CEDIA 2009: My take - Page 6 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #151 of 196 Old 09-14-2009, 09:41 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,165
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by umr View Post

Joe Kane's demo was interesting, but many of his arguements are generic to 1.0 gain or less screens. I obtained a sample and will test his claims versus my Cinema White Carada.

I look forward to your results. It would be interesting to see how it compares to the Brilliant White from Carada as I think the gains would be close and the color balance of the BW may be better than the CW from what I've read.

When I heard that the JKP material was .9 gain and some of the arguments for it I wondered if was just a flat material like a matte white as far as where it sent the light, except with the .9 gain layer. I didn't think that sounded very special. But when I saw it I could see a slight hotspotting when I sat to the right more like the Studiotek 130 and although this might seem weird to some, I considered that a positive. That is, that it brought something to the table other than just being 10% dimmer than a matte white screen. I haven't measured the different angles, but a screen with the directionality of the Studiotek 130 but a .7 gain layer for a .9 gain rating instead of 1.3 and combines that with looking fairly smooth compared to the Grayhawk RS brings something to the table. Any screen with directionality can be downgraded compared to a matte white screen in any review just for the directionality, but that directionality is bringing something positive to the table for certain setups. It is basically ANSI CR retention in real rooms and added ability to reject off-axis lighting compared to what happens with the projected light (which gets a higher average gain when things are setup right).

I should say that since I haven't done measurements my eyes may have been fooling me (or the projector in use could have had some non-uniformity causing what I saw) and somebody will report that it is basically just a matte white screen with 10% less gain everywhere, but from looking at it I thought it had a slight gain that would make the center of the screen a little bit brighter than the corners for a center viewer relative to what a matte white screen does. Given that CRTs tended to have falloff toward the edges and digitals don't to the same degree, a screen with some falloff for a center viewer can take things to more like what CRTs tended to give. While that can be a negative, it could also help the darkest scenes appear darker as the difference between the edges of the image and the screen frame can be lower.

Screens are complicated and I think people need to take into account that when starting from a matte white base certain changes will make the screen better for certain setups, but worse for others. For instance, while I realize it was a simplification, I don't really agree with some that a perfect screen will send light uniformly everywhere. If nobody is sitting at far angles then the perfect screen IMO wouldn't send a bunch of light over there to hit the wall, come back to the screen and degrade the images for the actual viewers. To my eyes the JKP .9 gain screen looks like a reasonable screen for rooms with some reflections to fight and with a bright enough projector that .9 gain is reasonable.

--Darin

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
darinp2 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #152 of 196 Old 09-14-2009, 09:44 AM
Super Moderator
 
Bob Sorel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 8,454
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 106
Quote:


There was an individual on this forum who works in film who made the statement that not only did he think that the LCOS projectors looked more filmlike than dlp projectors but all 30 of his colleagues were in unanimous agreement that the JVC looked the most filmlike.

I think I know who you are talking about. What exactly does that person do in the film industry and with what company?
Bob Sorel is offline  
post #153 of 196 Old 09-14-2009, 10:09 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,895
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Sorel View Post

Yes! Exactly! I too am amused when I read posts describing something in their video chain as being "filmlike". If the component actually does what the poster says, then it is not doing its job correctly.

Unless the poster wants a "film-like" image. Or unless the component actually is allowing film like characteristics to "pass through" the chain in his system.

In mocking the term "film like" I think several issues are being mixed up:

1. The issue of accuracy to the source (how accurately are the components reproducing the video-signal source material, e.g. what's on the Blu Ray/DVD).

2. The issue of what "film" actually looks like. (Does film actually have a "look" that one can generalize about).

3. And related to 2, whether the term "film like" has any use or not.

For me, "film like" is a useful term. It's a generalization so of course it's not going to capture all the nuances and exceptions, but that's the nature of generalizations.

But to me, someone who works in film, "film like" certainly captures the essence of what I see on my JVC RS20 vs some other projectors, and certainly vs HD-Camera feeds, flat panels with frame interpolation settings etc.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Sorel View Post

The best displays are analogous to the best audio preamps - "a straight wire with gain" so to speak, and simply recreate what has been set to media as faithfully and accurately as possible. Sometimes it will look "filmlike" and sometimes it won't, depending on how and what was transferred to disc, but the display itself should NOT make the source look any more "filmlike" than what was accomplished during the transfer process.

Well, in theory, yes I agree that's the goal. But I think the analogy to audio
is a good one, and I often use it myself.

The ideal often touted is the straightwire with gain, as you say. But it depends on the goal of the listener. Some audiophiles worship the idea of hearing the source as accurately as possible, in all it's glory (in a good recording) or all it's defects (in a poorer recording). Others worship the idea of their system re-creating the sensation of live music. These two goals, accuracy and the illusion of live music are not the same, given a great many recordings, even of acoustic instruments, are not of great enough quality to
produce the feel of live musicians.

There are many ways to express this, but one example: I can take recordings made through the mixer board of my band playing live. The through-the-mixer sound is what is captured on the recordings I have. But the mixer sound is always going to be different than the live sound, especially in terms of it's balance, because of course all the acoustics in the venue - eqs have been adjusted to make the sound as correct and balanced (or what is being aimed for) in a fight against the acoustics coming heard in the venue.

When I play the mixer-track it often sounds like crap, in terms of it's balance.
If I re-eq it via an equalizer I can gain a much better approximation of what we actually sounded like. But to be more faithful to our actual sound, I've had to alter the signal of the source.

A similar issue arises for why some of us enjoy certain tube amplification. I love the experience of live acoustic music and would love to be able to reproduce the richness, organic quality, timbrel character and "ease" I get with live voices and instruments. Unfortunately most recordings, even ones that attempt to capture those elements, tend to fail (as do most sound systems). For me and some others, certain tube amplification produce the signal with some pleasing distortions that, while not quite as accurate to the source signal as could be, nonetheless move the sound a bit in the direction of the qualities I hear in live organic music. (For now, leaving out various caveats - subjectivity plays a role in this so not everyone will agree).

Similarly, in home video, one of the reasons I wasn't impressed with projection for quite a while was that I was so used to seeing good film. Whenever I saw DVDs blown up on a consumer projector it always struck me as looking like blown up video images. It lost that film-like look that I enjoy in movies. But some projectors did produce those images in a way that reminded me more of film...whether it was a characteristic of the projector or not, it could make the experience more "accurate" to the qualities I was used to seeing in film (if certainly not up to the same level).

I find that persists even in the latest projectors and displays, although Blu Ray makes it possible for a more film-like reproduction than DVD.

So, I think we have to consider various elements before assaulting the use of the term "film-like" whenever someone whips it out in describing an image. Even if it's poorly used here and there, I still find it a useful concept.

Cheers,
R Harkness is online now  
post #154 of 196 Old 09-14-2009, 10:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coldmachine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Waiting in the weeds
Posts: 5,807
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Which is...?

I've seen various numbers so I'm curious what projected film contrast ratio measurements you are familiar with. Thanks.

Rich, sounds like you are fishing Have a guess.

Don't forget that the film is actually a physical part of the optical path, so has a bearing, and is borne upon, by the PJs CR. This is not the case with digital PJs.

--------------------------------------------
"Wow, do you think you are Adonis"...... "Baby, I'm not A-donis, I'm THE-donis"
coldmachine is offline  
post #155 of 196 Old 09-14-2009, 10:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Ericglo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Just below the US in South Florida
Posts: 6,140
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

I agree that the 4K demo was beautiful! However I also agree with a post above that it's hard to see that the 1080p material that was up-converted to 4K really looked nicer than what the RS25/RS35 produces. I doubt that there is any real motivation for 4K in typical home theaters. For commercial theaters, or truly large HT's, it may have a role (provided, of course, that 4K source material becomes more widely available).

That was me who said that. I would like to compare the two with bluray, but I think the higher contrast of the 25/35 would swing the advantage that way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark A Gonzalez View Post

"Yuck up-conversion.... Why on earth would we want to up-convert 1080P??? Boring IMO. Can we not focus on something other than resolution????"

Have you ever seen the difference between a 480I image on a 7" CRT projector and a scaled 480I image coverted to 960P on a 9" CRT projector? Same concept, the difference is night and day. Remember the larger the image the more noticeable the resolution is. 1080p to 2160p on a 42" screen is not going to be noticeable however on a 200" screen it will make a huge difference.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveMo View Post

Not exactly..... I see you follow well.. The way I got DVD (480P) to look more sharp on my 2.0 (debated) very gain DIY screen was to up-covert to 920P which to me looked more film -like but this resulted in more visible screen texture that I had done custom.... Big difference there. When I upgraded to to High power pretty much all my opinion on screens was thrown out the window... I have a room where a 300" screen is possible..... I think that for a difference we must depend on those that are reliable.


I see you deleted the original post. I agree about upconverting 1080p at this time for most, but for large screens this might be a good option. I believe this screen was around 20 feet wide. I know Sencore mentioned that they have been doing some things with JVC, so maybe Jim and Lumagen come out with a new VP sometime in the next couple of years that does something special.

WHile I would agree about not focusing on resolution, I was impressed by the demo. I am guessing you are considering me unreliable, but I have heard from others who most would consider very reliable who thought it was very good.

My new favorite game is Save The Titanic

Ericglo is offline  
post #156 of 196 Old 09-14-2009, 10:52 AM
Advanced Member
 
dbbarron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: MA
Posts: 984
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Can anyone provide an objective description of film used for projection (master print quality) with respect to the various specifications we use for digital projectors?

Contrast (full on/Off)
ANSI Contrast
Color Gammut
etc.

(Of course, the one clear differentiator is the lack of any definitive inter pixel spacing, unless it was rendered as such on the film by a digital print device)
dbbarron is offline  
post #157 of 196 Old 09-14-2009, 11:00 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coldmachine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Waiting in the weeds
Posts: 5,807
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbbarron View Post

Can anyone provide an objective description of film used for projection (master print quality) with respect to the various specifications we use for digital projectors?

Contrast (full on/Off)
ANSI Contrast
Color Gammut
etc.

(Of course, the one clear differentiator is the lack of any definitive inter pixel spacing, unless it was rendered as such on the film by a digital print device)


The numbers for film are almost meaningless when taken in isolation, and are totally different to those projected, as the film is actually part of the optical path.

Film is useless without a projector. Is it those numbers you are after?

--------------------------------------------
"Wow, do you think you are Adonis"...... "Baby, I'm not A-donis, I'm THE-donis"
coldmachine is offline  
post #158 of 196 Old 09-14-2009, 11:12 AM
Advanced Member
 
dbbarron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: MA
Posts: 984
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Would not the basic film define the maximum possible dynamic range?

Please see

http://motion.kodak.com/US/en/motion...T/tech5219.htm

Maximum Density approaches 3 which I believe is a maximum dynamic range of 1000:1 (10 stops - like regular negative film, now surpassed by digital sensors)
dbbarron is offline  
post #159 of 196 Old 09-14-2009, 11:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my home theater ( when I'm not rock climbing, cycling or kayaking ) - Sacramento CA area
Posts: 4,747
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 195
Quote:


Quote:


Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill
I agree that the 4K demo was beautiful! However I also agree with a post above that it's hard to see that the 1080p material that was up-converted to 4K really looked nicer than what the RS25/RS35 produces. I doubt that there is any real motivation for 4K in typical home theaters. For commercial theaters, or truly large HT's, it may have a role (provided, of course, that 4K source material becomes more widely available).

That was me who said that. I would like to compare the two with bluray, but I think the higher contrast of the 25/35 would swing the advantage that way.

The JVC RS 4000 would be the type of projector one would use for a screen much larger than an RS25 could possible light up. The lack of any pixel structure on that huge screen with my nose right up to the screen sure was amazing. While the RS 25 / 35 has much higher contrast, it couldn't light up a 20' wide screen.

Then again, most of us don't have a theater big enough for a 20' wide screen!!

Craig Peer, AV Science Sales. Direct Line - 585-671-2972
I'm available 8:30am - 4:30pm PST, Monday - Friday Email me at craig@avscience.com
http://shop.avscience.com/
Yes, we sell Home Theater gear right here at AVS !!
JVC, Sony, Epson, DPI, SV Sound, Martin Logan, RBH, Klipsch, and many more!
Craig Peer is online now  
post #160 of 196 Old 09-14-2009, 11:43 AM
Advanced Member
 
dbbarron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: MA
Posts: 984
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The print film seems better (but limited by original source).

5+ stops or say 100,000:1. Today's projectors are close....

http://motion.kodak.com/US/en/motion...3/tech2393.htm

This would seem like the absolute best Kodak has to offer; other print films are not nearly as good (assuming we don't get this in regular cinemas).

Thus, it would seem that on an on/off basis, mid priced digital now exceeds print film for contrast.
dbbarron is offline  
post #161 of 196 Old 09-14-2009, 11:54 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,895
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldmachine View Post

Rich, sounds like you are fishing Have a guess.

I'm not looking to dispute any numbers. My film school/film shooting days are long behind me since I'm in sound post production these days (although my work allows me to see film and video projected in top notch professional facilities). So I don't think my guess will be worth a lot, which is why I'm interested whenever someone has real numbers on hand. You often post good info so I'm wondering what kind of measurements you are familiar with.

As I'm sure you know there have been these film vs video discussions pretty often on AVS.

HoustonHoyaFan had this to say in one (older) thread:

"The measurements I have seen of ideally setup 35mm projectors are ~2,000:1 on/off CR, and ~500:1 ANSI CR."

How does that stack up to your numbers?

BTW, as to "film-like," personally I'm not defending the JVC projector as being the most accurate or film like projector you can get. I'm happy to acknowledge there are most likely other projectors that are more accurate in reproducing the look of film, for instance ones you may own.

The main notion I'm defending is that "film like" does have some use in getting across the look of an image (be it accurately reproducing the source or not). For instance, part of the look of (most) film is it's particular sampling rate: 24fps. (with an average shutter angle) yields the particular motion capture properties - the blur - that gives most film one of it's distinctive looks. (Showscan etc. notwithstanding).

We can see what happens when we mess with this via the frame interpolation software on many flat panels and some projectors.
Once you artificially clear up that characteristic film blur most film/av enthusiasts note that it no longer looks like film so much as live HD video.

It no longer looks "film like" but more "video like." I think this is just one instance where the descriptor "film like" is valid and useful. But I get the (perhaps wrong) impression some would like to do away with that description altogether.
R Harkness is online now  
post #162 of 196 Old 09-14-2009, 11:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
lovingdvd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,818
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Can we please get back on topic of discussing impressions from CEDIA in this thread? Thanks.
lovingdvd is offline  
post #163 of 196 Old 09-14-2009, 12:02 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 19,276
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 307
CM as usual has only 50% hit it on his head. Film is NOT useless without a projector. If CM were to wave his magic weanie in the air (something probably no one would even notice) and make all film projectors vanish, film would not become useless. It is a fragile storage medium. And indeed it can be used to make other media for displaying in one form or another the information stored on the film. In someways maybe even better than the original in other ways not as good. While it might not be intuitively obvious to the most casual of observers, film projectors are useless without film, not the other way around as so glibbly intoned by CM.

Mark Haflich
markhaflich@yahoo.com
call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is online now  
post #164 of 196 Old 09-14-2009, 12:13 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,895
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 256
Sorry, yeah, this thread would be better served if we stayed on the topic of CEDIA. I guess this is the kind of thumb-twiddling that happens when waiting for any new info.
R Harkness is online now  
post #165 of 196 Old 09-14-2009, 12:24 PM
 
SteveMo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: The Shop
Posts: 3,564
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ericglo View Post

WHile I would agree about not focusing on resolution, I was impressed by the demo. I am guessing you are considering me unreliable, but I have heard from others who most would consider very reliable who thought it was very good.

I deleted it because I thought it may be taken as a negative comment. What worries me is that when we up-convert something, there are things to consider other than simply source resolution in > source resolution out. It has been taken through a second process and whether or not it is benefiting or not will depend on factors. If the source is 4K I can see where this is making since but up-converting a 2K? Limiting factors such as source, screen, and the room will play a greater role in 4K than 2K. I just see other important things besides 4K but to those that benefit and can afford such things, my hat is off. My comment about being reliable was about screens.
SteveMo is offline  
post #166 of 196 Old 09-14-2009, 12:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coldmachine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Waiting in the weeds
Posts: 5,807
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

CM as usual has only 50% hit it on his head. Film is NOT useless without a projector. If CM were to wave his magic weanie in the air (something probably no one would even notice) and make all film projectors vanish, film would not become useless. It is a fragile storage medium. And indeed it can be used to make other media for displaying in one form or another the information stored on the film. In someways maybe even better than the original in other ways not as good. While it might not be intuitively obvious to the most casual of observers, film projectors are useless without film, not the other way around as so glibbly intoned by CM.

You knew exactly what I meant Mark, and you took me out of context. I was clearly explaining that the films numbers are not the display determinant, as its actually in the path.

Im detecting an increased, post op, belligerence. Nice to see.

--------------------------------------------
"Wow, do you think you are Adonis"...... "Baby, I'm not A-donis, I'm THE-donis"
coldmachine is offline  
post #167 of 196 Old 09-14-2009, 12:57 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 19,276
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 307
I am indeed feeling much better and appreciate your well wishes. Seriously. And of course I knew what you meant and of course I took you out of context.

Mark Haflich
markhaflich@yahoo.com
call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is online now  
post #168 of 196 Old 09-14-2009, 01:12 PM
Senior Member
 
Victor's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: North Potomac, MD, USA
Posts: 430
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustMike View Post

Victor,

First of all, nice meeting you at the show! I didn't make it to the AVS party.

I wonder, since you and I saw the Sony at the same time: did you feel that the blacks were crushed a bit on the Quantum of Solace trailer? Also, did you make it over to the JVC off-site demonstration suite at the Omni? I liked that environment, because I could sit and watch the same material for a prolonged period of time.

My sense was that dark scenes were better resolved on the JVC projectors (not crushed).

But, as you say, it's really difficult to compare when they were using different screens, different material, differently-treated rooms, and on and on. I just wish that Sony had chosen more representative demo material.

Nice meeting you too . Unfortunately, I spent very little time at the party myself - needed to catch a plane.
I wasn’t too excited about Quantum of Solace PQ watching it at home, definitely not my choice for evaluating projectors. I didn't pay a lot of attention to the crushed blacks. I never had issue with crushed blacks with my VW50, so I hope VW85 will not have fatal problem in this area too. I hope, even if there is problem with crushed blacks, it can be solved by adjusting gamma curve.
Major question for me was how close VW85 can be set to rec. 709, because it doesn’t have usable CMS.
I've seen demos at Omni. The big issue with that environment was that it wasn’t completely black, there was some light getting inside from hallway. I didn’t see big difference with “on-site” JVC demo: the demo was more extensive, but I still had feeling of some picture deficiency, may be it is due to the lower ANSI CR and weird colors.

Quote:


I just wish that Sony had chosen more representative demo material.

I think it was a problem with all JVC (except 4k) and Sony projectors demos.
Victor is offline  
post #169 of 196 Old 09-14-2009, 01:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coldmachine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Waiting in the weeds
Posts: 5,807
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

I'm not looking to dispute any numbers. My film school/film shooting days are long behind me since I'm in sound post production these days (although my work allows me to see film and video projected in top notch professional facilities). So I don't think my guess will be worth a lot, which is why I'm interested whenever someone has real numbers on hand. You often post good info so I'm wondering what kind of measurements you are familiar with.

As I'm sure you know there have been these film vs video discussions pretty often on AVS.

HoustonHoyaFan had this to say in one (older) thread:

"The measurements I have seen of ideally setup 35mm projectors are ~2,000:1 on/off CR, and ~500:1 ANSI CR."

How does that stack up to your numbers?

BTW, as to "film-like," personally I'm not defending the JVC projector as being the most accurate or film like projector you can get. I'm happy to acknowledge there are most likely other projectors that are more accurate in reproducing the look of film, for instance ones you may own.

The main notion I'm defending is that "film like" does have some use in getting across the look of an image (be it accurately reproducing the source or not). For instance, part of the look of (most) film is it's particular sampling rate: 24fps. (with an average shutter angle) yields the particular motion capture properties - the blur - that gives most film one of it's distinctive looks. (Showscan etc. notwithstanding).

We can see what happens when we mess with this via the frame interpolation software on many flat panels and some projectors.
Once you artificially clear up that characteristic film blur most film/av enthusiasts note that it no longer looks like film so much as live HD video.

It no longer looks "film like" but more "video like." I think this is just one instance where the descriptor "film like" is valid and useful. But I get the (perhaps wrong) impression some would like to do away with that description altogether.

I agree lets get back OT, but I'll just answer your points.

I wasn't looking to dispute numbers either, thence the

Your numbers are pretty much spot on. 2k for a well set up PJ and the ANSI is actually closer to 200, but will be nearer 100 if its a dupe. You'll never get that 2k at your local cinema

The highest ever genuine count is a CR of 3800 ( sometimes quoted as 4k) on a heavily modded Kinoton.

Im having my own measured soon, and will post when I do.

--------------------------------------------
"Wow, do you think you are Adonis"...... "Baby, I'm not A-donis, I'm THE-donis"
coldmachine is offline  
post #170 of 196 Old 09-14-2009, 02:18 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,895
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 256
R Harkness is online now  
post #171 of 196 Old 09-14-2009, 03:00 PM
Super Moderator
 
Bob Sorel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 8,454
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 106
Rich, thanks for the great read, but it really doesn't change anything. I never said that the term "film like" did not have any meaning or significance - just that it isn't a property that should be ascribed to a display device. FILM should be "film like"! If the source image is "film like" then the projector should display a "film like" image (whatever that means), but if the source image is "video like" then the projector should display a "video like" image, not a "film like" image. If the source image is "cartoon like" then the projector should display a "cartoon like" image, and so on. If the projector displays an image with properties that were not captured in the source material, then it is not doing its job correctly. Or at least that is what I want in my display device. If you want all of your images to be displayed as "film like", then that is a personal preference, much like my preference for accurate images.

Sorry to continue the OT discussion, but I never got to respond to Rich's counterpoint. I will stay back on topic from now on, and maybe even open a new thread for this discussion if it is of interest to enough people.
Bob Sorel is offline  
post #172 of 196 Old 09-14-2009, 03:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
HoustonHoyaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 3,963
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

...HoustonHoyaFan had this to say in one (older) thread:

"The measurements I have seen of ideally setup 35mm projectors are ~2,000:1 on/off CR, and ~500:1 ANSI CR."...

Wow that is a blast from the past. IIRC the measurements were from 2004/5 just after the first dCinema 2K DLPs were delivered.

35mm film has very different gamma characteristics than consumer video so not an apples to apples comparison as far as the impact of on/off CR.
HoustonHoyaFan is offline  
post #173 of 196 Old 09-14-2009, 06:11 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,895
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post

But when I saw it I could see a slight hotspotting when I sat to the right more like the Studiotek 130 and although this might seem weird to some, I considered that a positive. That is, that it brought something to the table other than just being 10% dimmer than a matte white screen. I haven't measured the different angles, but a screen with the directionality of the Studiotek 130 but a .7 gain layer for a .9 gain rating instead of 1.3 and combines that with looking fairly smooth compared to the Grayhawk RS brings something to the table. Any screen with directionality can be downgraded compared to a matte white screen in any review just for the directionality, but that directionality is bringing something positive to the table for certain setups. It is basically ANSI CR retention in real rooms and added ability to reject off-axis lighting compared to what happens with the projected light (which gets a higher average gain when things are setup right).


--Darin

It's interesting you wrote that as I was just thinking about exactly that last night. I've tried a few different screens in my room as I've gradually made my way to better and better light control, Da Lite High Power, Carada Brilliant White and now the Stewart ST-130 G3 material. With the ST-130 I was moving to a slightly brighter material than the Carada (the ST-130 has that gain coating). I was thinking "Oh boy, as if I didn't have enough to handle with the Carada material and trying to control light and hoping for decent black levels, now I have the Stewart which is going to raise these issues even more!" (But I wanted the extra gain).

But then I thought of just what you said: "But if the screen has added gain via an optical coating, won't that mean it's focusing the light a little more toward the projector, away from the perimeters?"

The Studiotek is known as a screen you have to use when you have very good light control, but I wonder if it's modest gain is enough to retain ANSI even slightly more than a neutral gain screen.
R Harkness is online now  
post #174 of 196 Old 09-14-2009, 06:47 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,165
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlang46 View Post

It both cases the transmission of the is modulated and not time multiplexed like it is in a DLP

I'm not sure if you've seen the 1000 fps videos I've posted from an RS20, but the RS series modulates the light a little different than previous models without a digital backplane. They are using PWM on these and with 24Hz material in each 1/24th of a second they do bright version, black, dark version, black 4 times. That is 16 segments total with 96Hz for a set that includes the bright, black, dark, black. I took some video of the 4k at CEDIA and could tell it was different although I just glanced at the video and haven't looked at it closely frame by frame. Later I was told that the 4k uses an analog backplane. I realize this isn't the same as DLP time splitting, but seems that some of that is going on with these RS JVCs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

The Studiotek is known as a screen you have to use when you have very good light control, but I wonder if it's modest gain is enough to retain ANSI even slightly more than a neutral gain screen.

For a center viewer and the center of the screen I think it is, but not so much to the edges of the screen in general (since the ST130 tends to have less gain out to the edges for most viewers unless the screen is curved). I'll make some simplifying assumptions, but will do an example for near the center of the screen.

Let's assume a projector of 500:1 modified ANSI CR (center 4 rectangles) with a room of basically uniform reflections that cause the m-ANSI CR off an ST100 or matte white screen to drop to 100:1. That is, if the center is 30 cd/m2 then the black rectangles in the center are .06 cd/m2 from the projector, another .24 cd/m2 from the room, and .30 cd/m2 total. Switch to an ST130 with average gain of 1.25 for those center 4 rectangles and now the white level from the projector goes to 37.5 cd/m2 and the black level from the projector .075 cd/m2. The amount of light bouncing around the room will still be the same and assuming some uniformity of reflections we'll assume the black level do to room reflections stays the same at .24 cd/m2. Add that to the .075 from the projector and we have .315 total. Dividing the white level by the black level we have 37.5/.315 = 119:1. So, with our assumptions, 100:1 for the center with the matte white and 119:1 with the ST130.

If the JKP has gain like an ST130 except for a .7 gain gray layer on top of that then for the same situation the white would be 37.5*.7 = 26.25 and the black from the projector 26.25/500 = .0525. For black from the room only 70% of the light bounces around the room as before and when it gets back to the screen the average gain for it is .7. So, .24*.7*.7 = .1176 for a total black level of .1701. Or 26.25/.1701 = 154:1 for m-ANSI CR off that screen with those assumptions. If I did my math right.

And I should mention that I simplified things above and only used the 1st set of reflections that come back. If I had used 2nd and beyond I believe it would have favored the JKP even more since that .7 average gain applies every time the light comes back to the screen.

--Darin

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
darinp2 is offline  
post #175 of 196 Old 09-14-2009, 08:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Vern Dias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Allen TX USA
Posts: 4,978
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


If the JKP has gain like an ST130 except for a .7 gain gray layer on top of that then for the same situation the white would be 37.5*.7 = 26.25 and the black from the projector 26.25/500 = .0525. For black from the room only 70% of the light bounces around the room as before and when it gets back to the screen the average gain for it is .7. So, .24*.7*.7 = .1176 for a total black level of .1701. Or 26.25/.1701 = 154:1 for m-ANSI CR off that screen with those assumptions. If I did my math right.

But the JKP screen doesn't have multiple layers. That's the whole point of his screen (and the SnoMat). A single layer of virgin vinyl. No fancy layers, no over-engineering, no attempts to compensate in the screen for a poor viewing environment, dim projector, etc...

As far as the comments several made earlier, the color shift issue is a screen problem, made worse by multiple screen layers, and has nothing to do with the projector.

And, Art, I have never used anything but a home made 1.0 gain flat white screen, just because I can't stand the color shift and hot spotting caused by most commercial screens.

Vern
Vern Dias is offline  
post #176 of 196 Old 09-14-2009, 08:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
TomHuffman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Springfield, MO
Posts: 6,357
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 204
I think that we need to put these claims about various screen materials in perspective.

I just measured the original Stewart StudioTek on axis and 30-degrees off-axis.

x y Y (fL) Axis
0.307 0.327 10.2 On
0.308 0.328 8.4 30° Off
-17.2%

There is NO color shift and the light output is only down just over 17%.

Tom Huffman
ChromaPure Software/AccuPel Video Signal Generators
ISF/THX Calibrations
Springfield, MO

TomHuffman is online now  
post #177 of 196 Old 09-14-2009, 09:34 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,165
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vern Dias View Post

But the JKP screen doesn't have multiple layers.

Whether it is actually in multiple physical layers or basically mixed together to give both directionality and an overall average gain of less than one really doesn't matter, the math still applies. The directionality and average gain can be considered multiple layers of the properties of the screen for the mathematics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vern Dias View Post

That's the whole point of his screen (and the SnoMat).

From what I've seen of it and the measurements I've seen on projectorcentral.com it isn't like the SnoMat. That is, it has directionality besides having an average gain of less than one. According to the projectorcentral.com measurements the half gain angle was a little higher than the Grayhawk and that definitely has directionality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vern Dias View Post

A single layer of virgin vinyl. No fancy layers, no over-engineering, no attempts to compensate in the screen for a poor viewing environment, dim projector, etc...

And where are you getting this about no attempts to compensate in the screen for a poor viewing environment? Is that from some marketing stuff? What do you think the directionality compared to the SnoMat is for? The people who designed it might not realize what it is for, but it doesn't change what properties it brings to the table and compensating for a poor viewing environment is one thing directionality brings. Otherwise, why get this screen over the Carada Brilliant White? Because of the ~.1 gain drop? That would be a pretty poor reason to spend a bunch of extra money on the JKP material. But gain close to the ST130 for the directional part and .7 average gain overall would be a valid reason to buy this over a Carada Brilliant White if a person would benefit from those characteristics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vern Dias View Post

And, Art, I have never used anything but a home made 1.0 gain flat white screen, just because I can't stand the color shift and hot spotting caused by most commercial screens.

Have you actually tried a JKP screen and found the uniformity to be the same as a 1.0 gain flat white screen?

--Darin

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
darinp2 is offline  
post #178 of 196 Old 09-15-2009, 04:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Lawguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 5,705
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomHuffman View Post

I think that we need to put these claims about various screen materials in perspective.

I just measured the original Stewart StudioTek on axis and 30-degrees off-axis.

x y Y (fL) Axis
0.307 0.327 10.2 On
0.308 0.328 8.4 30° Off
-17.2%

There is NO color shift and the light output is only down just over 17%.

Stop trying to combat marketing myths with facts.

Affable Nitwit
Lawguy is offline  
post #179 of 196 Old 09-15-2009, 04:46 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 19,276
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 307
Vern.You sound like you have been brain washed using verbiage such as over engineered, virgin vinyl, fancy layers. Come on.

First. The JKP screen is highly engineered as it should be just like any other screen.

The screen was designed for use with JKPs Samsung SP-A800B, SP-A900B projectors which do not excell in the black ref value area. JKP designed a negative gain screen (.9)to have the screen improve the projectors performance in that area for small screen sizes (say no larger than 54 x 96 or so). For a larger screen size with the Samsung, the black ref value according to Joe is low enough not to need a negative gain screen. The problem is that given that the screen doesn`t employ coatings and a new screen material having the texture and gain uniformity aspects of the JKP would have to be and is under development. So like any screen material, the projector, screen size, and room conditions come into play in deciding what the optimum screen material might be. Optimum? Anything is a bunch of compromises.

The .9 was chosen to improve the blacks with the Samsungs. Nothing more, nothing less. Of course .9 does have some benefits re room and some negatives as well. Its all a freeking compromise. Now reportedly, the JKP has some gain uniformity issues. See WSR review article. Plus I have data indicating the same issue. But who knows if this issue has been cured in later production. JK doesn`t talk about this at all saying at most the screen material he designed and approved doesn`t have this problem. JK also sings about the surface uniformity (smoothness of the material). Others here poobah this. All I can tell you that Studeotec 130G3 doesn`t hold a candle in its ability to cleanly delineate a single on\\off pixel pattern compared to Snomatte 100 and JKP Affinity. Surface texture is important for a variet of reasons (i.e.,bleed, focus).

Needless to say, these two materials are not for everybody. Snomatte is probably contra indicated for most rooms. One needs a black black non reflective pit and a projector that needs no gain assistance by the screen.The JKP Affinity BECAUSE OF ITS NEGATIVE GAIN will actually work better in most rooms. If it in fact has gain uniformity problems at well with higher gain in the center, this will help it work better in most rooms.But remember its no light cannon and one needs a bright projector.

Mark Haflich
markhaflich@yahoo.com
call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is online now  
post #180 of 196 Old 09-15-2009, 06:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Vern Dias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Allen TX USA
Posts: 4,978
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Any of the naysayers here could have gone to the Samsung booth and expeienced this projector / screen for themselves. I spent 2 hours there on Friday.

I know there are no gain uniformity issues with the .9 JKP screen. How do I know that? Well, I saw it with my own two eyes. In combination with the JKP Samsung progector, this screen delivers the most uniform white field I have ever seen. This includes both video and film.

I also know there are no detectable off axis color shifts. How? Because I walked the room, corner to corner, front to back, and couldn't see any on any of the program or test patterns.

This is a rare experience for me.... Any hot spotting, color shifts, or sparklies are very annoying to me and one of the reasons I wouldn't (and don't) have anything but a 1.0 gain flat white screen in my HT.

As I stated in a earlier post, it should be obvious this screen is not for everyone. It does require a specially prepared viewing environment that excludes ambient light and external reflections and a projector that can deliver sufficient lumens.

Would I use the Samsung or any other single chip DLP? No, because I can't tolerate the RBE.

For those willing to make the investment, the returns are well worth it....

Vern
Vern Dias is offline  
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off