT, a Ruby and Sharp 12kII digitals. I believe a couple of other posters in this thread also own both CRTs and digitals, but may be too shy to admit it. :D

IMO the price/performance sweet spot in the marketplace for those looking for videophile quality image, is currently a good condition 8" LC CRT, giving that they are going for < $1,500!

Too Overpriced, unfortunately.

An 8" LC overpriced? Please, you can get XG LCs and G70s for a song these days and they blow away anything you can buy for less than TWICE what you would pay for one.

Digitals have improved leaps and bounds and nowadays a 720p DLP that cost $4,500 2 or 3 years ago can be had for under a grand in some cases..

Yes, but they don't look any better than they did when they were $5K. :)

Guy Kuo, you guys all remember him right, from his tweak threads? Well, he was the guy who also said the Optoma H79 was better than his Barco 808 about 85% of the time.

Guy used an NEC XG and no one knows what his motivation was for switching. But if I were in the industry, I'd have to stay current and get a digital too. I suspect that since he could stand the H79 he must have sat very far from the screen as I've tried many 720p DLP digitals in my room and none could be watched from my viewing distance. And even when moving to the back row, they all looked "too digital". OK for HDTV, not good at all for film.

The Sharp DT-500 is right at that level

What level, the H79? Not quite, but still not that impressive.

If you like it, that is all that counts. But, you have to expect some comments when you post, "I picked up a $700 DLP and it looks better than my inappropriately set up $100 CRT!!!!". I mean, come on, what do you expect? :)

Guy Kuo, you guys all remember him right, from his tweak threads? Well, he was the guy who also said the Optoma H79 was better than his Barco 808 about 85% of the time. ?
Guy had a NEC XG1352 (LC) IIRC. CW at one time put it as the best 8" on the planet. Of course as we now know, the G70 is the best 8" in the universe. :D

Guy had a NEC XG1352 (LC) IIRC. CW at one time put it as the best 8" on the planet. Of course as we now know, the G70 is the best 8" in the universe. :D:D I'm glad that error was finally corrected. ;)

An 8" LC overpriced? Please, you can get XG LCs and G70s for a song these days ...Case in point: I just got a G70 with light wear on blue and a bit of wear on green. Found a great deal for a nearly-new green, so now I have a G70 in great shape for just over $1k. No digital under $3-5k could touch it.

An 8" LC overpriced? Please, you can get XG LCs and G70s for a song these days and they blow away anything you can buy for less than TWICE what you would pay for one.Oops! That didn't come out right. ;) :D

Case in point: I just got a G70 with light wear on blue and a bit of wear on green. Found a great deal for a nearly-new green, so now I have a G70 in great shape for just over $1k. No digital under $3-5k could touch it.Charles (Prometheusbound) has/had a smokin' deal on a G70 with excellent tubes. If I didn't already have two, I'd be buying it instead of telling you guys about it.

True! Perfect blue, barely-visible wear on green, and he's asking a great price. MTyson, if you really wanted a CRT, something like that is a much better answer than buying a bunch of digitals.

On this ambient lighting next to the screen.
Recently I tried some small spots that are on my ceiling on either side of the screen and they shine on the wall either sice of the screen. They are on a dimmer so I turn them way down.
They do not shine on the screen at all.
I must say that I was quite surprised at how soothing the picture becomes. It is much more relaxing on you, and your eyes to have just that slightest amount of light on at the screen front. I also don't think I loose any of the punch in the picture either.

Not sure about red though???

On digitals. The other day I saw one of the new JVC's RS1 DiLA's and while there I was very impressed with the picture I saw. Good C/R (for a digital, well set up, no convergence or shading issues that others have reported in this PJ.
After I left I came home to take a nap so I went down to the theater and turned on some HD movie to fall asleep to. As soon as I turned it on it reminded me why I run a CRT and not a digital.
As good as the JVC RS1 was (and it was very good) there is just something missing when compared to my CRT. For one, even with the great C/R out of the RS1, the blacks just aren't the blacks I get. Not just the full fade to black, just the blacks themselves in scenes.
I smiled as I fell soundly asleep with the confidence of knowing I still had the best display out there.........

Terry

current inventory is 1 working entry level ES focus CRT and 5 low end DLP's, nuff said. For what he spent on all that stuff there could instead be a nice 8" EM focus set there now, possibly even an LC model. Each to his own though, some people like to own one thing and make it the best possible and others like to Hoarde Bose speakers. ;)

A Sharp DT-500 is lowend? Hm. How come Guy Kuo preferred an Optoma H79 to his Barco 808 85% of the time? The DT-500 is right at that level and some would find it to be better because it's quite a bit brighter. The H79 was around $4,500 not long ago and now it can be had for $800-$1200.

It's hardly lowend. It's only cheap now because 1080p has come way down.

On this ambient lighting next to the screen.
Recently I tried some small spots that are on my ceiling on either side of the screen and they shine on the wall either sice of the screen. They are on a dimmer so I turn them way down.
They do not shine on the screen at all.
I must say that I was quite surprised at how soothing the picture becomes. It is much more relaxing on you, and your eyes to have just that slightest amount of light on at the screen front. I also don't think I loose any of the punch in the picture either.

Not sure about red though???

On digitals. The other day I saw one of the new JVC's RS1 DiLA's and while there I was very impressed with the picture I saw. Good C/R (for a digital, well set up, no convergence or shading issues that others have reported in this PJ.
After I left I came home to take a nap so I went down to the theater and turned on some HD movie to fall asleep to. As soon as I turned it on it reminded me why I run a CRT and not a digital.
As good as the JVC RS1 was (and it was very good) there is just something missing when compared to my CRT. For one, even with the great C/R out of the RS1, the blacks just aren't the blacks I get. Not just the full fade to black, just the blacks themselves in scenes.
I smiled as I fell soundly asleep with the confidence of knowing I still had the best display out there.........

Terry

I haven't seen the RS1, but the DT-500 has the blackest blacks I think I've ever seen in "most scenes" due to high ansi contrast. Yes, way blacker than my CRT. Dark lower contrast scenes is another story, but the backlight closes the gap a bit.
It could still use a bit more improvement before it's completely there as far as black in the darkest of scenes go, but I'm hoping either more backlight or another coloir will help.

Glad you noticed it does have an oddly soothing picture wtih the light, because everyone else seems to think that.

I own a Sony G70 CRT, a Ruby and Sharp 12kII digitals. I believe a couple of other posters in this thread also own both CRTs and digitals, but may be too shy to admit it. :D

IMO the price/performance sweet spot in the marketplace for those looking for videophile quality image, is currently a good condition 8" LC CRT, giving that they are going for < $1,500!

OK, I thought they were around $2,000+ still.

An 8" LC overpriced? Please, you can get XG LCs and G70s for a song these days and they blow away anything you can buy for less than TWICE what you would pay for one.



Yes, but they don't look any better than they did when they were $5K. :)



Guy used an NEC XG and no one knows what his motivation was for switching. But if I were in the industry, I'd have to stay current and get a digital too. I suspect that since he could stand the H79 he must have sat very far from the screen as I've tried many 720p DLP digitals in my room and none could be watched from my viewing distance. And even when moving to the back row, they all looked "too digital". OK for HDTV, not good at all for film.



What level, the H79? Not quite, but still not that impressive.

If you like it, that is all that counts. But, you have to expect some comments when you post, "I picked up a $700 DLP and it looks better than my inappropriately set up $100 CRT!!!!". I mean, come on, what do you expect? :)

Close to that level, but it still has some advantages over the H79. Also, only one of my CRTs cost $200. My 6PG and that was pure luck. My ECP cost $700.

How do you know my CRT is not setup well? Have you viewed it? If not, then don't make assumptions. I have it very closely matching my 4805's color balance by eye and it's almost as sharp with DVDs (sharper with FFDShow). If you know, the 4805 is precalibrated to D65. Also, everyone who has seen my CRT thinks it's THE BEST image they've ever seen. I'd put my 7"er on my torus up against ANY non EM focus 7" CRT out there and I'm confident mine would come out on top every time. Silver torus + low end gamma correction and FFDSHow processing; I'd love to see that combination beat by another 7"er. If you're not low end gamma correcting you aren't seeing the best CRT image with even better CRTs and as far as I'm concerned then the CRT is inappropriately setup. I know plenty of people do not do this and I personally cannot do without it. I do photoshop color grading so I have experience with images and image manipulation/calibration.

I get pure blacks and good dark detail with my CRT using my custom low end curve (this is something you CANNOT achieve without doing this or having a gamma card). My good DVDs look near HD sharp, but not as sharp as the DT-500, which has perfect focus and convergence since it's one DMD panel and not guns aligned over each other. What I like most about the DT-500 is the INSANE brightness combined with the ridiculous ANSI contrast and deeper blacks in mixed contrast scenes. Also, the sharpness. These are undeniable advantages and it shines with a good HD source.

You're claiming my CRT is not setup right because it doesn't match the Sharp DT-500 DLP in brightness, sharpness, ansi contrast, blacks in mixed scenes and dark detail? C'mon now. All that is a given and I didn't say the DT-500 is superior with everything. It's not. I've seen some material that my ECP 4500+ and 6PG handle better, but a good clean HD source on the DT-500 looks so bright, clean, vivid razor sharp. It's like looking out of a window. That's what HD should look like. Each have their own advantages though, but with HD it seems the DT-500 has more advantages than disadvantaes at least 85% of the time. I would love to combined CRT and the DT-500 on a gray screen at about 11.5' wide. That would be interesting for sure.

anyone who cares about brightness doesn't understand a good image....just my opinion :)

Serioiusly...some digitals do throw very nice pics. But I guarantee that last XGLC I had running WITH low end gamma curve...near perfect primaries and excellent grey scale tracking would destroy any digital. Other than the Samsung, no digital has accurate primaries, and this is a real bother for me...a real bother! Red should be red...skin tones should look like skin.

One last thing, if you're using your 4805 as a grey scale "reference", you're in big trouble. Buy yourself a colorimeter for $100 and download the free calibration software from this forum and you may start to see some nice pictures....I promise! Until you've established good grey and good primaries...you're just not there yet.

Ben

How do you know my CRT is not setup well? Have you viewed it? If not, then don't make assumptions.

I did not say it was not set up well. You are running and ECP and have previously posted about your screen type and size. These are less than optimal for the ECP no matter how well set up. That was my point. For all I know, you could have your eCP set up better than any ECP ever, but other things are working against it.

anyone who cares about brightness doesn't understand a good image....just my opinion :)

Brightness is a valid component of image quality. But, it is a bit misleading. Brightness is to video what loudness is to sound.

Try this:
1) set up two audio tests, one with the sound quality clearly less than the other.
2) Play the inferior quality one fairly loud and the high quality one a good 10 Db lower. Most people will think the inferior one sounds better.

Same happens with video. Most people don't know what to look for so they are impressed by brightness.

Serioiusly...some digitals do throw very nice pics. But I guarantee that last XGLC I had running WITH low end gamma curve...near perfect primaries and excellent grey scale tracking would destroy any digital. Other than the Samsung, no digital has accurate primaries, and this is a real bother for me...a real bother! Red should be red...skin tones should look like skin.

I agree. I don't like the RS-1 cartoon colors. The Samsung was impressive if it were not for SDE and the fact it is a serious POS that breaks all the time.

Other than the Samsung, no digital has accurate primaries, and this is a real bother for me...a real bother! Red should be red...skin tones should look like skin.
There are several digitals with full CMS systems that can deliver very accurate SD and HD colors, including DLP models from Sharp, Yamaha, and Infocus, and LCDs from Panasonic, and Epson!

From what I gather, even with CMS there are very few that can be precisely correct. Namely the Sharps...I could be wrong though.

Guys,
His reference for CRT is an ECP4500. A good little projector but hardly a benchmark.

MTyson.
Compared to say a G70 or a M8500 or a NEC Extra, an ECP is dim, fuzzy , soft looking and has only adequate black detail. You really have to get an 8 inch projector and have it set up properly. You may still prefer the DT-500 but at least then we will know the problem is with your eyes. :D

I did not say it was not set up well. You are running and ECP and have previously posted about your screen type and size. These are less than optimal for the ECP no matter how well set up.
EXACTLY!

:)

anyone who cares about brightness doesn't understand a good image....just my opinion :)


:confused: That's as foolish as saying anyone who cares about black level doesn't "understand" a good image. Just my opinion. ;)

Guys,
His reference for CRT is an ECP4500. A good little projector but hardly a benchmark.

MTyson.
Compared to say a G70 or a M8500 or a NEC Extra, an ECP is dim, fuzzy , soft looking and has only adequate black detail. You really have to get an 8 inch projector and have it set up properly. You may still prefer the DT-500 but at least then we will know the problem is with your eyes. :D


I also own an NEC 6PG. I'm just not using it anymore because the C-Drive failed. There are things I like about the CRT, but there are aslo things I prefer about the DT-500.

BTW, the ECP does fine in dark detail with a custom gamma curve. Do you use a custom gamma curve? I know many do not. The PG lacks in dark detail too without gamma correction.

Have you actually seen the DT-500 and calibrated with the iris on?

Ok, after you answer that answer this:

Have you seen the DT-500 on a super high gain silver torus with back lighting? If not, then you should know it's like mutliplying the on/off contrast several times. It looks to be as high as 15,000:1-20,000:1 on/off and the ANSI is perfect. So, back lighting takes the absolute black level and white level (contrast in general) to another level with this screen.

Have you actually seen the DT-500 and calibrated with the iris on?



There is not a 720p DLP on the planet that I have been able to watch from a reasonable viewing distance. They all have too much SDE that is incredibly distracting.

Also, I find the colors on the 4x 7 segment wheels better than the 5x 6 segment wheels (which this has), but the rainbows are even worse on the 4x machines, thow still visible on the 5x machines.


Have you seen the DT-500 on a super high gain silver torus with back lighting? If not, then you should know it's like mutliplying the on/off contrast several times. It looks to be as high as 15,000:1-20,000:1 on/off and the ANSI is perfect. So, back lighting takes the absolute black level and white level (contrast in general) to another level with this screen.

You can't have a cool and enjoyable fade to pitch black with a backlight so they are unacceptable. Once you've seen the beginning of Cars in a room that goes totally black, or any of the number of movies that have voice overs during black screens, it is hard to get away from that.

So, without the backlight (and even with it) you still will have a comical fade to gray on this machine (no matter how bright you make white).

If you don't like the hassle of CRT and prefer this picture, that is your business. But you really would have been better served spending $1000 on an 8 inch instead of almost $800 on that.

BTW, the ECP does fine in dark detail with a custom gamma curve. "fine" is a good word and I would agree that an ECP is a fine projector. Now if you want a great projector you'll have to get something a better.

Have you actually seen the DT-500 and calibrated with the iris on?

No and I didn't say or imply that I did. You are missing the point. If you want a real comparision. You need something other than an ECP on a DIY mega huge Toys-R US, super cool lights flashing Silver high gain screen. Try a G70 on a white wall. :)

Have you seen the DT-500 on a super high gain silver torus with back lighting? If not, then you should know it's like mutliplying the on/off contrast several times. It looks to be as high as 15,000:1-20,000:1 on/off and the ANSI is perfect. So, back lighting takes the absolute black level and white level (contrast in general) to another level with this screen. :confused: I think you are confused. A torus directs more light to the viewer and helps to reject ambient light. A very high gain screen has a very small viewing cone and reflects more ambient light than any other screen. Why you use a silver screen, I have no idea. You are negatively effecting the image. The red lights around your screen in another big question mark.

Whatever works for you. If you like the DT-500 more power to you but just understand that your CRT/Screen set up is not what one would call optimal, More like amateurish.. I really don't mean to offend.

I stand by my brightness statement...for a very good film-like pic, brightness is not your main concern. Any crt projector should be plenty bright...it's more about contrast (LC) and proper color (grey scale calibration)....again, IMHO :)

Ben

On this ambient lighting next to the screen.
Recently I tried some small spots that are on my ceiling on either side of the screen and they shine on the wall either sice of the screen. They are on a dimmer so I turn them way down.
They do not shine on the screen at all.
I must say that I was quite surprised at how soothing the picture becomes. It is much more relaxing on you, and your eyes to have just that slightest amount of light on at the screen front. I also don't think I loose any of the punch in the picture either.

Not sure about red though???

On digitals. The other day I saw one of the new JVC's RS1 DiLA's and while there I was very impressed with the picture I saw. Good C/R (for a digital, well set up, no convergence or shading issues that others have reported in this PJ.
After I left I came home to take a nap so I went down to the theater and turned on some HD movie to fall asleep to. As soon as I turned it on it reminded me why I run a CRT and not a digital.
As good as the JVC RS1 was (and it was very good) there is just something missing when compared to my CRT. For one, even with the great C/R out of the RS1, the blacks just aren't the blacks I get. Not just the full fade to black, just the blacks themselves in scenes.
I smiled as I fell soundly asleep with the confidence of knowing I still had the best display out there.........

Terry

Yeah Terry, not only the best display out there but the genius to dial it in to perfection. I have to get you out here some day if I ever get my projector mounted!

"fine" is a good word and I would agree that an ECP is a fine projector. Now if you want a great projector you'll have to get something a better. No and I didn't say or imply that I did. You are missing the point. If you want a real comparision. You need something other than an ECP on a DIY mega huge Toys-R US, super cool lights flashing Silver high gain screen. Try a G70 on a white wall. :)

I've said before that I also have a 6PG. It's not a G70, but it's EM focus with a bit bigger tubes.


:confused: I think you are confused. A torus directs more light to the viewer and helps to reject ambient light. A very high gain screen has a very small viewing cone and reflects more ambient light than any other screen. Why you use a silver screen, I have no idea. You are negatively effecting the image. The red lights around your screen in another big question mark.

What am I confused about? I understand how a torus works. I built it. The viewing cone ain't too bad, but I only sit infront of the screen. Some people I know sit like 45 degrees off to the side an enjoy it find it bright enough even with my CRT.

Why do I use a silver screen? Uh...why not? The picture is like 4x or more brighter, the ansi contrast is better, etc. Everyone that has seen my pjs on a white screen thinks my tourus blows it out of the water. Negatively effecting the image? lol. Right. Well, whatever the negatives are the positives far out weigh them. lol. Question mark about the back light is still a question mark, but I know the answer though. :) I only really like to use it with a digital though, because they can use the contrast increase and black level improvement. It's literally like going from a 2700:1 (what it calibrates too I here) digital to a 15,000:1+ digital. That is the effect it has and that's a good thing.


Whatever works for you. If you like the DT-500 more power to you but just understand that your CRT/Screen set up is not what one would call optimal, More like amateurish.. I really don't mean to offend.

Sure the screensize (8' wide) might not be "optimal" (one foot wider more than 7' ain['t much to the eyes), but you also have to remember that I'm running a high gain screen and use FFDShow sharpening so DVDS look damn sharp at that size. Not a single person that has seen it has not been blown away by the picture quality. Some people even tell others I should set up their tv when they brag about there new set.

Infact, my cousin's friend said his friend got a new HDTV and was bragging about the picture and he basically said to the guy "Meh. You should have my cousin come set it up for you and it would like amazing.". People who rarely notice these things seem to notice the quality here so I must be doing something right. So what if I can't please a few people on the CRT forum that have never seen my picture? :) It looks better than most cinemas easily so I can't complain.

I want some of the CRT qualities, but I also want some of the digital qualities. It's hard to achieve both, but I'm finding ways to get closer.

I'm thinking of stacking a DT-500 with a 9PG on a gray screen or much larger silver screen with back light. I could darken up the blacks. I'd like to be the first (that I've heard of anyway) to have a digital/analog CRT/DLP hybrid. That'd be cool. :D

dude...don't try to re-invent the wheel!!

a digital crt stack?? That is something only an American could possibly think of! THat would require to get pinpoint convergence...and from an NEC it's virtually impossible. Not even convergence...just the geometry alone would be a no-go.

There is not a 720p DLP on the planet that I have been able to watch from a reasonable viewing distance. They all have too much SDE that is incredibly distracting.

What is a "reasonable viewing distance"? I'm about 1.85x the width away. I couldn't imagine seeing SDE from this distance. Even if I could I can do a slight defocus which barely has any effect on sharpness to get rid of it. Also, they make an IMX lens to get rid of SDE.


Also, I find the colors on the 4x 7 segment wheels better than the 5x 6 segment wheels (which this has), but the rainbows are even worse on the 4x machines, thow still visible on the 5x machines.

Interesting. I wasn't even sure what the DT-500 was in that regard. Rainbows didn't even bother me on my old X1. I can see them if I try to with my X1 and 4805 (only occassaionally by accident), but they never bother me. I've yet to see a rainbow on my DT-500 though.


You can't have a cool and enjoyable fade to pitch black with a backlight so they are unacceptable. Once you've seen the beginning of Cars in a room that goes totally black, or any of the number of movies that have voice overs during black screens, it is hard to get away from that.

It's true that the room cannot go black and that is pretty cool, BUT the screen can convincingly go to a deep looking black with the back light. Actually with my CRT absolute black seems deeper, because it has contrast around it and it makes it seems SOOO black it's unreal. It's like the blackness of a fade to black has DEPTH somehow. I like both really, but I only use the back light for the digital and it can have a good convicning fade to black.


So, without the backlight (and even with it) you still will have a comical fade to gray on this machine (no matter how bright you make white).

With the back light on 90% of fade to blacks look BLACK. No joke. The only time you can't tell it's not black on my setup is if you've been on a really dark scene for awhile and it fades to black for a few seconds. It takes about 5 seconds or more for me to tell it's not black when it fades to black from any moderate to bright sceen with the back light. You are underestimating the back light. Trust me. lol.


If you don't like the hassle of CRT and prefer this picture, that is your business. But you really would have been better served spending $1000 on an 8 inch instead of almost $800 on that.

I like and dislike the hassle of CRT. I know, werid huh? I love knowing I obtained that quality through work, but the size is what really annoys me at times. I can't hang one on the ceiling or anything, so I have to get creative. I do have a 6PG, that's close to an 8'er right? I was offered a good 8"er for $1088 (with shiipping surprisingly. lol) for a Marquee 8500, but doesn't it have no color filters? I didn't want to lose color quality.

I also hate that I NEED a gamma circuit for HD. That's another $200 or $300. After living with low end gamma correction and the dark detail of the DT-500 I would NEED the gamma circuit. So, that $1,000 CRT would then become as much as $1,600 and as good as it is it's hardly more than TWICE the picutre quality in terms of dollars unless you're pretty wealthy.

BTW, I rarely seem to find an 8"er for your price and even if i do that it's usually $200-$300 to ship or from a questionable seller. I paid about $730 total for the DT-500 and got a second one for only $280 total without a lamp. That is $680 total or less if I get a lamp.

dude...don't try to re-invent the wheel!!

a digital crt stack?? That is something only an American could possibly think of! THat would require to get pinpoint convergence...and from an NEC it's virtually impossible. Not even convergence...just the geometry alone would be a no-go.

Sounds easy to me. I got a pretty decent stack going in about 5 minutes with my ECP and 4805. I didn't mess with any geometry either. Sure it could be a lot better, but for the little time I spent it was pretty impressively setup. I don't think it would be that difficult with the 9PG's vast geometry controls. I would just use convergence and test patterns to get it to work. I know I can do it. I like re-inventing the wheel. I'm always creative and trying to invent stuff. If everyone had an attitude like yours a lot of great things would've never been created. :p

"Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up."
Thomas A. Edison

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
Thomas A. Edison

The NEC has a 100 point convergence board. I think convergence can be pin point a lot easier than my ECP.

A digital/AC crt stack would be great...you could get the poor ansi of the crt mixed with the poor on/off of the digital...not exactly brilliant.

A digital/AC crt stack would be great...you could get the poor ansi of the crt mixed with the poor on/off of the digital...not exactly brilliant.

I doubt it. ON a gray screen? I'm sure the ANSI would be improved, because even with the CRT alone it would be improved on a gray screen in a room with light walls. The Sharp is insanely bright too. I'd be surprised if the ANSI would be ruined on a gray screen. The digital would NO doubt improve it over the CRT on a regular white screen. Also, the gray screen would dramatically improve the blacks of the digital, especially with a backlight. I'd bet at the size I'm wanting to do with a new backlight it would look near true black 98% of the time.

BTW, why would a CRT make the DLP's ANSI worse isntead of the DLP making the ANSI better in this combination? What makes the CRT's bad?

BTW, the gray screen would not only darken the digital blacks, but the CRT would UP the white level, while the gray would ALSO improve ANSI contrast for both the digital and CRT compared to a white screen and would improve ambient light.

One more thing. On my silver torus even with the light ON unshaded the DT-500's amazing ANSI contrast is VERY VERY clear. I see deep inky blacks and whites so bright. I seriously can't believe how good it looks with the light on. I'm using the iris on and even then in low lamp mode with the iris on it looks like a 9'2" HDTV.

When my best friend first saw some HD on it with the lights on he said it looked like an HDTV on steroids. :D

I'm being offered an NEC 9PG with new tubes used only 100 hours for around a grand. Not sure if I'm gonna take it. :confused:

I just did a quick blend with my DT-500 and ECP with an Alias DVD. I got a very good blend in about 5 seconds, shockingly. :D I took some screenshots and I'll put them up later. First thing that really suprised me when seeing them both on is how much incredibly brighter the DT-500 really is. I have my contrast at 50% on the ECP and the DT-500 seems about 5x brighter even with the iris on (and the pj with the iris off is WAY brighter than with it on).

When i first turned on the CRT I couldn't even tell it came on with the same image it was aligned so good. The DLP's image looked virtually identical with or without the CRT on.....well at least with one shaded light on with this particular scene. I convered and uncovered the CRT's guns to see the difference and it was almost exactly identical in ambient light (at least for a really bright scene. If I moved the CRT a bit I could see a ghosting effect. Going up real close I can see SDE is greatly minimized.

This is MORE than doable with a 9PG. Not sure if it's worth the trouble though. With the light on I couldn't notice a difference, but it may be a different story with other scenes types, on a larger screen or a gray screen and/or with the lights the lights turned off.

BTW, since I've been using the backlight so much with my DT-500 I decided to have another look at a fade to black with the backlight off. It looks very gray when your eyes adjust. Switch on the back light and it looks almost mistakable for black. It turns to like charcoal. Like "almost black". Kind of like a CRT without gamma correction that is calibrated for a bit of dark detail which requires elevating the black level a bit. Close to that. I think with a non red backlight or a bit more of it absolute black could become near true black looking.

The backlight really is a lot like going from 2700:1 calibrated to probably around 27,000:1 on/off to as high as 67,500:1, depending on the gain of the screen (which is most likely somewhere between 4-10. Someone estimated as high as 10, but I don't know. It's possible.). The whites are INSANELY bright and the blacks are charcoal. The black level looks at least 75% darker, but the white level is 4-10x higher than on a 1.0 gain white screen (depending on how much gain this Silver PVC really has). I love this silver pvc. I can't have near the same effect with a white screen at all using a backlight. The backlight obliterates the color balance turning it very red when using a white screen. It doesn't noticeably change a thing with the SPVC though. It's too bad, because with a white screen the blacks would look near perfect with a back light.

The crazy thing about the DT-500/SPVC Torus combination is that during almost any moderately bright scene I can turn on the light right infront and there is virtually no difference. Sometimes I can't see a difference. That is pretty amazing to me.

I'll put up screenshots later for those interested in seeing a CRT/DLP quick blend. :)

The benefits of back lighting are certainly real and well established. I've fooled around with quite a bit of back lighting for my plasma over the years, now and again. It does lower the apparent black levels to the eye, especially the closer you move the backlighting to the edge of the frame.

BUT....the one major...and to me huge...drawback is I just find it friggin' distracting as all hell. I've always loved the movie-in-the-dark experience. The darker the better. I found that going the opposite route - using black out cloth around my display to utterly eliminate competing visual distractions, resulting in a window-like image floating in the dark, yielded more satisfying benefits to the perceived image quality than going with backlighting. But to each his own of course.

I stand by my brightness statement...for a very good film-like pic, brightness is not your main concern.
Any crt projector should be plenty bright...it's more about contrast
If it works for you. :)

If you don't like the hassle of CRT and prefer this picture, that is your business. But you really would have been better served spending $1000 on an 8 inch instead of almost $800 on that. is this thread starting to sound familiar to anyone? It sure reminds me of the 3 pages we typed trying to convince Perisoft that a Brunt tube will never make true Blue light. :rolleyes:
I can't believe this absolutley useless thread has gone on now for 3 pages. If I read one more time how red Christmas tree lights make a DLP have "true blacks" i'm going to yak.
I'm being offered an NEC 9PG with new tubes used only 100 hours for around a grand. Not sure if I'm gonna take it. :confused now there's an idea, it would also be the first intelligent purchase since you started posting here. I say buy it, get rid of the X-mas tree lights and the silver screen material, set up the 9PG on a Torus and then come back and tell us about what a truly great pic is all about.

One more thing. On my silver torus even with the light ON unshaded the DT-500's amazing ANSI contrast is VERY VERY clear. I see deep inky blacks and whites so bright. I seriously can't believe how good it looks with the light on. Ummm.. deep inky blacks on a silver screen with lights on? I'm begining to get a sense of the problem here and it has nothing to do with the projectors or screen :D

The benefits of back lighting are certainly real and well established. I've fooled around with quite a bit of back lighting for my plasma over the years, now and again. It does lower the apparent black levels to the eye, especially the closer you move the backlighting to the edge of the frame.

:confused: Backlighting is meant to sit behind the display and is intended to help with eyestrain. Some people report a "better percieved" image as a by product but that's certianly not established and I thinks it's pure marketing hype. As far as apparent black level benifiting from backlighting? I've never heard that one.

Sure. An "almost black" screen is going to look a lot blacker next to a backlit wall than it will next to a pitch-black wall. Partly it's the comparison, partly it's because your iris closes down a bit with the backlight, but opens up in a dark room.

Ummm.. deep inky blacks on a silver screen with lights on? I'm begining to get a sense of the problem here and it has nothing to do with the projectors or screen :D

I'm referring to the mixed contrast scenes and yest they are very inky black and I can't believe how much contrast is maintained with the light on with this screen. Part of it is because the screen is great in ambient light already even with my CRT, but another part is that the Sharp is a light canon even with the iris on. I wasn't referring to dark scenes or fade to blacks with the light on.

Backlighting is meant to sit behind the display and is intended to help with eyestrain. Some people report a "better percieved" image as a by product but that's certianly not established and I thinks it's pure marketing hype. As far as apparent black level benifiting from backlighting? I've never heard that one.

It benefits with mine because the kind of backlighting others use is MUCH more subtle. That kind would barely have any noticeable effect with a digital, because there just isn't enough back light to close the irises enough to make a decent difference. The more light you have the deeper the blacks and the more apparent contrast and the light surrouding the screen (but still behind it, only not completely behind the back of it). It might not be for everyone, but it does provide an oddly soothing look with a digital and the black level improvement is nice, especially when that's one of your complaints.

Sure. An "almost black" screen is going to look a lot blacker next to a backlit wall than it will next to a pitch-black wall. Partly it's the comparison, partly it's because your iris closes down a bit with the backlight, but opens up in a dark room.

Exactly. It's very simple. I posted clear picture examples of the effect and it s VERY VERY real. The kind of contrast and black level this thing gives the DT-500 is the kind of contrast and black level many are hoping a digital to have. I haven't seen the RS1, but I'd bet my fade to black looks deeper on my super high gain silver pvc torus with back lighting than the RS1 looks on a 1.0 gain white screen without any backlighting. Firstly, most people could never even use this kind of back lighting because a large majority of screens cannot use the type I'm using without being very negatively effected. Most that do use back light use WEAK backlight.

See, most use a backlight wall and that's not what mine is. The effect is much greater with the light not completely behind the screen, but it only works with my Silver PVC so far.

is this thread starting to sound familiar to anyone? It sure reminds me of the 3 pages we typed trying to convince Perisoft that a Brunt tube will never make true Blue light. :rolleyes:

Hardly the same. lol. The one thing you can't convince me of because it's completely false is that the backlight doesn't greatly improve blacks and apparent contrast. I'm not saying a G70 or whatever won't be better, but it won't be better in some categories like: ANSI contrast, Brightness (not even remotely close), Dark detail, ambient light ability, Sharpness.


I can't believe this absolutley useless thread has gone on now for 3 pages. If I read one more time how red Christmas tree lights make a DLP have "true blacks" i'm going to yak.

Hey. I'd go for a solid long single light if I knew what to get and if it were cheap. :) I don't have enough light to give DLP a fade to black that looks "true black" yet (well sometimes they do, but not if the fade to black is long.), but it looks like charcoalish or something; definitely very dark and oily.

Man, you can so easily tell who the ultra biased hardcore die hard CRTers are on this forum. :p when the thought of a DLP coming a lot closer to CRT blacks with an alternative method is for some reason offensive to said person. :D



now there's an idea, it would also be the first intelligent purchase since you started posting here. I say buy it, get rid of the X-mas tree lights and the silver screen material, set up the 9PG on a Torus and then come back and tell us about what a truly great pic is all about.

So, an NEC 6PG for $200 shipped wasn't an intelligent purchase? A $1600 Infocus IN76 for $430 shipped wasn't an intelligent purchase? An Infocus 4805 for $170 shipped wasn't an intelligent purchase? Hm. The people in the digital forum can't believe the deals I've gotten. These items are likely gonna profit when I sell them. Maybe you and I have different definition to intelligent purchasing. That profit could help pay part of a new CRT. :cool:

BTW, how is the DT-500 for only $761 shipped (a $1,400 pj at amazon) not an intelligenet purchase? Let's say I would like to watch with a little light for gaming and when company doesn't want to sit in the dark? Most people don't like sitting in complete darkness. Well, with my combination I get a great pic that still blows people away with the DT-500. The CRT doesn't out put nearly enough light to compete in ambient light.

Let's also say that I'm wanting an 11.5' wide screen for a more cinema like feel. Which is the more intelligent choice? The DT-500 light canon with back light for dramatic black level and contrast enhancement or a CRT? :confused: :p

I do like the idea of being the first digital/analog crt/dlp hybrid owner if I get the 9PG, but the cost really adds up. I want the bright output of a DLP with the absolute black and dark scenes looking near CRT with ANSI contrast looking like DLP. This shouldn't be too much to ask. :p

I really believe if some of you naysaers saw the setup and saw dark scenes on it you'd all be very impressed it was coming from a digital, especailly for a $761 total digital. I really do. I'm not saying the lights would be for you (though you might find them more soothing than you would anticipate), but the contrast and black level improvement would be undeniable.

There were times watching the 720p Mercy Reef pilot when the image looked perfect. There was a scene in Mercy Reef where AC as a kid was lost out in the ocean at night and was standing on a whale's back near the dark ocean waters and star filled black sky just above and I swear the inky blacks just blew me way in this scene. This dark scene has some AMAZING contrast and dark detail. It looked like a laser CRT or something. I've owned two other digitals and I haven't been this impressed with them even with the backlight.

With the other two digitals i've owned I found many times when the black level made me go "this is why I still almost exclusively use my CRT", but so far with the Sharp DT-500 and backlight that hasn't happeend. The dark scenes have yet to distract me. All I see is dark scenes with great dark detail and pretty convincing black. So far I haven't seen a dark scene that I felt "needed" improvement, except a fade to black and even then it only nees a slight improvement once your eyes adjust. A small percentage of dark scene I can still tell can be improved a little with a bit deeper absolute black, but not "needed". I'll need to try some real torure tests.

Man, those are some impressive deals. *I* wouldn't mind finding a cheap digital -- then I might let my kids play video games in the HT, and my wife wouldn't have to listen to them in the living room. ;) Where are you finding smokin' deals like that? Do you spend half your life on ebay?? :D

Man, those are some impressive deals. *I* wouldn't mind finding a cheap digital -- then I might let my kids play video games in the HT, and my wife wouldn't have to listen to them in the living room. ;) Where are you finding smokin' deals like that? Do you spend half your life on ebay?? :D

720p DLPs are less than $1000 every week in the sale section here. Of course, some of them require you to be brave an buy an Optoma or such. But the deals are there.

Having a cheap dpj is a good idea as long as you have a nice CRT. DT-500 is only capable of barely over 2k:1 CR and about 330 ansi. Its color space is a mess though. If u have a nice CRT you can easily see its short comings. I would not run a DLP to project a 11.5' wide screen unless you can sit back a mile away from the screen. It is insane to claim that it can even be bright enough for that kinda screen size. After all it is a 720 device and there is not even enough pixel density to truly support that kind of size.

Less than $1000, sure, but you don't often see something like an IN76 for $430 delivered, or a PG6 for $200 shipped for that matter (assuming the tubes aren't toast). Those are good deals.

Less than $1000, sure, but you don't often see something like an IN76 for $430 delivered, or a PG6 for $200 shipped for that matter (assuming the tubes aren't toast). Those are good deals.

True. For $430 delivered, I'd buy the IN76 just to show people how much better an 8" CRT is than a 720p DLP! :D :D :D

So, an NEC 6PG for $200 shipped wasn't an intelligent purchase?

If it works with good tubes, it is a great purchase.


A $1600 Infocus IN76 for $430 shipped wasn't an intelligent purchase?

If it works and doesn't have very many hours, it is a great purchase.

An Infocus 4805 for $170 shipped wasn't an intelligent purchase?

No it wasn't. They should pay you to watch this god-awful 480p mess! $10 is too much for one since they are pretty close to unwatchable.

A $1600 Infocus IN76 for $430 shipped wasn't an intelligent purchase? An Infocus 4805 for $170 shipped wasn't an intelligent purchase? for someone on a tight budget any one ofthose things might be justifiable but you seem to be hoarding them like they're collectors items and trying to convince people here how great they are. That's just fubar, get that 9PGx and then we can talk about how great something is.

Actually, I just thought about it, for the money you have spend on the DT-500, the 4805, the IN76, and the 6PG, you could have bought a very nice super condition 8" LC machine like a G70 that would blow them all away. So no, they were not intelligent purchases. :)

So no, they were not intelligent purchases. :)

You finally arrived,just about time. :)

Having a cheap dpj is a good idea as long as you have a nice CRT. DT-500 is only capable of barely over 2k:1 CR and about 330 ansi. Its color space is a mess though. If u have a nice CRT you can easily see its short comings. I would not run a DLP to project a 11.5' wide screen unless you can sit back a mile away from the screen. It is insane to claim that it can even be bright enough for that kinda screen size. After all it is a 720 device and there is not even enough pixel density to truly support that kind of size.


Maybe my eyes take in light better than yours. :D Also, who needs to sit a mile back? I'm not sensitive to SDE, because the moving image causes me to not be able to ever focus on a small grid. Now, if I were viewing a stationary white field it's another story. Also, there's a thing called "slight defocus" which works very well with a very minimal effect.

As for it not being bright enough. Well, maybe the bulb is just at that really ultra bright early period, but you have to remember that I was planning on building an 11.5' wide torus. So, it'll be brighter than you think. You ever seen Silver PVC man? With that 16' wide would be no problem. This material is BRIGHT. Check out the screenshot of it in UNSHADED light at 8' wide. :eek:

How can you say there is not enough pixel density to support that kind of size when 1080p is only 2.2x the resolution of 720p and I've seen them in cinemas on 40+ foot WIDE screens (which is at least 4 times bigger than 20' wide). Seating distance is more important than screen size.

Actually, I just thought about it, for the money you have spend on the DT-500, the 4805, the IN76, and the 6PG, you could have bought a very nice super condition 8" LC machine like a G70 that would blow them all away. So no, they were not intelligent purchases. :)

Yeah, but I could sell them all and get a 9"er. :D I don't know about this "blow away" thing. I get the feeling it'll be one of those noticeable, but marginal improvements where there's lots of hyperbole. Like 1080p vs 720p. 1080p is very marginally better and most can barely tell the difference past 1.5x the width.

The 4805 is being sold soon, as is the IN76, as is the DT-500 I got cheap with a bad lamp (only $280). Then of course I could also unload my ECP and my 6PG. Then I do have plenty of cash and credit left on my credit cards.

You're talking about blowing away, but you're talking about in contrast and black level you're forgetting how much the gap has been narrowed in my case. :)

for someone on a tight budget any one of those things might be justifiable but you seem to be hoarding them like they're collectors items and trying to convince people here how great they are. That's just fubar, get that 9PGx and then we can talk about how great something is.

I wouldn't say I have a "tight" budget. I'm just a little cheap and I have a hard time justifying spending too much on a single projector. I bought those others because I saw profit potential. I buy things and sell them all the time by using bid napper. It's called finding deals to profit from. It works. The IN76 needed a little fixing and I got it done and now it's something I can sell for a profit. The pic was unwatchable at first and I had to open it up and fix it as good as I could.

I'm sure the 9PG will be fantastic. Though I know I'll miss the brightness (partly because of how good it looks in ambient light when company doesn't want to be in the dark), the perfect sharpness, the high ansi contrast (love this part) and the great dark detail.

If I do get the 9PG you know what else I"ll have to get? An HDMI card with gamma correction (if they have one). How much will THAT run me? $200? $300? Let's not forget the high shipping prices that add a lot on to the price too. I hate that. That's the worst part. When I find a good CRT deal I sometimes almost forget that I'll have to add $200-$300 S&H (not $15-$30 like with a digital) and then probably $200-$300 for a gamma circuit if I want to enjoy HD. I don't think I can live with CRT without gamma correction.

It doesn't matter how superb that 9PG is though I'm still gonna think the DT-500 throws a great picture with clear advantages (even if the 9PG is way better). But I'm consiering the 9PG. Partly because the new tubes will last a LONG time too. That is appealing for sure.

No it wasn't. They should pay you to watch this god-awful 480p mess! $10 is too much for one since they are pretty close to unwatchable.

Oh please. lol. :) Those throw a nice pic for the price and simplicity if you sit a the right distance or use a slight defocus. With a slight defocus I could probably not see SDE at 1.5x the width. SDE is so easily minimized. It still looks better than most cinemas I've seen when used with a good source from proper viewing distance. If it's God awful then a lot of film cinemas most be the worst thing to ever exist. :p

Man, those are some impressive deals. *I* wouldn't mind finding a cheap digital -- then I might let my kids play video games in the HT, and my wife wouldn't have to listen to them in the living room. ;) Where are you finding smokin' deals like that? Do you spend half your life on ebay?? :D


I also forgot to mention a second DT-500 I got with a bad lamp for $280 shipped. BTW, I'm thinking of converting one of these sets into a rear projection set and maybe selling them if it works out. The DT-500 already has short throw but I'm either going to add a lens to shorten it up or see if I can put the Toshiba ET20U lens on either my DT-500 or my IN76, because that lens allow 100" to be thrown from only 3.9'. :eek:

I don't know about this "blow away" thing. I get the feeling it'll be one of those noticeable, but marginal improvements ..............

You're talking about blowing away, but you're talking about in contrast and black level you're forgetting how much the gap has been narrowed in my case. :) I don't understand why you don't grasp the fact that an ECP is not what we mean when we refer to a CRT reference. Until you have seen a properly setup 8 or 9" projector, you're missing the point.

I've been there, I've owned $8000 digital projectors. Get a good 8 or 9" CRT have it setup properly and than compare it to the DT-500. :)

This is an example of what the difference in absolute black level is like with a fade to black when my eyes adjust. Left is simulated without the back light and right is simulated with the backlight on. The look will vary monitor to monitor.

http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/3088/blackleveltf2.png

I don't understand why you don't grasp the fact that an ECP is not what we mean when we refer to a CRT reference. Until you have seen a properly setup 8 or 9" projector, you're missing the point.

I've been there, I've owned $8000 digital projectors. Get a good 8 or 9" CRT have it setup properly and than compare it to the DT-500. :)

No one else seems to grasp that I also own an NEC 6PG that I had to stop using because the C-Drive failed. :(

I was told going to EM focus was the biggest upgrade over 7" ES focus. 720p and 1080i definitely looked a lot sharper on the 6PG and the colors were better due to having color filtered lenses, BUT the DT-500 is still not without its advantages. I'm not saying it's better, but with HD it is better in some regards. It has better ANSI contrast (very clearly better), it's WAY WAY brighter, the black level with the back light isn't too far off (but I'm still hoping to get closer to true black), the dark detail is better, it's still sharper (one DMD will always have a least a bit better sharpness and focus) and much better ambient light ability. The blacks are deeper in mixed scenes which is nice.

That's a lot of advantages and yet there IS still something I love about the CRT look, that organic aesthetic that's hard to pinpoint what it is, but the CRT does not win in all categories or even most categories. How much improvement is an G70 over a 9PG or 6PG? Realistically, percentage wise.

BTW, which $8,000 digitals have you owned and when, because a $700 digital is probably the equivelant to an $8,000 digital 4 years ago??? lol. The DLP Guy Kuo preferred to his Barco 808 85% of the time (without a backlight), the Optoma H79, cost about $4,500 only a few years ago and now I've seen it go for as low as $1,188 with a spare lamp and I've seen the virtually identical H78 go for as low as $800.

The DLP Guy Kuo preferred to his Barco 808 85% of the time (without a backlight), the Optoma H79, cost about $4,500 only a few years ago and now I've seen it go for as low as $1,188 with a spare lamp and I've seen the virtually identical H78 go for as low as $800.

He had a Nec XG1352LC not Barco..being too optimistic!! :)
And said it was 80% there with about 70" wide screen at max size.

If you really want to impress us and show us a reference quality image on a 12 foot wide screen drive up to Wisconsin and buy this pair of 9PGX CRT;s that are currently stacked in this guys theatre. He claims mint tubes and if he had the skill to stack them he should undertsand tube condition. Seems like a killer deal for $1600. for the pair.
hopefully the nexy person does a little better job with them than mounted to wood boards on a White ceiling. :rolleyes:
B bay 290143387622

I'd love to stack at 12' wide, but it's just no feasible where I live. My ceiling goes from 8' high to about 12'-13' high where the PJ's would need to be mounted. Sounds great though.

Those are the ones I was being offered. They are listed higher. He offered to sell me one directly. I want to get it, but I don't want to sell my sharp. The lost of brightness will mean I'll have to go back to dark viewing only or shading the heck out of my light.

I couldn't be more tempted though. Really. I just start thinking of the size, the hassle, etc. I know it'll never be quite as sharp and some of the "looking out of a window" look will be gone.

He had a Nec XG1352LC not Barco..being too optimistic!! :)
And said it was 80% there with about 70" wide screen at max size.

The XG is better though, right? :confused: More control over the image, LC, color filtered lenses, correct?

I don't see how an H79 would be 80% there at 70" wide. I'd find it to be WORSE at 70" wide. Not better. The black level would be a lot more elevated at that size. That's way too small for a digital front projector, IMO. I personally find that the bigger I go with DLP the more film like it looks and the smaller I go the more digital it looks. Of course the H79 isn't the brightest DLP around, but it's still enough for a much larger screen than 70" wide. I don't see why that small made it 80% of the NEC compared to other sizes. Doesn't seem to make sense to me. It's 720p so it can do larger screen with no problem especially with the SMX lens I read he had. Why anyone would go with front projector 70" wide is beyond me anyway. Quite a waste if you ask me, but whatever. lol.

The XG is better though, right? :confused: More control over the image, LC, color filtered lenses, correct?

I don't see how an H79 would be 80% there at 70" wide. I'd find it to be WORSE at 70" wide. Not better. The black level would be a lot more elevated at that size. That's way too small for a digital front projector, IMO. I personally find that the bigger I go with DLP the more film like it looks and the smaller I go the more digital it looks. Of course the H79 isn't the brightest DLP around, but it's still enough for a much larger screen than 70" wide. I don't see why that small made it 80% of the NEC compared to other sizes. Doesn't seem to make sense to me. It's 720p so it can do larger screen with no problem especially with the SMX lens I read he had. Why anyone would go with front projector 70" wide is beyond me anyway. Quite a waste if you ask me, but whatever. lol.

What you see vs what he saw is not the point. He had issues as well with his Nec but more than anything all these fellas stick with latest tech for various reasons and not necessarily for PQ. The size was a SDE driven factor.

As far as apparent black level benifiting from backlighting? I've never heard that one.

It's a very well-established visual phenomenon. It has to do with two things:

1. The natural way your eyes perceive contrast and:

2. The pupil constricting effect.

As to #1 you can see many visual "trick" tests that show when you place gray against a black background it looks fairly light, but place that gray against a white background and the contrast effect makes it look darker. Have you never seen that popular optical illusion before? Where you see a gray shape placed within both a black field and a white field, and viewing both fields at the same time it looks like the gray shape in the white field looks darker than the one in the black field...but they are actually the same luminance value).

Have you never noticed how black levels look blacker when there is a brighter, small object on the screen? For instance, take a bright "Star Wars" ship in space. With the ship against the "black" space the space will tend to look darker, due to the contrast with the bright object (space ship). Take out the space ship and the black space now looks lighter.

Bias lighting works like that for dark scenes. It creates a constant level of light against which your eye/brain will contrast black on screen. So if you are watching a dark night scene, the halo of backlighting behind the image will provide the contrast with the dark areas of your display, making them look darker.

There's also the fact that your pupil constricting will take in less light. Depending on how bright your backlighting is, it will constrict your pupil more than your pupils would remain without it. So during dark scenes on your disaplay, your pupil is a bit more constricted by the backlighting, which limits the light intake, making the dark areas appear darker too.

No hype. I've seen this effect countless times. Just regular-old-how-our-eyes-work stuff.

But as I said, in the end I prefer to find an image with good black levels, so I can dispense with backlighting. Then I don't need the brightness/contrast up very high to enjoy the image in the dark. I don't experience eye strain.

What you see vs what he saw is not the point. He had issues as well with his Nec but more than anything all these fellas stick with latest tech for various reasons and not necessarily for PQ. The size was a SDE driven factor.


Geez. How close are some people sitting to see SDE with a 720p DLP? :eek:

I took a close up screenshot of my screen with a digital camcorder and it couldn't see the pixels. I filled the entire image area with large teeth and still it couldnt' see the pixels like it could with my 4805. :)


Also, I heard Guy Kuo used an SMX lens and that takes care of SDE, which a 720p doesn't need form any normal viewing ditance unless you have eagle eyes that can easily focus on a grid despite moving images on the screen. :)

I took some screenshot of the CRT/DLP blend. I got a very good blend in literally about 5 seconds and that was just by plugging the CRT up to my computer. Sadly, my camcorder kinda sucks for screenshots and the images turned out underexposed because my LCD display is broken and I have to expose via the viewfinder and apparently it isn't close to accurate. From now on I know to stay a a couple steps higher than whatever looks properly exposed in the viewfinder.

I'm bidding on that Che-Z camera Clarence uses for his awesome screenshots. Can't wait. I hope it works as good for me.

It's a very well-established visual phenomenon. I've read many articles about back lighting and not one mentioned anything about improving perceived black level but a few mentioned it's more of a gimmick than anything else. There are also articals that claimed most people think the image looks sharper and has more punch in a dark room compared with back lighting.

I understand it's been around for a long long time but if you read very old articles you find that the single reason for back lighting was to reduce eyestrain not to improve perceived black level or picture quality. My opinion is it is a gimmick at least with regards to improving perceived PQ. It may in fact reduce eyestrain in a dark room but that's a different issue.

At any rate, I would suggest that 99% of the people here do not use a back light so it's really only an issue for MTyson :D

Why anyone would go with front projector 70" wide is beyond me anyway. Quite a waste if you ask me, but whatever. lol.

I'm going with a 72" wide screen in my room. Why you may ask? Several reasons:
1.) Room size dictates my seating distance (10.5 feet to front row in my case). For my family's viewing preference, we've found that anything larger results in what we call the "tennis match effect" where we're having to constantly turn our heads to keep up with the action.

2.) SDE. At around 1.5x I start really noticing SDE.

3.) Financial. Have you priced 70" flat panels versus projectors? Pretty big difference. My HC3000 was ~$1,500. I would have to start multiplying by whole numbers to get close to a ~70" flat panel. Plus, my 3/4" melamine screen is heavy enough. I don't even want to think about trying to haul a 70' flat panel up the stairs to my room. Screw that.

4.) Simply don't need a huge screen. It just so happens that my choice of screen size not only fits my viewing preferences, but it also fit extremely well scale-wise into my overall room design. My HT is 12'w x 16'l. That leaves 3 feet on either side of the screen. If I were to go much wider, I would have to seriously consider going with an AT screen to keep from having my L & R speakers against the side walls. I've spent maybe $50 total on my screen. The thought of shelling out for SMX or some other material just isn't a pleasant one right now.

One more...
5.) Bulb life. I should be able to run my Mits with the iris closed and on the low lamp setting for a respectable period of time while still maintaining good image quality and brightness with this screen size. It simply takes more "umph" to maintain the same brightness on a larger screen.

I know that this was probably way too much info, but I wanted to make a point. For many people in this hobby, the overall experience is what matters the most. There are a ton more considerations that simply "go big or go home".

No one else seems to grasp that I also own an NEC 6PG that I had to stop using because the C-Drive failed. 0. Well the reason for that is simple, You talk about your ECP in glowing terms and not the NEC and also it's hard to believe that you setup the NEC properly based on some of your earlier posts. Either way assuming you did in fact get the best out of the Pg ( huge assumption) It is still nowhere near the performer of something like a G70 or even a PG xtra.


At any rate, Digitals are getting better, no doubt about it, I have nothing against an particular technology
Bottom line, you are posting in a CRT projector forum about spending $800 on a digital. The people here believe you could have received much more for your money if you bought a better CRT. End of story.

It's a very well-established visual phenomenon. It has to do with two things:

1. The natural way your eyes perceive contrast and:

2. The pupil constricting effect.


No hype. I've seen this effect countless times. Just regular-old-how-our-eyes-work stuff.

Exactly. I posted proof in the thread already if people have a hard time believing. I first got the idea when I was using my 4805 displaying King Kong when my CRT was acting funny. I was missing the blacks from my CRT at the time and when I took King Kong off of full screen with Zoom Player Pro it has a bright silver border around the image and I immediately noticed the black bars turne jet black and the dark scenes looked so much deeper. Unfortunately I felt this method probably diminished dark detail because the contrast was created from inside the projector itself where light spill becomes an issue. The effect was very real and even MORE dramatic than my back light. I need more back light to equal that effect. I really want to see if I can fool my eyes into seeing true black fade to blacks. I want to make it look jet black and I know it's possible because just look a the blacks in mixed scenes with DLP. They're blacker than CRT easily.

So, if a DLP is 350:1 ansi contrast than a surrounding light that is 350x brighter shoudl do the trick. Though I think 150-200 times ought to be enoguh since CRT can give good enough black.

I'm bidding on a 50' clear rope light since white light seems to enhance blacks much more dramatically than red. It's twice the length to so that also should improve the effect. I can't wait to see how much improvement I can squeeze out of the blacks. I'm hoping to get CRT looking blacks and I'll be content.

When there is no light on the screen the rope light makes my SPVC look jet black. It's pretty neat looking to see the screen look so incredibly black without the room actually being black. It literally looks as black as black can get. For a digital I know I'll need more light to pull off the same effect during a fade to black. I'm just not sure how much light I'll need. I'm gonna find out though.

Why anyone would go with front projector 70" wide is beyond me anyway. Quite a waste if you ask me, but whatever. lol. Ahh. The rest of us know why you would use a 6' wide screen. After years of experience, most of us have gotten the bigger is better mentality out of our systems. Bigger is only better if:

A. You have the room for it and..
B. You have the projector/projectors for it.

After owning them all I can tell you a 7" PJ loses major punch on anything over a 6' image and only the brighter 8 and 9 inchers can light up an 8' screen.

I use my G70 on a 7' screen. That's as big as I'll go with a single 8" projector based on what's acceptable brightness to me.

Well the reason for that is simple, You talk about your ECP in glowing terms and not the NEC and also it's hard to believe that you setup the NEC properly based on some of your earlier posts. Either way assuming you did in fact get the best out of the Pg ( huge assumption) It is still nowhere near the performer of something like a G70 or even a PG xtra.

At any rate, Digitals are getting better, no doubt about it, I have nothing against an particular technology
Bottom line, you are posting in a CRT projector forum about spending $800 on a digital. The people here believe you could have received much more for your money if you bought a better CRT. End of story.

I don't think I got the best out the 6PG simply because a focus issue developed on the sides of red and green, but it was clearly better than my ECP.

What is the biggest advantages a G70 has over a 6PG? I'm curious which part makes it stand head an shoulders above it. Also, how much, percentage wise would you say it is improved over a 6PG?

I don't think I got the best out the 6PG simply because a focus issue developed on the sides of red and green, but it was clearly better than my ECP.

What is the biggest advantages a G70 has over a 6PG? I'm curious which part makes it stand head an shoulders above it. Also, how much, percentage wise would you say it is improved over a 6PG? First of all, Necs are some of my favorite PJs. If you are up to setting one up, I would suggest a PG Xtra simply because they are more available then G70s, much cheaper and perform almost as well but a G70 is the better projector.

A G70 is brighter has component inputs and uses liquid coupled optics. Its' also one of the easiest to learn and set up but I've seen G70s and PG xtras that looked no better than an ECP based on a poor setup. It's really all in the setup. I thought I knew how to set up a projector 15 years ago but it took me years and the experience of watching a professional to realise I wasn't close. When you watch someone spend a few hours on nothing but focusing the tubes. You realise you don't really know what you are doing.
I'm at the point know where I feel like, without any special equipment, I could get 80% out of any projector but that still leaves a lot of improvement that could be had and I've been doing this for many years. It's not rocket surgery but there are a million small things you do to create a fantastic picture.

A percent improvement would have to be based on measurements of parameters that each have some "standard". Want to try and name a few?

I suppose asking for a percentage improvement is no more foolish than persisting in a discussion of how much you like digital projectors on a CRT forum. Yea it's not a very scientufic approach but here goes. I prefer to use a ten scale.

Let's start with a Sony G90 as the benchmark. We'll give it a 10. A LC 8" like a G70 or NEC XG might be a 8. 5 non LC color corrected PJ like a PG extra might be a 7.5. Below that you have a M8500 which would be just slightly below at a 7. followed by a PG which might be a 5.5 or 6 compared to a M8500 then the ECP4500 which is probably a 4. or 4.5 and then all the rest 7" ES sets.

That's about how I would rate them and I've owned all of them.
Other's may see it a bit different.

I've read many articles about back lighting and not one mentioned anything about improving perceived black level

Then you've encountered some strangely incomplete articles. As I said, the contrast effect I'm describing is a well-known, well-established visual phenomenon. Owners of digital displays, especially flat panel owners, have been successfully using back-lighting for years to increased the perceived depth of their black levels. As I said, I've done it plenty of times.

but a few mentioned it's more of a gimmick than anything else. .......My opinion is it is a gimmick at least with regards to improving perceived PQ.

Then you just need to try it yourself. Here...if you don't believe me about the effect, will you believe your own eyes? Behold:

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/6810/800pxgradientopticalillxc1.png


That strip of gray running horizontally is exactly the same luminance all the way through. Yet when against the lighter area it looks darker, against the darker area it looks lighter. Right?

So why would you possibly doubt the exact same effect holding for using back-lighting to achieve exactly the same situation? When you have a dark area of your display image set against a back-lit, illuminated background, the exact same thing happens. The contrast of the lighter background makes your eye 'read' the dark area as darker.
In this way, the grayish black levels of, say, a plasma or LCD look darker when the area behind the image is illuminated, creating the "contrast effect."

Make sense?

Cheers,

An arbirtary 0-10 scale makes sense, since it is mere opinion. A PERCENT improvement must be measurable against a reference. It's still a foolish question.


No it isn't. By asking for a percentage I didn't mean I wanted anything more than opinion. I think you already knew that though. I wanted a personal opinion not a statement of fact. I can easily say how much better percentage wise think something i usually just as good as I can rate something on a scale of 1/10.

Then you've encountered some strangely incomplete articles. As I said, the contrast effect I'm describing is a well-known, well-established visual phenomenon. Owners of digital displays, especially flat panel owners, have been successfully using back-lighting for years to increased the perceived depth of their black levels. As I said, I've done it plenty of times.



Then you just need to try it yourself. Here...if you don't believe me about the effect, will you believe your own eyes? Behold:

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/6810/800pxgradientopticalillxc1.png


That strip of gray running horizontally is exactly the same luminance all the way through. Yet when against the lighter area it looks darker, against the darker area it looks lighter. Right?

So why would you possibly doubt the exact same effect holding for using back-lighting to achieve exactly the same situation? When you have a dark area of your display image set against a back-lit, illuminated background, the exact same thing happens. The contrast of the lighter background makes your eye 'read' the dark area as darker.
In this way, the grayish black levels of, say, a plasma or LCD look darker when the area behind the image is illuminated, creating the "contrast effect."

Make sense?

Cheers,

That's a good example. I posted SOLID proof on page one, so I don't know why he thinks its hype or whatever. All he had to do is simply look at my 3 pics on page one for all the proof he could ever need about how backlighting affects black level. The thing is, the type of backlighting MOST use isn't enough to enhance a digital's black level (which is probably why there was no info for him about how it affects black level) much at all because it's not enough light due to being placed all the way behind the screen just bouncing off of the walls behind the screen. Mine though is surround the screen (still behind the surface, but not completely hidden behind the backside.) and that means I get much more light to keep my irises from opening up too much during dark scenes or fade to blacks. The result is like turning my 2700:1 calibrated DT-500 into a 25,000:1-60,000:1+ on/off digital projector. How many hear want to see 25,000:1 from a digital? Well, that's what my DT-500 looks like at the very minimum with the back light. Possibly more depending on how much the gain of the screen really is (if it's beyond 4.0).

Make sense?

Cheers,We have all seen examples of this. I have a book of 500 hundred eye puzzles but I believe there is much more involved in a real moving picture then what that simple example illustrates, these simple examples are always shades of gray. What happens when you add a million colors and moving images to the equation? I would bet that it changes everything.

Are you able to point me to an article where the claim is better perceived black level? When I was searching I read an article that said people perceived better contrast in a totally dark room. I'll search for it and post a link.

I understand exactly what you are saying. I just can't find information , not a single claim that back-lighting helps perceived black level but I'll read anything you have. :)

MTyson,
Sorry but your pictures are way too poor in quality and prove nothing.

We have all seen examples of this. I have a book of 500 hundred eye puzzles but I believe there is much more involved in a real moving picture then what that simple example illustrates, these simple examples are always shades of gray. What happens when you add a million colors and moving images to the equation? I would bet that it changes everything.

Actually, the fact that there are millions of color enhanced black even further, because your irises are usuall more closed because of that, so when it goes to a dark scene it takes more time to adjust making black look even darker on those shorter dark scenes. Your eyes irises are constantly in action. It's just like a dynamic iris in an LCD projector except far more advanced.

Here's an example. What happens on a digital when it goes from a really bright scene and quickly fades to black back to another bright image? The fade to black looks pretty convincingly black usually.

Now, if you are watching a dark scene for awhile and it fade to black it's clearly plenty of light. This is because your irises had time to open up to let more light in. The longer you look at a fade to black the more light your eyes let in and the grayer it looks. Turn on a surrounding backlight that outputs decent light and your irises close and creates contrast between the gray and surrounding light.

Have you ever really noticed your own eyes ansi contrast? Go start at a light bulb where the black text is. The white will blow out making the text difficult to read. Put on sunglasses and it becomes easy because your irises are no longer taking in excessive light. This means at some point a light level surrounding dark gray (aka very dim white light) is going to make it look black.

Just look at how jet black DLP's blacks look during high contrast bright scenes. They look blacker than CRT easily and yet the black is actually outputting quite a bit of light unlike CRT. This is because the surrounding light is probably as much as 350 times brighter, which makes it look black in comparison whereas in a dark scene when it's surrounded by lower light level it looks like the dark gray it really is.


Are you able to point me to an article where the claim is better perceived black level? When I was searching I read an article that said people perceived better contrast in a totally dark room. I'll search for it and post a link.

It's probably hard to find, because the kind of backlighting 99.99% of people use is different than what I'm using and the effect on black level and contrast is virtually non existant with a digital in comparison to mine. That's probably why you can't find anything on it. I may be the only person in the world using backlighting THIS particular way. My way adds more light in the iris than the ones that hide the rope light behind the entire back of the screen. Most have it back there just adding accented light bouncing off of the walls which means only a fraction bounces to your eyes compared to mine, hence it has VERY little effect on black leve. probably not very noticeable compared to mine.


I understand exactly what you are saying. I just can't find information , not a single claim that back-lighting helps perceived black level but I'll read anything you have. :)

I'd be surprised if you can find any info on this like I said above and the reasons why. The only reason why I even thought of this method is because one day night when watching King Kong on my 4805 when my CRT was acting funny that night I took zoom player off of full screen whcih left a brighter silverish border around the image and I immediately noticed the black bars go from dark gray to JET black and how the dark scene being played suddenly and rich blacks and depth. Unfortunately this type of contrast against black took too much dark detail because it wasn't behind the screen like a backlight but part of the image itself.

So, that's when I decided to get a rope light. I quickly learned though that MY method of backlighting (which is vastly different than the method eveyone else uses) is unusable with any screen material I've tried EXCEPT my Silver PVC torus. I obliterated the color balance on a white screen turning even blacks reddish and making skin tons look way too red (though I might could have compensated by lowering red gain and red bias). It has zero noticeable effect on the SPVC though, so I really lucked out. To use this type of back lighting AT ALL with front projection you need a truly special screen material or a room with VERY dark walls.



MTyson,
Sorry but your pictures are way too poor in quality and prove nothing.


Hm. :confused: They are clear as day to me. What kind of monitor are you using and is it gamma corrected for low end dark detail? The difference is VERY clear on mine. I mean, one side it looks very close to black and on the other side it looks very obviously gray. Do you really need it in 1080p resolution to see that? JK. lol. :D

Please tell me what specifically makes it too low of quality to see the difference in shading of dark gray? I want to know what the issue is here, because whatever it is it's not present on my monitor.

Anyway, surely you can see the difference between the two huge shades of gray I posted on the last page though right?

Are you able to point me to an article where the claim is better perceived black level?

Well, I ain't gonna do your homework for you. ;) But a very quick search easily turned these up:


From a review of backlighting at Secrets Of Home Theater Fidelity:

"Since my room had full light control and tended to be very dark most of the time, the transitions in movies from light to dark started giving my eyes fatigue which eventually led to headaches and frustration. I also noticed that perceived contrast was a lot different. With all that black surrounding my plasma, the blacks offered by the display had some stiff competition, and anyone who has experience with plasma TVs knows that it can only get so good. "

"At CEDIA - 2003, I had gone to a few of the classes for custom installers and had the chance to hear some points of view from Joel Silver and Joe Kane. These are two of the most respected individuals in home theater calibration and installation, and they are the guru’s of high end video reproduction. They had some interesting ideas about plasma and getting the most out of your display. They both recommended a light color behind the plasma, exactly the opposite of what I had in my home theater. You see, if you have a white or light gray wall behind the display, your perceived contrast ratio will go up. Blacks will look darker overall as they aren’t being compared against a true flat black. "

If you aren't going to believe Joe Kane...I dunno who else you'd like to turn to.

From another review of Bias LIghting:


"Reduction in eye strain is a huge deal for me, but the Ideal-Lume Video Bias Lighting also improved the visual elements that I saw on my 24" Eizo ColorEdge CE240W LCD. The blues look richer, the blacks darker and the whites are brighter. The improvement in the picture quality I saw was shocking. To think this was all due to a florescent light is almost unbelievable."

http://peripherals.about.com/od/displaysmonitors/fr/ideallume.htm

Another review:


"I have been using bias lights for the last year or so and there is not doubt the both improve the perceived black levels and make the room feel much more comfortable."

http://www.smartavtweaks.com/biaslights.html


Another discussion of the effects of bias lighting at HDTVMagazine:


"Another application of bias lighting is to create a specific perception of black. Black does not exist as a color or palette in light reproduction and is simply expressed and created by the absence of light. It is an optical illusion. If your display does not do blacks very well, meaning after you have calibrated the contrast and brightness you still find light emanating from your screen in a darkened room, then a bias light can easily resolve this problem. The purpose here is to create a ceiling for how much the iris in your eye will open up. The bias light prevents it from opening up greater than the amount of light from your display, making it impossible for you to see the light still emanating from a black screen, thus creating the illusion of jet black. This illusion is easily demonstrated using a calibration DVD and going to the image on the disc for setting black. Turn on the lights in the room and set your black level. Now turn them off and you will see that what was black is not. Now set the black level again under these conditions and turn the lights on. Now you can hardly see anything and your blacks will be buried. "

http://hdtvmagazine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5300


And, as I've said, for just the application of trying to increase the apparent black levels of my plasma, I've done the experiment many times. It works. All you have to do is try it yourself and see. And...with that....I think I've spent enough time on this issue.

So long,

My problem with digitals are not with black levels a lot of them are really getting good. How about rainbow and digital motion artifacts, that stuff drives me crazy.

Mike*

*Short drive to crazy!

I was specifically addressing Peterpanski, who expressed doubts about the general claims of increasing contrast via bias lighting.

I wouldn't use a red rope light, but some light like Terry just talked about certainly works and works very well. I would either move the backlight behind the screen so you don't see the rope or use some torch lights or wall sconces on dimmers.

It's no good for those of you with typical white screens, but I also use an Ultra High Gain Torus and with those room light or backlight does exactly what the OP suggests it does.

My screen wall is black and I have two wall sconces on dimmers to add just a little ambient light to make things easier on the eyes "some times".

I don't always use them, but a UHG Torus can really kill your eyes with all it's light output sometimes.

You'll never get a headache if you have some room light or backlight. Without I have gotten headaches at times or just been bothered by drastic changes in light output.

UHG torus screens are very different from white screens. Blinding is a good term to describe them.

Troy

And posted it in a thread whose OP claims that colored bias lighting makes a difference to camcorders but not to human beings.

What I mean by that is that different color temperatures in the same scene can alter a camcorder's perception, because it does not have a highly adatable human brain. However, all you have to do is white balance.

I wouldn't use a red rope light, but some light like Terry just talked about certainly works and works very well. I would either move the backlight behind the screen so you don't see the rope or use some torch lights or wall sconces on dimmers.

It's not about the color as much is it is the quanity and intensity of the backlight. The more light the deeper the blacks become. Completely behind the screen would probably have 1/20th the effect my setup has and I want a dramatic effect on black levels. Infact, I still would like to improve it some more, which is why I just bought a 50' clear rope light to try.

My goal is to achieve a jet black fade to black with my DT-500; So black it looks like outer space without any stars. Basically, I want the blackest CRT black can do, but with the high ANSI contrast of a digital. Currently, my one red rope light is only enough to give me a charcoalish black which is very nice and inky in most scenes, but I want to take it to the next level to where black is pretty much perfect (I'll accept close though).


It's no good for those of you with typical white screens, but I also use an Ultra High Gain Torus and with those room light or backlight does exactly what the OP suggests it does.

Sure does. Nice that someone can back me up on this. It's simple logic though really I think. I mean when I walk into my living room from being outside in the sun my living room looks dark even with the light on, but given a little time it looks bright after the irises adapt. We have a limited mixed contrast range and at some point light surrounding the screen is going to make dark gray look black or blackish.

My goal is to achieve a jet black fade to black with my DT-500; So black it looks like outer space without any stars.

That will never happen. Sure, your screen may look "black" with a fade to black, but your room never will with lights on. A true fade to black is when you can't see your hand in-front of your face. Tell me, how will that occur if you have a clear rope light on?

That will never happen. Sure, your screen may look "black" with a fade to black, but your room never will with lights on. A true fade to black is when you can't see your hand in-front of your face. Tell me, how will that occur if you have a clear rope light on?

I have to agree. When there is a fade to black scene on my CRT the whole theater goes BLACK. No light at all, this just seems like gimmic, oh well what ever works for you. Is this "backlight thing" the whole concept behind that Philips Plasma with "AmbiLight". I wondered what that was all about, I guess now I know now.

Did they ever get the light leakage issue fixed on digitals? Just that alone was enough to kill a true fade to black. Forgive me I really don't keep up on these things.

Good luck hope it all works out!

Mike

That will never happen. Sure, your screen may look "black" with a fade to black, but your room never will with lights on. A true fade to black is when you can't see your hand in-front of your face. Tell me, how will that occur if you have a clear rope light on?


Obviously I mean the screen itself. If the screen area looks jet black it looks jet black and trust me with no light on the screen with the rope light on the screen looks as black as outerspace without any stars. I don't think what I said could be confused with what you're referring to though. I'lll be happy just to see the screen turn jet black looking with a digital. As nice as it is to have the room turn pitch black it's gonna be very nice to see a digiital dispaly jet black with fade to black. If I can achieve that digital should have a higher apparent on/off contrast compared to even the best CRT due to its extremely high white level (not to mention at least probably 4x higher on a my torus) and low level dark detail.

My In76 outputs about 800 calibrated ANSI lumesn (not sure what the DT-500 is (but it's pretty damn bright even with the iris on), so viewing on the torus is like turning at least into a 3,200 ANSI lumen projector. So, it's currently probably like viewing 3,200 ANSI lumen digital with at least 25,000:1 On/Off Contrast. You can't find something like that cheap and I've got that appearance for $430 total for the iN76 and $761 total for the DT-500. Not bad I'd say, but that's just me.

My favorite part is the ambient light ability. There are MANY scenes in moveis where I can turn the light on and see virtually no difference. It's quite amazing to see a 9'2" HDTV with a light on. I can get a pretty decent ambient light image on my CRT too, but not nearly THIS good. To get a really good one with an unshaded light in the same room using my CRT I have to bump the contrast to 60 or 70% and jack up the brightness too (and of course the image is gamma corrected as well).

BTW, while the room may never turn black I have used the light with the projector's off and the screen is so jet black it's unreal. It actually looks VERY cool to see the contrast. It seems to make the screen look DEEP. It adds almost a 3D quality to black somehow. It's different than the room turning to black, but it's very nice looking in its own way. It looks like there's nothing there but an empty space of blackness. surrounded with light. Basically, it looks like a black portal or something. It gives you a chance to "see" your fade to black on just your screen since the light creates contrast around it.


Also, I just checked out Goblet of Fire and it looks damn near HD on the DT-500. Then I decided to check it out on my ECP. Also, very nice. Impressive on both in different ways. Stlll very sharp on the ECP with FFDShow. Both have things I like about them.

Did they ever get the light leakage issue fixed on digitals? Just that alone was enough to kill a true fade to black. Forgive me I really don't keep up on these things.

I don't notice any leakage with my DT-500, but I get plenty with my IN76. The red rope light kills it though.

Red Rope lighting... Around your screen. The brighter it is the better the blacks according to MTyson. You gotta love it.

If you are so interested in black level, why not buying the 3000 rather than DT-500 if DLP is what you're after. For a little more get what want. Pull that rope off and get serious!

Time for some eggnog, it's Christmas in July!

If you are so interested in black level, why not buying the 3000 rather than DT-500 if DLP is what you're after. For a little more get what want. Pull that rope off and get serious!


3000? You referring to the Mitsubishi HC3000U? If you are what you're suggesting doesn't suit what I want. I can guarantee you I'm getting better blacks than a 3000U without a rope light.

Also, I'm after brightness. I want to have my cake and eat it to. :D

I'm tossing my CRT PJ in the recycling bin at the curb, buying a used digital on eBay, and digging out that string of red Christmas tree lights....

:p You're behind on the times because I'm replacing my red light with white light. :)

Red Rope lighting... Around your screen. The brighter it is the better the blacks according to MTyson. You gotta love it.

No. Around MY screen. Not yours or most others. :) 99% of people wouldn't be able to use it, because their screen isn't right or their walls aren't dark enough.

You still sound surprised or like you don't believe it (I'm not sure which.lol). Are you denying it or do you just find it odd? It does give better blacks. It's not just according to me; It's really a statment of fact unless your eye's irises are broken and are locked at one particular setting (wide open). :p

It's simple logic really if you understand light, contrast, photography and how the human eyes work. Logic says if there is enough light around the screen (but also behind it) to keep your eyes' irises from opening up more to allow more dark gray light in (really dim white light) less of that projected light you will take in, hence it appears darker and the contrast caused by the surround light makes it appear blacker. The brighter the light around the screen the more you irises close down allowing in even less light and making it look even blacker. Though I'm just basing this on what I know since I've only used the one red rope light.

I'm fully expecting an improvement with my white rope light.

As high as the dynamic range of the human eye it is still limited. Our on/off contrast is stratospheric, but we have a max ANSI contrast too. It may be much higher than even film, but even the human eyes max out at a certain ANSI contrast ratio where whites blow out or something not black appears black by comparison, because of other light.

What happens when you come inside a room with only a light or two and very little sunlight after being outside in the bright summer sun? It appears about 100x darker until you eyes adjust to let more light in. Now, let's say your irises never adjusted when you came inside. Let's say your iris setting in your eyes were locked to the setting they were outside. The room would never get brighter. It would stay looking dark. A rope light is similar to that for the blacks of a projected image.

When I first saw your screen shots I thought…”Oh how nice, his theater is decorated for Christmas” now I understand they perform a function. Very Interesting: not my cup of tea, but never the less interesting.

Mike

For unbeatable contrast, I suggest you step it up a notch. :p

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w85/i_am_bud/Full-Tilt-Boogie.gif

3000? You referring to the Mitsubishi HC3000U? If you are what you're suggesting doesn't suit what I want. I can guarantee you I'm getting better blacks than a 3000U without a rope light.

Also, I'm after brightness. I want to have my cake and eat it to. :D
No I meant Sharp XV-Z3000. Black level near .002 FL is pretty good for a dpj same as Sony HS/AW.

No I meant Sharp XV-Z3000. Black level near .002 FL is pretty good for a dpj same as Sony HS/AW.


Ah. The DT-500 with an extra iris aye?

BTW, here are some shots taken with the light on and a reason why it's so hard to give up (just look at that ambient light picture. lol). Do note that these were taken with an old 1 chip digital camcorder that and that it's a miracle I could get shots THIS good because it's not easy at all, which is why I ordered the CHE-EZ camere (much less grain). BTW, these are taken in low lamp mode with the iris on and in movie mode 2, so it's at its dimmest setting which is nowhere near as bright as with the iris off or when in high lamp mode.

http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/1319/d41nw6.jpg

http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/7546/d101tx6.jpg

I still freakin love CRT too though and man am I seriously considering that NEC 9PG just for the TUBE life if not anything else. :D

I tried taking some CRT shots of the same scene, but the camera just isn't up the the task. I'll have to wait for the CHE-EZ to do the CRT justice.

For unbeatable contrast, I suggest you step it up a notch. :p

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w85/i_am_bud/Full-Tilt-Boogie.gif


Now that is pretty funny. lol.

MTyson,

I've owned an ECP and currently run a IN72. The increased brightness and sharpness are bonuses and the lack of deep blacks and slight rainbow effect are negatives.

All told, even with FFDshow (SeeSaw) running on the ECP w/ gamma correction, the IN72 is my prefered device.

If I could get into a 8 or 9-inch CRT, that opinion would likely change however.

BTW, I like your idea for a hybrid.

I've been reading this thread off and on and I have an observation.

IMHO, looking at that EYESORE of light around your picture is far more distracting than the slight perceived PQ gains you are getting in the projected image area.

It looks horrid.

I've been reading this thread off and on and I have an observation.

IMHO, looking at that EYESORE of light around your picture is far more distracting than the slight perceived PQ gains you are getting in the projected image area.

It looks horrid.


Well, that's your opinion and I respect it. However, I don't share it and neither does anyone else who has seen it. I actually much prefer it in person than I do in photos, to be honest. I don't think a photo seems to capture the feel of watching an image with it on at all.

BTW, do you think going from a 2,000+:1 projectro to the look of a 25,000+:1 DLP with 4+ times the brightness is a "slight" percieved gain? Hardly.

Well, that's your opinion and I respect it. However, I don't share it and neither does anyone else who has seen it. I actually much prefer it in person than I do in photos, to be honest. I don't think a photo seems to capture the feel of watching an image with it on at all.

BTW, do you think going from a 2,000+:1 projectro to the look of a 25,000+:1 DLP with 4+ times the brightness is a "slight" percieved gain? Hardly.

Obviosuly changing projectors affects the "absolute" gain.

What I was commenting on for any given projector, is the difference your chain of lights makes whether they are on or off.

As I said, any gain you perceive inside the borders, to me, would be offset by the distraction of the border itself.

Dammit man...At least string the lights so they don't droop. :)

Mike

I wasn't talking about changing projectors. I was describing the effect of having them on vs. off. It's like going from a 2,000+:1 DLP to a 25,000+:1 DLP and on the screen it's at least 4x brighter than 1.0 gain. I don't know how bright my DT-500 is, but my IN76 is 800 calibrated lumens and so miy screen would make it at least 3,200 lumens (maybe as high as 8000ansi lumens if the gain is as high as one said it could be) and the blacks are darker than on a gray screen. I'd be willing to bet that the absolute black of my DT-500 with the rope light on is at least as dark as the RS1's blacks, except with a much higher white level. With my new clear rope light I should see another improvement.

My brain has the amazing ability of adaptation. Once I'm watching something the lights seem to disappear as I get lost in whatever I'm watching and the lights seem to give the image a 3D like afect (dont' forget tha ANSI is also improved to the eyes as well). Also, it's oddly soothing like another poster said. It seems different in person than in the photos. The photos don't capture the feel that well and it also blows out the lights.

So, to each his own.

Dammit man...At least string the lights so they don't droop. :)

Mike


I want too. I wasn't given enough clips. I'm gonna work on that though. :D

It's like going from a 2,000+:1 DLP to a 25,000+:1 DLP.
Bias lighting does not increase a pjs CR. Your 2,300:1 DT-500 will still be 2,300:1, sorry :(

Bias lighting does not increase a pjs CR. Your 2,300:1 DT-500 will still be 2,300:1, sorry :(

Yeah, the actual CR thrown by the PJ does not change, OP is playing with his own eyes' iris by making the border around the image brighter which will give a perceived CR gain.

Just out of curiosity, if there is as much of a perceived gain as you say, why don't they do this in actual theatres?

Bias lighting does not increase a pjs CR. Your 2,300:1 DT-500 will still be 2,300:1, sorry :(

I don't think you fully understand. It doesn't change the actual measured contrast ratio of the projector. However, that doesn't matter one bit. The only thing that matters IS perception. Period. Also, the kinda of bias lighting used by 99.9% of people isn't 1/50th as good with giving a percieved change as my setup. Trust me. I've seen the difference between their type and mine. It's not even close.

Fact: LCD projectors with a dynamic iris measure higher in on/off contrast ratio because they dim the absolute black enough to increase that on/off contrast ratio.

Fact: The human eyes have their own dynamic irises that is constantly adjusting along with changing images.

Fact: A light around my torus makes it to where less light from a fade to black can be seen, hence a much darker absolute black.

Fact: A darker absolute black combined with a brighter white = Better contrast to the human eyes. I don't think you can even measure the contrast because the rope light is on. All you have to go on is the improvement your eyes see and that's what matters.

Fact: Unlike LCD projectors with dynamic irises my backlight makes all blacks permanently darker to the eyes than without it on.

Fact: ANSI contrast is increased to the eyes as well, even with CRT.

Fact: My backlight almost completely gets rid of haloing/ansi washout. I can bring up the bright white zoom player menu on a solid black background and the black background still looke pretty black instead of it lighting up the black background a ton. I like this effect.

Yeah, the actual CR thrown by the PJ does not change, OP is playing with his own eyes' iris by making the border around the image brighter which will give a perceived CR gain.

Just out of curiosity, if there is as much of a perceived gain as you say, why don't they do this in actual theatres?

Maybe because no one but CRT fans care one tiny little bit about black levels. Just a thought. :p I know I don't know anyone else who cares one bit about the black level differences between my old 4805 and CRT. Also, maybe it has never been thought of. Everyone else hides their backlight behind the screen. As far as I know I'm the first to do it this way and even if anyone esle trried it with front projection they almost certainly failed because you need a special screen to do it unless you have dark walls.

Perception is really all that matters. It's a VERY real change. I mean if you come inside from out in the sun and the room appears WAY darker than it should is that not REAL to you? Or does it only matter what the numbers say? lol.

Fact: LCD projectors with a dynamic iris measure higher in on/off contrast ratio because they dim the absolute black enough to increase that on/off contrast ratio..
Fact: they also have to at the same time dynamically boost the video levels (dynamic gamma), of bright objects to compensate for the overall darkening of the image. Without the application of dynamic gamma, everything would just get darker, and DIs would be useless.

B-lighting masks shadow detail and compresses our ability to perceive (or even realise) true dynamic range.

Those who say only crt's advantage is black level are mostly DLP (which has the lowest blk) owners who also believe blacklevel is over rated..duh. But they jump all over a new device with better black once it hits the market every year.

Fact: they also have to at the same time dynamically boost the video levels (dynamic gamma), of bright objects to compensate for the overall darkening of the image. Without the application of dynamic gamma, everything would just get darker, and DIs would be useless.



Tis true I suppose. :D However, with backlighting I don't percieve any overall darkening of the image. The human brain is much more complex and adaptable than a toy. I only see better contrast from the improved blacks. Everything else looks great.

B-lighting masks shadow detail and compresses our ability to perceive (or even realise) true dynamic range.

Those who say only crt's advantage is black level are mostly DLP (which has the lowest blk) owners who also believe blacklevel is over rated..duh. But they jump all over a new device with better black once it hits the market every year.

I have no trouble seeing dark detail. I don't think even I have enough back lighting to mask dark detail. I don't think that can really happen until I make fade to black from my DT-500 look true black. Then I might be more at risk, but if that happens I'll step up the brightness a tad to bring out the low level detail (if low level detail hits the look of true black too, which I doubt is going to happen until I put up qutie a bit more ligiht).

I posted these in another thread, but here are some screenshots with my new $15.00 camera of my ECP 4500+. The cam the best it could and it's so hard to tell if you really have the screen lined up. Most of the time when you are sure you do you actually do not. :D

BTW, you'll want to make sure you're monitor is gamma corrected for dark detail if you're on a CRT. I have one monitor that doesn't much adjustment in that area while I have another that badly crushes dark detail making photos look too dark and saturated. Maybe it's just old. Who knows, but it's the one I'm using. :p

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/3082/riddick2hv5.jpg

http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/3497/pitchblackqg3.jpg

http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/7377/pitchblack2yk4.jpg

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/2581/smallville2011rf2.jpg

So, again, why don't they do this in theatres?

So, again, why don't they do this in theatres?


Well, like I said.

1: No one but nitpickers cares about black levels and they find the cinema's to be more than good enough. Most aren't even aware of "black level"; they just watch the image.

2: They probably haven't ever thought of it before. Even if they did why would they do it when average people couldn't care less?

I only thought of it because one day when watching King Kong I took zoom player pro off of full screen mode and the bright border around the image cause the black bars too look jet black and the blacks in dark scenes suddenly looked much richer and deeper. So, I thought I'd try a light around the screen to get the same effect but without having to do it inside the projector where it would affect the image more. So, it came to me purely by accident.

I alread knew about bias lighting, but if I had seen that I wouldn't have done what I'm doing, because the type most people use doesn't have as much of an effect.

these simple examples are always shades of gray. What happens when you add a million colors
Check the links in the first post of this thread: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=849430 .

That same thread demonstrates the problem with using the wrong color of backlighting, or backlighting that is reflecting off of a non-neutral wall surface. The point has been made that our human visual system is adaptable and the suggestion offered that using the wrong colors in a display environment wouldn't matter over time. This logic is faulty. Getting used to skewed perception undermines the integrity of the art. Professional monitor environments use D65 ambient lighting and neutral surfaces surrounding the display for very good reasons. Viewing environment conditions are critical to overall display system performance.

Not noticing that a thing is wrong doesn't make it right. Being conditioned to accept error doesn't inform us of what's accurate. Effectively masking the subtleties of image composition by distorting the viewer's color perception would offend any cinematographer.

Image fidelity is an objective insufficiently understood or valued in the home theater community at large. Faithful reproduction of cinematic art is always compromised when the principles of imaging science, display industry standards and human visual characteristics are not understood or taken seriously.

Best regards and beautiful pictures,
G. Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"

B-lighting masks shadow detail and compresses our ability to perceive (or even realise) true dynamic range.

These assertions may have some validity in circumstances where backlighting shouldn't be used. However, when it should be used, neither of these claims is true. The deciding factors are: conflicting illumination originating from elsewhere in the viewing environment, screen size/viewing distance, and peak screen luminance.

So, again, why don't they do this in theatres?
Overall peak screen luminance is way too low to begin with. By 'too low' I mean too low to warrant the use of bias lighting or backlighting. In a dark adapted state, film exhibition screen brightness standards are sufficient for satisfactory perception of blacks, shadow detail, color saturation and contrast. Typical commercial cinemas don't offer the image quality that pro screening rooms do. Introducing any additional light into the cinema viewing environment would not be helpful. We are forced to tolerate illuminated exit signs already.

2: They probably haven't ever thought of it before.
"They" would be the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE), which is the organization resonsible for determining international standards and practices for the film and video industries. They are fully aware of human perceptual factors as they relate to proper motion imaging in film exhibition. You won't be seeing backlighting used in digital cinema either.

I think that this falls into the category of "if you like it, do it" but don't expect others to follow suit.

Well put!