Official JVC RS25/HD950 Owners Thread! - Page 19 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #541 of 1011 Old 05-17-2010, 06:16 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
rdjam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 9,736
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post

They should have letterboxed it for a 4:3 screen while you're at it. THEN you get black bars top, bottom, left and right when you display it on your 16:9 screen.

Huh? All kidding aside, if you prefer to watch it at 16x9 with all the action on the sides permanently cropped off, then fine.

Many many Bluray and HD DVD movies have already been released in the Original Aspect Ratio, with letterboxing.

On a big hit that has been eagerly anticipated, it is very disappointing to me that that so much of the orginal screen content has been chopped off permanently - especially when I bought a 2.40 aspect ratio screen to show these in their original cinema format.
rdjam is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #542 of 1011 Old 05-17-2010, 09:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
erkq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,519
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdjam View Post

Huh? All kidding aside, if you prefer to watch it at 16x9 with all the action on the sides permanently cropped off, then fine.

I DON'T prefer that! I prefer that all the action top and bottom not be cropped off. Avatar was created in 16:9.
erkq is offline  
post #543 of 1011 Old 05-17-2010, 01:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
techman707's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Florida & New York
Posts: 9,348
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post

Avatar was created in 16:9.

What do you mean by "created" in 16:9? The only thing created in 16:9 is the Blu-ray of Avatar.

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -Ghandi
techman707 is offline  
post #544 of 1011 Old 05-17-2010, 01:57 PM
Member
 
Icaro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Italy
Posts: 164
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Avatar was created and shot in 16:9
1.78 : 1

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0499549/

Sorry for my bad English
Icaro is offline  
post #545 of 1011 Old 05-17-2010, 02:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
erkq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,519
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by techman707 View Post

What do you mean by "created" in 16:9? The only thing created in 16:9 is the Blu-ray of Avatar.

Simply declaring it doesn't make it so.
erkq is offline  
post #546 of 1011 Old 05-17-2010, 03:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
techman707's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Florida & New York
Posts: 9,348
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post

Simply declaring it doesn't make it so.

Printed film format
35 mm (anamorphic) (Kodak Vision 2383)
70 mm (horizontal) (Kodak Vision 2383) (IMAX DMR blow-up) (dual-strip 3-D)
70 mm (horizontal) (Kodak Vision 2383) (dual-strip 3-D)
D-Cinema (3-D version)


Aspect ratio
1.78 : 1 (IMAX 3-D version) (2K 3-D version: constant image width venues)
2.35 : 1 (2-D version) (2K 3-D version: constant image height venues)


DCI spec calls for it to be run at 1.85:1

I'm, not aware of any theatre that's running 1.78, including Imax. Many times films are shot 1.37 or 1.66, but that doesn't mean they're projected at those AR's.

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -Ghandi
techman707 is offline  
post #547 of 1011 Old 05-17-2010, 03:35 PM
 
LilGator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdjam View Post

Huh? All kidding aside, if you prefer to watch it at 16x9 with all the action on the sides permanently cropped off, then fine.

Many many Bluray and HD DVD movies have already been released in the Original Aspect Ratio, with letterboxing.

On a big hit that has been eagerly anticipated, it is very disappointing to me that that so much of the orginal screen content has been chopped off permanently - especially when I bought a 2.40 aspect ratio screen to show these in their original cinema format.

I'm not entirely sure what you're ranting about, but here's the facts:
  • Avatar was shot in 16:9.
  • The 16:9 presentation on Blu-ray is everything that was shot/created. Nothing was left out.
  • The 2.39 theatrical presentation of Avatar was produced by cropping the top and bottom of the film out.
  • 16:9 is the OAR for Avatar.

It would have been dissapointing if they only released a 2.40 cut of Avatar, leaving 25% of the content chopped off permanently.

Get your facts straight before you flip out, and you won't end up looking like a fool.

Techman, I believe DCI may have done presentations at 1.85 (shown below). However, 15/70 IMAX theaters are ~1.44:1, so there would be no reason for them to project anything other than the full height 1.78 frame. The new digital "fake" IMAX theaters I'm not sure about, as they are a 1.9:1 AR and it could have been a cropped presentation to fill the screen, but I would think again, they would just project the full 1.78 frame.

LilGator is offline  
post #548 of 1011 Old 05-17-2010, 03:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
erkq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,519
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

Get your facts straight before you flip out, and you won't end up looking like a fool.

Now, now... names not nice...
erkq is offline  
post #549 of 1011 Old 05-17-2010, 03:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
erkq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,519
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

I'm not entirely sure what you're ranting about, but here's the facts:
  • Avatar was shot in 16:9.
  • The 16:9 presentation on Blu-ray is everything that was shot/created. Nothing was left out.
  • The 2.39 theatrical presentation of Avatar was produced by cropping the top and bottom of the film out.
  • 16:9 is the OAR for Avatar.

It would have been dissapointing if they only released a 2.40 cut of Avatar, leaving 25% of the content chopped off permanently.

Get your facts straight before you flip out, and you won't end up looking like a fool.

I don't see Techman707's post necessarily contradicting this. As far as I've been able to gather, it seems LilGator is correct.
erkq is offline  
post #550 of 1011 Old 05-17-2010, 03:47 PM
 
LilGator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post

Now, now... names not nice...

Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post

I don't see Techman707's post necessarily contradicting this. As far as I've been able to gather, it seems LilGator is correct.

Sorry, I edited my post to reply to Techman.

That comment was in reply to rdjam, as his rant was quite foolish and ignorant, so I'm calling it what it is.
LilGator is offline  
post #551 of 1011 Old 05-17-2010, 03:53 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
rdjam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 9,736
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icaro View Post

Avatar was created and shot in 16:9
1.78 : 1

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0499549/

Ooops - Avatar was a bad example I guess - although it wasnt shot in 16 x 9, it was pretty darn close (1.85)

It's amazing that I never even noticed it wasnt 2.40 in the theater when I watched it in RealD 3D.

According to this article, he shot the film in 1.85 to 1, then released the 3D version as 1.78 to 1 (16 x 9)

http://www.firstshowing.net/2009/05/...ze-everywhere/

Well, I guess Avatar was a bad example, but some key new Bluray movies appear to be coming out as 16 x 9 instead of OAR. Saving Private Ryan was also shot in 1.85 to 1 but ended up on Bluray as 16 x 9. For the sake of a tiny black space top and bottom, it would still have been nice to see the OAR.
rdjam is offline  
post #552 of 1011 Old 05-17-2010, 03:57 PM
 
LilGator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdjam View Post

Ooops - Avatar was a bad example I guess - although it wasnt shot in 16 x 9, it was pretty darn close (1.85)

It's amazing that I never even noticed it wasnt 2.40 in the theater when I watched it in RealD 3D.

According to this article, he shot the film in 1.85 to 1, then released the 3D version as 1.78 to 1 (16 x 9)

http://www.firstshowing.net/2009/05/...ze-everywhere/

Well, I guess Avatar was a bad example, but some key new Bluray movies appear to be coming out as 16 x 9 instead of OAR. Saving Private Ryan was also shot in 1.85 to 1 but ended up on Bluray as 16 x 9.

rdjam, again, it was shot in 1.78, and as you would expect it was provided to us as 1.78 on the Blu-ray disc!

You seem to be having trouble with this concept. Saving Private Ryan is 1.85 OAR. Strangely, they gave us ... yup, 1.85 on the Blu-ray:

LilGator is offline  
post #553 of 1011 Old 05-17-2010, 04:06 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
rdjam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 9,736
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

Sorry, I edited my post to reply to Techman.

That comment was in reply to rdjam, as his rant was quite foolish and ignorant, so I'm calling it what it is.

Actually, my comment on OAR wasn't so much a rant as an observation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdjam View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by techman707 View Post

HoweverIf I could wish for something, I would like to see them make anamorphic 2.35 Blu-ray discs.

Heh - I'm with you there. I STILL cant believe that they released Avatar as 16x9... sheesh. They could have at least letterboxed it!

Avatar is probably a bad example, as 1.85 is very close to 16 x 9. In fact, for the same reason Saving Private Ryan is possibly not the best example either.

But I'll stand by my conviction that OAR is the best presentation for Bluray releases. Maybe I feel that way because I have a 2.40 AR screen, but I bought the screen because I feel that way, not the other way around.

C'est la vie. Nothing I intended a fight about. However, maybe because I also dare to watch movies with frame interpolation that makes me wrong?

Surely I'm not the only one here that prefers Blurays to be OAR?
rdjam is offline  
post #554 of 1011 Old 05-17-2010, 04:08 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
rdjam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 9,736
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

rdjam, again, it was shot in 1.78, and as you would expect it was provided to us as 1.78 on the Blu-ray disc!

You seem to be having trouble with this concept. Saving Private Ryan is 1.85 OAR. Strangely, they gave us ... yup, 1.85 on the Blu-ray:


YES! You are absolutely CORRECT, sir! I stand corrected, due to my apparent blindness tonight!

I'm sitting here watching it and didn't even notice the two tiny slivers of black! lol

Yes, perhaps those were bad examples!
rdjam is offline  
post #555 of 1011 Old 05-17-2010, 04:18 PM
 
LilGator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdjam View Post

Actually, my comment on OAR wasn't so much a rant as an observation.

Avatar is probably a bad example, as 1.85 is very close to 16 x 9. In fact, for the same reason Saving Private Ryan is possibly not the best example either.

But I'll stand by my conviction that OAR is the best presentation for Bluray releases. Maybe I feel that way because I have a 2.40 AR screen, but I bought the screen because I feel that way, not the other way around.

C'est la vie. Nothing I intended a fight about. However, maybe because I also dare to watch movies with frame interpolation that makes me wrong?

Surely I'm not the only one here that prefers Blurays to be OAR?

The problem is you seem to be irritated that films are not being given to us in OAR.

Again you say OAR is the best presentation for Blu-ray releases.

Avatar is 1.78 OAR, shot 1.78, and we got 1.78 on Blu-ray.

Saving Private Ryan is 1.85 OAR and we got 1.85 on Blu-ray.

What is it that you want?
LilGator is offline  
post #556 of 1011 Old 05-17-2010, 04:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
erkq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,519
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

Sorry, I edited my post to reply to Techman.

That comment was in reply to rdjam, as his rant was quite foolish and ignorant, so I'm calling it what it is.

I know your name calling was directed at rdjam. Still not nice, even though you and I agree on the subject at hand! I'm just being the "nice" police. I should leave that to the mods.

Looks like rdjam finally got it anyway. But I COMPLETELY agree with rdjam concerning OAR presentations on BD in general. I find chopped off content very frustrating. I also have little patience with it.
erkq is offline  
post #557 of 1011 Old 05-17-2010, 06:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
techman707's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Florida & New York
Posts: 9,348
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post

I don't see Techman707's post necessarily contradicting this. As far as I've been able to gather, it seems LilGator is correct.

Just because something may have been shot using a particular AR, that doesn't necessarily have ANYTHING TO DO with the AR the director wants it projected in.

The example of Saving Private Ryan is a bad one since they had no choice but to do the Blu-rays at 1.85:1 since the interneg was hard matted at 1.85 In order to have Private Ryan 1.78:1 they would have had to crop the sides. Cropping height is done all the time, but, cropping the sides is a no no.

While I haven't seen all that many features when it comes to DCI, the theatres are bound by all sorts of DCI "rules". The pictures to date have either been 1.85 or 2.39, which conforms to DCI's requirements.

This whole argument is beginning to remind me of the VistaVision/Technirama argument years ago. Most VistaVision films were hard matted at 1.66:1, yet the films that were shot in Technirama (identical processes with different names, similar to Imax but only 35mm-except for a couple of pictures shot in Super Technirama) were released anamorphic 2.35:1.

The bottom line is that shooting aspect ratios don't necessarily translate into projection AR's.

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -Ghandi
techman707 is offline  
post #558 of 1011 Old 05-17-2010, 06:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
erkq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,519
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by techman707 View Post

The bottom line is that shooting aspect ratios don't necessarily translate into projection AR's.

Except when they do. Like Avatar on BD.

But really... I do understand what you are saying. That's why I said "necessarily". I think "not always" is key here. In this case I want every pixel available.
erkq is offline  
post #559 of 1011 Old 05-17-2010, 07:32 PM
 
LilGator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by techman707 View Post

Just because something may have been shot using a particular AR, that doesn't necessarily have ANYTHING TO DO with the AR the director wants it projected in.

The example of Saving Private Ryan is a bad one since they had no choice but to do the Blu-rays at 1.85:1 since the interneg was hard matted at 1.85 In order to have Private Ryan 1.78:1 they would have had to crop the sides. Cropping height is done all the time, but, cropping the sides is a no no.

While I haven't seen all that many features when it comes to DCI, the theatres are bound by all sorts of DCI "rules". The pictures to date have either been 1.85 or 2.39, which conforms to DCI's requirements.

This whole argument is beginning to remind me of the VistaVision/Technirama argument years ago. Most VistaVision films were hard matted at 1.66:1, yet the films that were shot in Technirama (identical processes with different names, similar to Imax but only 35mm-except for a couple of pictures shot in Super Technirama) were released anamorphic 2.35:1.

The bottom line is that shooting aspect ratios don't necessarily translate into projection AR's.

Techman, I understand the point you're making- it's just not relevant for Avatar. It was shot in 1.78, finished in 1.78, and intended to be seen, even preferred to be seen in 1.78.

DCI probably got 1.85 or 2.39 depending on the theater (CIW/CIH). Digital IMAX showed 1.78, and was the preferred presentation.

So the bottom line for Avatar is, the AR it was shot in (1.78) has everything to do with the AR the director wanted it projected in.

Quote:


What do you think the best format is to view this film in?

Cameron: The film was released in two formats. We released it in 16×9 and cinemascope aspect ratio. Obviously, the 35 mm prints were all in the scope ratio and with the IMAX stuff, we tried to take advantage of the height. The highest and best format for this movie is the 16×9, which plays beautifully. We finished the picture in 16×9 and then we vertically extracted the cinemascope when we were mastering the film for theatrical release.

In the theatrical release of the movie, it played in 3-D in non-IMAX digital theaters in both formats. We did that by selecting whichever theater was going to look best in which format. But, for the home, we wanted to go with the full picture. I really think it helps, with the sense of vertigo underneath the flying creatures, to have that little bit of extra frame down there, when they’re looking down over cliffs. It enhances the sense of height.

Even though I love the cinemascope ratio compositionally, I actually found myself falling in love with the movie in 16×9, as we went along, and I prefer to watch it in that. Everyone thought the best viewing conditions for the movie were in 3-D, but in 3-D what we struggled with was the light levels. We struggled to get the light levels up, in the theaters. You get such a bright, crisp, dynamic picture on the DVD and Blu-ray. Something actually comes back to the viewing experience that you don’t get in the theaters, with the colors and the strength of the contrast.

The Blu-ray/DVD will only be in 16×9?

Cameron: Yeah. There will be no letterbox scope video.

Will the 3-D also be in 16×9 when it comes out?

Cameron: Absolutely, yeah.

LilGator is offline  
post #560 of 1011 Old 05-17-2010, 07:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
techman707's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Florida & New York
Posts: 9,348
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post

Except when they do. Like Avatar on BD.

But really... I do understand what you are saying. That's why I said "necessarily". I think "not always" is key here. In this case I want every pixel available.

In this case it worked out perfectly. In the future when ALL movies are shot electronically (forgive me Eastman Kodak ) they might all be 16:9 when shot non anamorphically, since the director has no choice when shooting. That said, many non anamorphic films are shot with a 1.37 aperture, but that doesn't mean they should be projected in that AR....even if there's picture in that area on the film. I've seen older theatres that used to project flat pictures at 1.66:1 and sometimes you would see the mike boom in some shots because the film was composed for 1.85.

Theatres today are basically 1.85 and 2.35. It's been years since I've seen a picture that was supposed to be projected less than 1.85 on a flat picture. Unfortunately, there are a number of theatres that project ALL movies on ONE SCREEN SIZE, 2:1, cutting the height on flat pictures and cropping the sides on scope. I think that the choice of 16:9 (1.78:1) for HDTV was a poor one. They should have gone with today's industry standard for film of 1.85:1.

Just like when letter-boxed DVDs first came out and the average person would complain that they were being cheated because of the thick black lines, those same people like seeing the WHOLE TV SCREEN filled on Blu-ray discs, which is the main reason film companies will use whatever material they can to fill all the height when possible.

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -Ghandi
techman707 is offline  
post #561 of 1011 Old 05-25-2010, 07:48 AM
Newbie
 
ripton521's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Once the 950 has been ISF calibrated, the ISF-DAY and ISF-NIGHT picture modes are selectable from the JVC remote scrolling through the list of picture modes.

Is anyone aware of discrete IR codes to directly access ISF-DAY and ISF-NIGHT picture modes? All IR documentation available from JVC does not list any discrete codes. This has to be available... right?

We can not finish programming the Crestron until we get the discrete codes. If we find there are not any, we will be forced to move the ISF-DAY and ISF-NIGHT settings to User1/2 (not lockable) - which would be very unfortunate.

Thanks in advance.
ripton521 is offline  
post #562 of 1011 Old 05-27-2010, 09:58 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
J.Mike Ferrara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 3,303
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
WOOHOO
Jason installs my R25 Monday.
After 5 years with a Qualia 004 (nothing tweakable on it) it's good to be back where the action is. I look forward to reading all the tweaking posts. I've decided to keep the Lumagen VisionProHDP - it's a great processor, but it's DVI-based (the 004 required DVI for 1080p). I understand that there will be no limits converting DVI to HDMI (maybe True Color?) and running it to the RS25.

J.Mike
Those who die with the most toys ... are still dead!
J.Mike Ferrara is offline  
post #563 of 1011 Old 05-27-2010, 10:17 AM
Member
 
zeejayzee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 66
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Just installed a 990 yesterday, want to get some quick advice on setup prior to my ISF calibration. I am running it with a 120" Firehawk G3 (1.3 gain). Projector is 18 feet back from the screen. I'm running in THX mode for now. Room has some ambient light - totally unusable during the day but fairly dark at night.

I have the bulb set to High (instead of Normal) right now. Should I be running it Normal and open up the iris? Or keep it at High for max light output? What does running it in High do to contrast and depth?

I'm a total newbie to the projection space so I have ZERO experience with these things. Also, I couldn't find the iris setting, is this hidden somewhere in the menu structure?

Thanks for the help. Will post pictures as soon as I tweak it a bit... BTW: I posted this in another thread but realize this is the active one.
zeejayzee is offline  
post #564 of 1011 Old 05-27-2010, 12:07 PM
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 J.Mike Ferrara View Post

WOOHOO
Jason installs my R25 Monday.
After 5 years with a Qualia 004 (nothing tweakable on it) it's good to be back where the action is. I look forward to reading all the tweaking posts. I've decided to keep the Lumagen VisionProHDP - it's a great processor, but it's DVI-based (the 004 required DVI for 1080p). I understand that there will be no limits converting DVI to HDMI (maybe True Color?) and running it to the RS25.

I thought that the HDP was limited to 8 bit over DVI. Personally, I would ditch it.

Affable Nitwit
Lawguy is online now  
post #565 of 1011 Old 05-27-2010, 12:10 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
J.Mike Ferrara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 3,303
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawguy View Post

I thought that the HDP was limited to 8 bit over DVI.

If that is true, what would be the impact?
Deep color? Name a source.

J.Mike
Those who die with the most toys ... are still dead!
J.Mike Ferrara is offline  
post #566 of 1011 Old 05-27-2010, 12:27 PM
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 J.Mike Ferrara View Post

If that is true, what would be the impact?

You would not be able to convert to or accept color with greater than 8 bits.

Why do you want to keep the HDP in the chain? The RS25's processing and controls are on balance probably better than what you would get from the HDP.

Edit: The HDP would not be able to handle Deep Color (True Color). It is greater than 8 bits. If you upconvert, you can eliminate some banding that can be associated with 8 bit color. Bluerays are 8 bit, so pick your poison I guess: fidelity or no banding.

Affable Nitwit
Lawguy is online now  
post #567 of 1011 Old 05-27-2010, 01:42 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
J.Mike Ferrara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 3,303
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawguy View Post

You would not be able to convert to or accept color with greater than 8 bits.

Why do you want to keep the HDP in the chain? The RS25's processing and controls are on balance probably better than what you would get from the HDP.

Edit: The HDP would not be able to handle Deep Color (True Color). It is greater than 8 bits. If you upconvert, you can eliminate some banding that can be associated with 8 bit color. Bluerays are 8 bit, so pick your poison I guess: fidelity or no banding.

1st: There are feature that the HDP has that I like, and it's processing power is excellent
2nd: All of my sources have been tweaked for the HDP
3rd: Deep Color - I'll believe it when I see it.

J.Mike
Those who die with the most toys ... are still dead!
J.Mike Ferrara is offline  
post #568 of 1011 Old 05-27-2010, 01:56 PM
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 J.Mike Ferrara View Post

1st: There are feature that the HDP has that I like, and it's processing power is excellent
2nd: All of my sources have been tweaked for the HDP
3rd: Deep Color - I'll believe it when I see it.

I liked the HDP too (and the Radiance better). Try it both ways and see if you think you still need it.

Affable Nitwit
Lawguy is online now  
post #569 of 1011 Old 05-27-2010, 02:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kelvin1965S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 3,230
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeejayzee View Post

Just installed a 990 yesterday, want to get some quick advice on setup prior to my ISF calibration....
....I'm a total newbie to the projection space so I have ZERO experience with these things. Also, I couldn't find the iris setting, is this hidden somewhere in the menu structure?

I don't have a HD990 (just a HD350) but the 'iris' setting might be labelled 'aperture' (sp?). Having the iris opened (so it is brighter) tends to give less ON/OFF contrast but higher ANSI contrast (kind of the 'in scene' contrast). I found that I had to run on high lamp for a little while when my lamp developed a flicker at 400 hours. Although I closed the iris to compensate the contrast didn't seem as good, so I prefer normal lamp and more iris (if you follow).

The only issue with your setup is that if it is only just bright enough now, then you may struggle as the lamp ages: They tend to lose a big slug of brightness in the first 100 hours, then settle into a plateau (or at least a much slower degradation) until they approach the end of life. Maybe you might need to consider a smaller screen or more gain?

PS. Regarding the HDP, I had a HDQ and found the gamma adjustment much easier than 'fighting' with the JVC controls, though I believe the current range is better in that respect. I now use a VideoEQ Pro (for CMS which you guys already have) and I actually feed it with a 10 bit deep colour signal as output from my Edge VP as this tends to minimise any banding/posturisation.

Zooming: Been there, done that, bought the lens...
Kelvin1965S is offline  
post #570 of 1011 Old 05-27-2010, 03:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
techman707's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Florida & New York
Posts: 9,348
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawguy View Post

I thought that the HDP was limited to 8 bit over DVI. Personally, I would ditch it.

I don't know about the Qualia, but I had a JVC HX1 that used DVI (which can easily convert to HDMI with no problem). While they don't guarantee that it will work with future HDCP configurations (it had HDCP version 1), I had no problem feeding it to a CenterStage 2, which allowed HDCP to be turned on and off (but had to be set to on if the material had HDCP flags turned on). I don't believe there is ANY LIMIT on HDCP.
========================================================
I misunderstood, I thought you were referring to HDCP (copy protection), I see that you're just talking about the "Lumagen VisionProHDP" when referring to HDP. Nevertheless, when using older DVI equipment, some of is isn't compatible with HDCP.

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -Ghandi
techman707 is offline  
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

Tags
Jvc , Vivitek D950hd 3000 Lumen 1080p Office And Home Theater Projector
Gear in this thread

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