JVC 55/65U - needs anamorphic lens or no? - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 145 Old 02-29-2012, 11:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Highjinx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,770
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man View Post

Would you consider what E-shift is doing the same; a negative? Just curious what people think about this subject.

No I don't. What E-Shift appears to be doing is shifting things diagonally and adding more pixels to the same overall area, it's not softening the pixels, just making them appear smaller.....but because the pixels are constantly moving they dissapear, like fan blades in motion. However the image they carry linger.

It will be interesting to see how the image looks with a true 4k input with each frame displayed with two rapid flashes, JVC does this with one of their 8k units.

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rc...xL2yqWAdtfHJaw

May the success of a Nation be judged not by its collective wealth nor by its power, but by the contentment of its people.
Hiran J Wijeyesekera - 1985.
Highjinx is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 145 Old 03-01-2012, 12:45 AM
Advanced Member
 
Drexler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 935
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Thank you Rich H, you nailed it! You're better with words than I am.
Drexler is offline  
post #93 of 145 Old 03-01-2012, 02:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Drexler is not ignoring such examples; the point is they do not meet the criteria Drexler keeps bringing up: Blind Testing.

Did that person do a blind (even better, double-blind) test of the lens? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you've said that this person performed a blind test.

I'm not sure. I do know that he was zooming and bought a second hand ISCO II just to see what the effect was. He intended to sell it on afterwards because he didn't think it would make a difference but instead found that it did. He was sceptical and thought he'd be selling the lens on. In his case he was biased the other way so would have been looking at a reason to not want to keep it.

Unfortunately people don't tend to do blind testing when the results seem pretty conclusive.

If you don't know what to look for you won't necessarily see the difference. 4:2:0 vs 4:4:4 can be difficult to see for example. Poor scaling, poor contrast/brightness settings are another. There are plenty of others. If you're Joe Public you're likely to not know but most people here can spot stuff like that quite quickly.

I was at an event where a JVC and a Titan 3 chip DLP were on view in separate dedicated rooms, and both were using A lenses. The Titan had less contrast capability than the JVC but I could see the blacks were crushed. I asked the guy hosting the event if that was deliberate to give the impression of more contrast to compete with the JVC but ended up getting balled out, with him talking about below black and completely missing the point. I didn't reply back because, as a guest, I didn't want to have a public argue at such an event. Later, when we were back in the room, he then pointed out that I had spotted that the source player was set at the wrong settings (PC/Video) and changed it back. VoilÃ*, black detail was restored. The point I'm making is that Joe Bloggs probably wouldn't have seen that. Even the guy from the company didn't, so I think from an experience point of view, I'm not exactly clueless.

Just because a double blind test isn't done, doesn't mean the results aren't visible. Sometimes the results are so obvious that blind testing isn't required. I give Art Sonneborns CIH set up with 3 chip DLP as an example and that he can see pixels in his preferred seating position if he zooms, but with a lens he rarely sees them except in very bright scenes (he's at 2 x SH). In a blind test that would be very obvious wouldn't you say?

If there were two identically proportioned cars in front of you, and one was 4 feet tall, and the other 6 feet tall, do you think you might be able to tell which was which, even in a double blind test?

When I used a 720 pj, I had exactly the same problem. I went from a 7ft wide 16:9 screen to an 8ft wide 2.35 screen and I zoomed. If I sat at the same seating distance ratio for scope (3 x SH) I could see pixels/SDE and the image became very chunky looking. I tried defocussing a little but that didn't work, it just made the image softer and look out of focus. I then looked at getting an A lens. The first one (borrowed) was a very basic prism lens and made the image soft. Knowing there were better lenses out there, I then bought a Prismasonic lens with anti CA and coated lenses and a 14 day returns policy should it not work for me. That was much better lens, so I kept it. If it wasn't, I would have got my money back. I did plenty of testing to make sure but the benefits were very obvious - I no longer saw pixels/SDE at 3 x SH. A few months later a used ISCO II came up on this forum and out of interest I bought it, just to compare. I didn't think it would make a difference but with testing, initially using test patterns, it was obviously sharper, and that was unexpected to me at the time. It was harder to tell with moving images but it was still perceptible. I then sold the Prismasonic.

Of course with 1080 and smaller pixels, the need for a lens would be less, but Art still needs a lens or he couldn't sit in the front row of his theatre. I bet he would easily pass a double blind test. You'll have to ask him.

All anecdotal I know, but 1080 vs 817 pixels is a very different physical difference wouldn't you say?

Now, you might say I didn't do blind testing, but the difference between zooming and a lens was so obvious it it wasn't necessary. Between a Prismasonic and an ISCO I agree it would be interesting to do the blind testing with moving images (because test pattern comparisons were obvious), but I think people here would still manage to tell the difference. I wonder if GetGrey (Scott) could do something like that for us?


Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Yes Drexler has mentioned that brightness changes will tend to skew preferences to the brighter image. But that's not the only point he's making.

Well it is, he keeps saying its brightness and placebo, ignores the extra pixels and says it defies physics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

The point Drexler keeps making is that, especially when it comes to a comparison of the E-shift images with/without an A-lens, BARRING brightness advantages (if there is no brightness difference) then theoretically, given the pixel density of a E-shifted image from any normal viewing distance (it's hard to see pixels at all with a nose to the screen!), there is no reason to expect an advantage to making the pixels even smaller via an A-lens.

I'm sceptical because you still have to zoom them 33% larger for CIH. I tend to think that if you zoom something 33% larger, it physically gets bigger. What do you think?

It's also quite possible that e-shift it works very well and it nullifies the use of an A lens but when I hopefully get the kit for my room next year, I'll know for sure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

It is entirely rational to be deeply skeptical of such a claim. (I am).

That wasn't his point. The point I'm addressing is that it's not brightness or placebo, it's pixel density.

And I'm always sceptical.

I've seen it said that we can only see something like 200:1 contrast 'at once', but I did some testing to prove otherwise (was a few years back and I posted it here because I wanted to see other peoples input).

The advantage of an A lens is the extra pixels you can use to keep pixel size smaller than zooming would allow. In theory an e-shift image should be able to do without the need for an A lens since it's doing something similar by rapidly shifting the panel to replicate having more pixels which by overlapping appear smaller. Where the sceptic in me comes out is that you still have to make the pixels 33% larger to zoom for CIH, and I'm curious to see how visible that is when zooming. If it is, then an A lens may still be necessary. I've not been able to test that for myself, but it's something I'm curious about.

Not everyone believes marketing hype until they've proved it to themselves. However, by all accounts e-shift seems to work very well indeed. I'd still like to see it and do some testing vs an A lens. Someone here already has but some people don't want to believe him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

And at such a point of diminishing returns, if you really want to be careful and rigorous about such a claim, or about finding out if there REALLY is a detectable difference, then blind testing becomes very wise. The fact that brightness is constant between the A-lens and the zoomed image is great, but in no way does that negate the very well known problem of our bias.

I agree that blind testing is sometimes completely necessary, especially when there are no means to test the claim (audio cables, power leads etc). With video it's easier to see differences when you know what to look for, but you must be aware of the placebo effect. As you say, it's a very real issue. Like I said before, I misread a magazine article and almost convinced myself I was seeing what I thought I should be seeing, but I wasn't convinced. After re-reading the article and slapping myself on the forehead (I misread a word), I now make a point of not believing anything until I've seen it for myself. A lenses included.

A Sony rep told us at a demo once how good the scaling was of one of the top end amps that was being used as a video switch (like many do), but I quickly started noticing glitches here and there. If I wasn't sceptical, I'd have believed him and seen what he told me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Keep everything utterly the same in an audio system, but show an audiophile that you are switching the AC cords or switching speakers cables, and many of them will swear they hear an obvious difference in the sound, despite the theoretical impossibility. Then, do it blind-tested with them, and suddenly they can't tell between the two. Placebo. And all the "experience" an audio professional or audio dealer has in the world does not guard against this bias problem - they'll fall to the same problems (as has been shown a number of times).

Yup, seen it so many times now it's funny. Same thing for power leads. I tried those as well but I can't hear a difference.

Many years ago I bought some new speakers for my old cinema room and thought I'd try them in my lounge, temporarily replacing the existing ones. I tried a movie I was used to and thought I was hearing things I'd not heard before. I then tried the old speakers back and found I could hear all those sounds I thought I hadn't heard before. So the new speakers weren't reproducing anything the old speakers weren't, it's just what I thought I would hear. I wonder how many people buy new speakers and swear they hear more detail but don't recheck the old ones.

The trouble with audio is that it's very hard to know what we're hearing is true or not. With video, it's less difficult but still subject to error so we have to make sure, by testing, that we're seeing what we think we're seeing. I agree that blind testing is good if you're not sure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

And the placebo/bias effect is hardly confined to audio - it happens everywhere - it's a fact of life.

Absolutely, and something I'm more than aware of from experience.

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

It is great to hear reports from owners trying various things, to be sure. But Drexler's skepticism is, I think, quite warranted and he's not being simply stuffy or recalcitrant for simply pointing out very real problems in how people are going about their comparisons.

One might be tempted to say "Well, great, should we all just stop posting our experiences unless we do nothing but blind testing?"

No. Of course there are many times in which visual differences are going to exist, uncontroversially. Most of the types of visual differences we discuss between products fall well in line with what it expected and possible, given our visual system and the differences in contrast/color/brightness etc of various systems. But when you get into more controversial claims...time to remember our skeptical tools.

Yup, and I'm more sceptical than yourself since you were convinced of the e-shift hype before you'd seen it and were arguing how it would replace A lenses (which it might, but I pointed out to you that it still doesn't get away from the 33% increase in the 1080 pixels that are being shifted). I remember saying to you even then that until we'd seen it and tested the differences, it wasn't a foregone conclusion that it would replace an A lens (it might for many people though). I think I'm pretty sceptical nowadays of any claims and I like to see for myself. I think I said that many times.


Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

It does no such thing! The differences may be real, someone may have a "clue," or not, or be very experienced with AV equipment. It doesn't matter - the placebo effect doesn't distinguish, we all have to be on guard for it. That's why the most experienced scientists appeal to blind/double-blind protocol.

To suggest that everyone is unaware and falling for the placebo effect isn't an accurate assumption either, and it does reduce with awareness. Especially if we question a lot of what is going on with the technology and the claims that are being made about it.

Placebo only really works if you're told or expect a difference and believe that's what you're going to get. If you're not told that or don't believe it and need proof, then placebo doesn't have any real effect.

Don't forget that Placebo was originally a medical ploy to tell patients their treatment would make them better (usually an inert pill used as a control with other patients given a genuine pill that would give medical treatment). If you told a patient that they were given an inert pill, they would expect no difference and have no psychological or even physiological improvements.

Gary

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #94 of 145 Old 03-02-2012, 06:45 AM
Scott Horton, techht.com
 
GetGray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mid-South USA
Posts: 5,450
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 52
One thing not mentioned here, and one of the things I personally strongly prefer and would find hard to live without is this. Speed, accuracy and repeatablity of aspect changes. My system changes from 1.78 to 2.35 in one second. It is perfect every time. There is not fiddling with zoom, focus or shift when an auto mechanism gets it a little wrong. Ever. Always 100% perfect, almost instant aspect changes. Over and over, as many as needed, one button press on my programmable remote.

Typical scenario, BRD with 1.78 trailers, press Lens off, one second, I'm at 1.78. Next trailer in 2.35, press lens off, one second, I have 2.35. Menu starts. The boneheads that encode these things never match the menus to the movie aspect, so it's in 1.78 and you can't see the menu options. Guess what? One button press, 1 second, I can see the menu selection items that were previously pushed off the bottom of the screen. I choose my menu option. press 2.35 button and I'm back to cinemascope, one second. No waiting on anything to zoom, shift and refocus.

Another common example, middle of movie I have to "take a break". Press pause. Again, encoders encoded all the pause graphics in the black bar area so you can't see them. Press 1.78, poof I am back to 1.78, can see the pause graphics, tell how much time is left on movie, etc. No waiting on unzoom, unshift and refocus. (Some people even program their remotes to issue a lens off command when a pause command is sent).

Want to go back to main menu and pick a different scene? Almost always in the black bar area.

You get the point. After having had the convenience of almost instant aspect changes, without losing a single pixel to alternative ways of doing same, I could never go back.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
GetGray is online now  
post #95 of 145 Old 03-02-2012, 08:20 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,995
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 329
(Just a note: we tend to be using the "Placebo effect" as a catch-all for various biase effects - expectation bias, distinction bias etc)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post


Just because a double blind test isn't done, doesn't mean the results aren't visible. Sometimes the results are so obvious that blind testing isn't required.

First: The bias/placebo effect very often results in the subject thinking "the difference is so obvious no blind testing is needed." That's what almost all the audiophiles who trumpet about the different sound of AC and speaker cables say. So the mere claim of obviousness is not good enough when we are talking about true threshold (limits of our perception) differences.

Ad we're not talking about instances in which differences are so obvious (and expected within what we know about human visual perception), that no blind testing is needed. Again, we are talking about seeing things - pixel size/visibility reduced even more than provided by E-shift - that would seem to be on the threshold of our perception. With your nose to the screen, pixels are essentially gone with E-shift. The claim that reducing the pixel size/increasing pixel density would make a visual difference (given the same source) is therefore made quite dubious.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post


Well it is, he keeps saying its brightness and placebo, ignores the extra pixels and says it defies physics.

No, he's not saying it IS placebo effect; he's saying it COULD be placebo, and without having taken steps to ensure it is not it's wise to not just take people's word for it. He (and I) have made that distinction a number of times. Drexler and I have never "ignored" the idea of extra pixels; just the opposite, the contention has been that it is DUBIOUS that extra pixels (via A-lens/processing) will make a visible difference from straight E-shift.

I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand this position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post


I'm sceptical because you still have to zoom them 33% larger for CIH. I tend to think that if you zoom something 33% larger, it physically gets bigger. What do you think?

But if you then chop those pixels into smaller pieces, resulting in 4 times the number of pixels in place of the original larger pixel, then no, you haven't made them larger, you've made them smaller.

In fact, you've made them smaller than you would have if you'd used an A-lens/anamorphic processing instead of E-shift!

I'm baffled why you seem to keep ignoring this. (And ignoring it is precisely what your question above does).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post

It's also quite possible that e-shift it works very well and it nullifies the use of an A lens but when I hopefully get the kit for my room next year, I'll know for sure.

So you seem happy to voice your caution and skepticism about E-shift, not having used it, but you have a problem with others who might have skepticism about an A-lens over E-shift, not having an A-lens. (Though, Drexler I believe has used an A-lens, and I've seen plenty of A-lenses, including on my own projector, in various locations).



Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post


Yup, and I'm more sceptical than yourself since you were convinced of the e-shift hype before you'd seen it and were arguing how it would replace A lenses (which it might, but I pointed out to you that it still doesn't get away from the 33% increase in the 1080 pixels that are being shifted).

That misrepresents my attitude in those previous threads, presenting me as being sold-by-hype and incautiously leaping to conclusions. Which is wrong. I was constantly re-asserting caveats, saying IF the E-shift technology works as advertised and IF initial eye-witness reports supporting that it did work were true, THEN it may be that one advantage purported for A-lenses - reducing pixel visibility/increasing pixel density, can be had using the JVC E-shift. And I NEVER said E-shift would replace A-lenses, as I pointed out advantages some may still find with an A-lens (e.g. possible increase in brightness/greater convenience).

I didn't just jump on the bandwagon proclaiming it fact. And look at my posts on my JVC RS55: Even OWNING the unit and playing with it's E-shift, I remain cautious and skeptical about my own observations. So, please don't try to paint me as someone incautiously won over by hype.

As it turns out, it seems those initial eye-witness reports were on the money: pixel visibility essentially disappears with the E-shift.

Further, here you are still repeating the "but it makes 1080 pixels bigger" line, and for some reason never taking in that simply doesn't represent what E-shift is actually doing. E-shift doesn't leave those pixels that size - E-shift ends up MAKING VISIBLY MORE, SMALLER PIXELS from those 1080 pixels. It's a physical fact of the technology. What is so hard to understand about that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post


Placebo only really works if you're told or expect a difference and believe that's what you're going to get. If you're not told that or don't believe it and need proof, then placebo doesn't have any real effect.

Gary

That's a misunderstanding of the placebo effect (and here I'm talking about placebo/bias/expectation effects that plague our perception).

You don't need to expect a difference or be told there is a difference per se.
You can go into a test having NO EXPECTATIONS of perceiving any differences between A and B. But you will often experience them anyway (taking, again, for example differences between wires). Because we are wired to look for differences, to think we perceive them. It just naturally happens when you start trying to see IF you can perceive a difference between A and B. You'll naturally do it, even if A and B are the same.

The misunderstanding you just gave is very often used by audiophiles to justify hearing sonic differences between amplifiers, cables etc. It's one of the most common retorts "Look, I wasn't even EXPECTING to hear a difference between the two, but I did, so it wasn't the placebo effect." That is just to be ignorant of how our perception and bias works: even when you aren't expecting differences, often you'll think you perceive them, hence...blind and double-blind testing is employed when we are at our most careful on these issues.

(I fell for this problem myself. I was deeply skeptical about the claims for AC cables making an audible difference in audio systems. I received a selection of expensive AC cables from probably the most lauded-of-the-time audiophile AC cable manufacturer, ranging in price from about $300/cable to about $3,000 per AC cable. I EXPECTED I'd hear no difference. And I didn't hear a difference with most of the AC cables supplied. Until I put in the most expensive cable. Then it seemed to me my system had changed it's sonic character quite obviously, becoming smoother but "rolled off and darker." It was so "obvious" it didn't seem to need blind testing. And since I didn't go into this with expectations of hearing any difference, I could have thought that the bias effect wasn't in play. But then I blind tested it against a standard $15 military grade AC cable and, guess what? Need I tell you the results and whether I could tell which was which any more?)

Rich H


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
R Harkness is offline  
post #96 of 145 Old 03-02-2012, 08:28 AM
Scott Horton, techht.com
 
GetGray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mid-South USA
Posts: 5,450
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Quote:
What DOES seem to make me more happy with bigger images is the apparently more punchy contrast of the RS55 over my RS20. As I enlarged images on my RS20 I tended to note a drop in image tightness and contrast. But the RS55 maintains better contrast, richness and dimensionality at larger image sizes.

Placebo effect.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
GetGray is online now  
post #97 of 145 Old 03-02-2012, 09:50 AM
Advanced Member
 
Drexler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 935
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Well, it (in Rich's case) could very well be placebo - or a new bulb making the difference. However, he's not making a controversial claim. JVC has upped its contrast and brightness between the two models within what should be visible to the naked eye.

The improvement an a-lens can make to an e-shifted image is another thing entirely. You have an image that zoomed out to 2.35:1 has a pixel structure that is so fine that it can't be perceived even if you sit uncomfortably close. Then you add an a-lens to the mix to increase the vertical pixel count of the already invisible pixels by another 33% and claims it visibly improves the image quality.

Why is it so hard to see why we are skeptical about this claim? Especially since we know how bias and brightness can skew results and that no steps were taken to remove these potential error sources from the comparison.
Drexler is offline  
post #98 of 145 Old 03-02-2012, 11:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RapalloAV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 1,803
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man View Post

Sounds like an awesome theater. Thanks for the sharing the specifics and your impressions.

The cinema was completed about 2 months ago, the build took almost 12 months, take a look at the CIH scope screen. Auto masking for 4:3, 16:9 and scope.
LL
LL

Murray Thompson

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

RapalloAV is offline  
post #99 of 145 Old 03-02-2012, 11:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RapalloAV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 1,803
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by GetGray View Post

One thing not mentioned here, and one of the things I personally strongly prefer and would find hard to live without is this. Speed, accuracy and repeatablity of aspect changes. My system changes from 1.78 to 2.35 in one second. It is perfect every time. There is not fiddling with zoom, focus or shift when an auto mechanism gets it a little wrong. Ever. Always 100% perfect, almost instant aspect changes. Over and over, as many as needed, one button press on my programmable remote.

Typical scenario, BRD with 1.78 trailers, press Lens off, one second, I'm at 1.78. Next trailer in 2.35, press lens off, one second, I have 2.35. Menu starts. The boneheads that encode these things never match the menus to the movie aspect, so it's in 1.78 and you can't see the menu options. Guess what? One button press, 1 second, I can see the menu selection items that were previously pushed off the bottom of the screen. I choose my menu option. press 2.35 button and I'm back to cinemascope, one second. No waiting on anything to zoom, shift and refocus.

Another common example, middle of movie I have to "take a break". Press pause. Again, encoders encoded all the pause graphics in the black bar area so you can't see them. Press 1.78, poof I am back to 1.78, can see the pause graphics, tell how much time is left on movie, etc. No waiting on unzoom, unshift and refocus. (Some people even program their remotes to issue a lens off command when a pause command is sent).

Want to go back to main menu and pick a different scene? Almost always in the black bar area.

You get the point. After having had the convenience of almost instant aspect changes, without losing a single pixel to alternative ways of doing same, I could never go back.

BINGO!
You said it perfectly Getgrey, I would hate to go back to those old days without my lens. 1sec and it all happens perfectly and acurate, all the ratios I want, black masking and all. I used lens memory for years on the Panasonics, its a great trick but there are better options if you want to take scope further.

Murray Thompson

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

RapalloAV is offline  
post #100 of 145 Old 03-02-2012, 12:03 PM
Scott Horton, techht.com
 
GetGray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mid-South USA
Posts: 5,450
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV View Post

The cinema was completed about 2 months ago, the build took almost 12 months, take a look at the CIH scope screen. Auto masking for 4:3, 16:9 and scope.

Beautiful job Murray. Is this the one with the XEIT lens? Can we see it's install if it was?


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
GetGray is online now  
post #101 of 145 Old 03-02-2012, 12:06 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,995
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 329
Quote:
Originally Posted by GetGray View Post

One thing not mentioned here, and one of the things I personally strongly prefer and would find hard to live without is this. Speed, accuracy and repeatablity of aspect changes. My system changes from 1.78 to 2.35 in one second. It is perfect every time. There is not fiddling with zoom, focus or shift when an auto mechanism gets it a little wrong. Ever. Always 100% perfect, almost instant aspect changes. Over and over, as many as needed, one button press on my programmable remote.

That's completely understandable, given your criteria, and that is a nice advantage for those who do CIH systems.

On the other end: Having lived with the ability to zoom an image easily to any size my heart desires, always perfectly masked, I could never settle for the limitations of a fixed width or fixed image height system.

Rich H


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
R Harkness is offline  
post #102 of 145 Old 03-02-2012, 12:07 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,995
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 329
Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV View Post

The cinema was completed about 2 months ago, the build took almost 12 months, take a look at the CIH scope screen. Auto masking for 4:3, 16:9 and scope.


Gorgeous! I'm in awe. Congratulations on an amazing theater.

Rich H


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
R Harkness is offline  
post #103 of 145 Old 03-02-2012, 12:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RapalloAV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 1,803
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by GetGray View Post

Beautiful job Murray. Is this the one with the XEIT lens? Can we see it's install if it was?

No Scott its not with the XEIT lens, I haven't tried one yet, hoping to oneday though.

My setup is with a Schneider M lens that Ive owned now for approx three years. This pic is taken from the auditorium through the port hole looking back to the foyer. Sorry image is with my HC9000 which was replaced about three weeks ago with the RS65.
LL

Murray Thompson

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

RapalloAV is offline  
post #104 of 145 Old 03-02-2012, 03:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RapalloAV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 1,803
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Gorgeous! I'm in awe. Congratulations on an amazing theater.

Rich you might like to see these images,

I know you like your LED colours on your screen, I saw yours when you first posted them some time back. I modeled the cinema from a late 60's cinema that once operated in Auckland, the 'Odeon'. The design was very simple but timeless and modern, Ive also use similar dark colours to what they used.

The main curtain is almond colour crushed velvet, but the pictures don't do it justice, its very hard for a camera to pick the lighting correctly. There are RGB wall washers top and bottom of curtain, and can be set to auto change between every colour combination, which takes approx 1.5 mins to cycle through.

While we are on scope with JVC, the black masking system is auto stop CIH 4:3, 16:9 and out to ScopE. See masking pix below, plus the rack and BD library which is all housed in the small foyer at the rear of the cinema. There are two entrances to the auditorium on both sides via three steps up, it forms the start of the raised seating. Everything is automated via an ipad.

I may have to put the rest of the images on another entry, max 5 here.
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL

Murray Thompson

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

RapalloAV is offline  
post #105 of 145 Old 03-03-2012, 12:54 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,995
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 329
Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV View Post

Rich you might like to see these images,

I know you like your LED colours on your screen, I saw yours when you first posted them some time back. I modeled the cinema from a late 60's cinema that once operated in Auckland, the 'Odeon'. The design was very simple but timeless and modern, Ive also use similar dark colours to what they used.

The main curtain is almond colour crushed velvet, but the pictures don't do it justice, its very hard for a camera to pick the lighting correctly. There are RGB wall washers top and bottom of curtain, and can be set to auto change between every colour combination, which takes approx 1.5 mins to cycle through.

While we are on scope with JVC, the black masking system is auto stop CIH 4:3, 16:9 and out to ScopE. See masking pix below, plus the rack and BD library which is all housed in the small foyer at the rear of the cinema. There are two entrances to the auditorium on both sides via three steps up, it forms the start of the raised seating. Everything is automated via an ipad.

I may have to put the rest of the images on another entry, max 5 here.

Tremendous.

I find the ability to put color on the screen via colored lights to be a hugely attractive addition to a room. The mood, vibe and decor can alter at will. I can even change the color of the screen to match the latest flowers I have in a vase, in the room. (The colors can either stay constant, or strobe, or do slow or fast dissolves through the spectrum).

Yours looks fantastic.

BTW, what system are you using for side masking? It looks like you've employed a remote controlled curtain track, which looks a lot like mine (by Goelst).

Rich H


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
R Harkness is offline  
post #106 of 145 Old 03-03-2012, 03:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RapalloAV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 1,803
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Tremendous.

I find the ability to put color on the screen via colored lights to be a hugely attractive addition to a room. The mood, vibe and decor can alter at will. I can even change the color of the screen to match the latest flowers I have in a vase, in the room. (The colors can either stay constant, or strobe, or do slow or fast dissolves through the spectrum).

Yours looks fantastic.

BTW, what system are you using for side masking? It looks like you've employed a remote controlled curtain track, which looks a lot like mine (by Goelst).

Here are the rest of the promised pix. I use the same masking and curtain track by Goelst, highly accurate and very quiet.
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL

Murray Thompson

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

RapalloAV is offline  
post #107 of 145 Old 03-04-2012, 03:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post


First: The bias/placebo effect very often results in the subject thinking "the difference is so obvious no blind testing is needed." That's what almost all the audiophiles who trumpet about the different sound of AC and speaker cables say. So the mere claim of obviousness is not good enough when we are talking about true threshold (limits of our perception) differences.

Well, Rich, the reality of using a lens is you really do use more pixels over a screen area compared to zooming, so at one point this has to be visible, and it is. Unlike AC or speaker cable claims which have in every instance been disproved in blind testing. So we can see the difference if we're close enough.

Placebo only works if you're wanting or expecting there to be a difference. If you're cynical and want proof, you use test patterns and do some testing. I wasn't convinced which is why the first lens I used was borrowed, and the next lens had a returns policy.

I've seen it said by ant-lens people that they could see the ANSI CR drop when a lens was in place, yet when tested, the ANSI drop is very small so as to be beyond the threshold of detection. Placebo in reverse I guess. They wanted to see a negative so that's what they saw.

I've already explained the visible differences but like Drexler you want to ignore them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Ad we're not talking about instances in which differences are so obvious (and expected within what we know about human visual perception), that no blind testing is needed. Again, we are talking about seeing things - pixel size/visibility reduced even more than provided by E-shift - that would seem to be on the threshold of our perception. With your nose to the screen, pixels are essentially gone with E-shift.

That's a definite visible affect in the same way using 1080 pixels vs 817 pixels, yet you claim we need a double blind test for a lens, but not for e-shift. Art would pass a blind test from his front row.

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

The claim that reducing the pixel size/increasing pixel density would make a visual difference (given the same source) is therefore made quite dubious.

It's a fact, not a claim that 1080 vs 817 means more pixels are on the screen and therefore smaller and less visible, yet you come out and say that. E-shift is doing something very similar, so therefore that must be very dubious as well...

Or are you deliberately trolling?

Do you seriously believe that having 33% vertically smaller pixels and therefore more of them on screen is never going to have a visible difference over the larger ones?

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

No, he's not saying it IS placebo effect; he's saying it COULD be placebo, and without having taken steps to ensure it is not it's wise to not just take people's word for it. He (and I) have made that distinction a number of times. Drexler and I have never "ignored" the idea of extra pixels; just the opposite, the contention has been that it is DUBIOUS that extra pixels (via A-lens/processing) will make a visible difference from straight E-shift.

I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand this position.

And yet you want me to take your word on e-shift...

You say all that but you do seem to be ignoring the extra pixels and suggest it's placebo and nothing else (once the brightness had been debunked). Seems you're the ones not understanding. I'm not comparing to e-shift, I'm talking about A lenses and you're doing comparisons with e-shift now.

I would think that because of the overlapping of pixels with e-shift. the e-shift would have a more visible result because a lens does not remove SDE, it just reduces it because the pixels are smaller, but without seeing it I couldn't say for sure. I would have thought that some softening would be going on as well (overlapping corners), and may need some post processing to restore sharpness maybe, but that's just conjecture on my part. I'll need to see it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

But if you then chop those pixels into smaller pieces, resulting in 4 times the number of pixels in place of the original larger pixel, then no, you haven't made them larger, you've made them smaller.

In fact, you've made them smaller than you would have if you'd used an A-lens/anamorphic processing instead of E-shift!

I'm baffled why you seem to keep ignoring this. (And ignoring it is precisely what your question above does).

I'm not ignoring it because you're not actually chopping them into smaller pieces, you're overlapping them at the corners. You're still only using 1080 pixels and moving them around. By overlapping you're removing the visibility of the edges. Why I'm sceptical is because it's a trick, whereas an A lens really is using more pixels.

I could say that it's placebo that you're seeing smaller pixels because there are no smaller pixels, just the quarters that are overlapping and fooling you into thinking there are smaller pixels, which is more likely to be true than placebo over seeing a genuine increase in vertical pixels with a lens.

I've not seen it and I'm open minded, but I'm curious to see the affect of zooming with the e-shift.

If you zoom the image 33% larger does it get bigger or remain the same size?

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

So you seem happy to voice your caution and skepticism about E-shift, not having used it, but you have a problem with others who might have skepticism about an A-lens over E-shift, not having an A-lens. (Though, Drexler I believe has used an A-lens, and I've seen plenty of A-lenses, including on my own projector, in various locations).

All I'm saying is that if you zoom an e-shifted 1080 panel, does it become visible that the source is getting larger and more visible? I'm not saying it does, I'm just wondering what the affect is because after all, it's still a 1080 panel overlapping itself at speed to fool the eye. It seems to be a very clever idea and from the pictures I see, and very effective, but why do you have a problem with me wanting to see it for myself to alleviate that thought? I'm not going to buy blind and believe the hype until I see it. I did the same with A lenses, and I'll do the same here. I won't change that just because you now own one (and I can see why you're so defensive but don't be, it's not an attack on your pj).

I'm not saying it doesn't work, I'm just saying zooming might still increase source pixel visibility, or it might not.

It's not so much the scepticism of an A lens as the constant claim that it's brightness and placebo that are the only real reasons an A lens works. Scepticism is one thing, ignorance and false claims are another. Now that you also support the placebo affect for the first time (never seen you use the term in this context before) makes me wonder if you're trolling, anti lens or just have a personal issue with me. Which is it?

I was sceptical about lenses until I did enough testing to see the benefit. You haven't which is quite obvious although you have some experience and probably negative placebo. Having seen them in action is different to having tested using test pasterns and comparisons over time etc.

I did once use a VC A lens with an NEC HT1000, but couldn't see a difference, so sold it on (again, bought it 'just to see'). I didn't do a lot of testing with it, and the real reason I didn't see a difference was because I was sitting too far back - it was the early days when I was happy with a big screen and my seating was where it was due to what I thought were structural constraints at the time. My bad but I've learnt something from that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

That misrepresents my attitude in those previous threads, presenting me as being sold-by-hype and incautiously leaping to conclusions. Which is wrong. I was constantly re-asserting caveats, saying IF the E-shift technology works as advertised and IF initial eye-witness reports supporting that it did work were true, THEN it may be that one advantage purported for A-lenses - reducing pixel visibility/increasing pixel density, can be had using the JVC E-shift. And I NEVER said E-shift would replace A-lenses, as I pointed out advantages some may still find with an A-lens (e.g. possible increase in brightness/greater convenience).

Well you're quite happy to say I only use an A lens due to placebo and sold by hype, yet when its turned around you get quite upset about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

I didn't just jump on the bandwagon proclaiming it fact. And look at my posts on my JVC RS55: Even OWNING the unit and playing with it's E-shift, I remain cautious and skeptical about my own observations. So, please don't try to paint me as someone incautiously won over by hype.

You seemed to think it would replace a lens - you even created a thread about it here:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...t=e+shift+lens

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

As it turns out, it seems those initial eye-witness reports were on the money: pixel visibility essentially disappears with the E-shift.

Further, here you are still repeating the "but it makes 1080 pixels bigger" line, and for some reason never taking in that simply doesn't represent what E-shift is actually doing. E-shift doesn't leave those pixels that size - E-shift ends up MAKING VISIBLY MORE, SMALLER PIXELS from those 1080 pixels. It's a physical fact of the technology. What is so hard to understand about that?

It doesn't though, it overlaps them to give that impression. I've only wondered about the effect of zooming and source pixel size.

You seem quite upset about my comments regarding e-shift, yet you're quite happy to jump on the anti-lens placebo bandwagon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

That's a misunderstanding of the placebo effect (and here I'm talking about placebo/bias/expectation effects that plague our perception).

You don't need to expect a difference or be told there is a difference per se.
You can go into a test having NO EXPECTATIONS of perceiving any differences between A and B. But you will often experience them anyway (taking, again, for example differences between wires). Because we are wired to look for differences, to think we perceive them. It just naturally happens when you start trying to see IF you can perceive a difference between A and B. You'll naturally do it, even if A and B are the same.

The misunderstanding you just gave is very often used by audiophiles to justify hearing sonic differences between amplifiers, cables etc. It's one of the most common retorts "Look, I wasn't even EXPECTING to hear a difference between the two, but I did, so it wasn't the placebo effect." That is just to be ignorant of how our perception and bias works: even when you aren't expecting differences, often you'll think you perceive them, hence...blind and double-blind testing is employed when we are at our most careful on these issues.

But you're forgetting the very real fact that there are more pixels, so it's quite believable that there is a very real affect. Which there is. You just don't seem to want to believe it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

(I fell for this problem myself. I was deeply skeptical about the claims for AC cables making an audible difference in audio systems. I received a selection of expensive AC cables from probably the most lauded-of-the-time audiophile AC cable manufacturer, ranging in price from about $300/cable to about $3,000 per AC cable. I EXPECTED I'd hear no difference. And I didn't hear a difference with most of the AC cables supplied. Until I put in the most expensive cable. Then it seemed to me my system had changed it's sonic character quite obviously, becoming smoother but "rolled off and darker." It was so "obvious" it didn't seem to need blind testing. And since I didn't go into this with expectations of hearing any difference, I could have thought that the bias effect wasn't in play. But then I blind tested it against a standard $15 military grade AC cable and, guess what? Need I tell you the results and whether I could tell which was which any more?)

A lot of companies are renowned for deliberately choking their equipments' performance by including an inferior power cable....

Gary

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #108 of 145 Old 03-04-2012, 03:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV View Post

Here are the rest of the promised pix. I use the same masking and curtain track by Goelst, highly accurate and very quiet.

Lovely looking theatre - what seats are those? Argentina?

Due to width restrictions in the room I'll be using, I'm going to use genuine theatre seats as well, but with a foot rest for the front row.

Gary

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #109 of 145 Old 03-04-2012, 04:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler View Post

Well, it (in Rich's case) could very well be placebo - or a new bulb making the difference. However, he's not making a controversial claim. JVC has upped its contrast and brightness between the two models within what should be visible to the naked eye.

Given that an 82% drop in lumens is perceived as a 50% drop in brightness, there will have to be quite a big difference for that claim to be more than placebo. That could make the claim controversial.

Yet according to you, placebo isn't controversial for a very real affect of using more vertical pixels with an A lens.

You're willing to believe Rich's unproven possibly placebo impressions, but not those where real gains can be seen and measured.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler View Post

The improvement an a-lens can make to an e-shifted image is another thing entirely. You have an image that zoomed out to 2.35:1 has a pixel structure that is so fine that it can't be perceived even if you sit uncomfortably close. Then you add an a-lens to the mix to increase the vertical pixel count of the already invisible pixels by another 33% and claims it visibly improves the image quality.

Why is it so hard to see why we are skeptical about this claim? Especially since we know how bias and brightness can skew results and that no steps were taken to remove these potential error sources from the comparison.

I don't disagree that an A lens with an e-shifted image would appear to be a smaller gain and possibly overkill which would questionably be visible, but when someone did the test you immediately call them a liar and tell them they're suffering from placebo.

You also assume that everyone is susceptible to the brightness differences that may or may not exist. I've seen brighter images and I don't like them for various reasons, so in my case I would prefer a dimmer image. Your theory works the opposite with me.

I would like to see the e-shft with and without a lens for myself, because it's still a 1080 panel being used, with a trick to emulate smaller pixels. However, if I had a lens, I would probably use it anyway since then there would be no doubt that I was using all the pixels I'd bought, and they would be smaller.

Gary

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #110 of 145 Old 03-04-2012, 07:09 AM
Advanced Member
 
Drexler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 935
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post

I don't disagree that an A lens with an e-shifted image would appear to be a smaller gain and possibly overkill which would questionably be visible, but when someone did the test you immediately call them a liar and tell them they're suffering from placebo.

I didn't call anybody a liar. I have no reason not to think he was sincere. However, that does not prove there really was a difference. I'm also sure many audiophiles sincerely thought they heard differences when switching cables or that the wine experts tasted differences when drinking the same wine (which the brain scans actually showed!). Still they were unknowingly deceiving themselves.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The evidence in this case is not enough to convince me considering what we know about how bias work and what visible improvement we would expect with regard to the visibility of the e-shifted pixels.

I don't know what else to write. IMHO, seeing what you write, I think you grossly underestimate the power of bias. This is not something you can say "I'm aware of it" or "I wasn't expecting a difference" and assume it won't affect you. It doesn't work that way. As Rich already has explained in his excellent posts.
Drexler is offline  
post #111 of 145 Old 03-04-2012, 08:57 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,995
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 329
Well, I'm at a loss as to what to say to Gary at this point. His comments so continually miss the point, and so reliably mischaracterize what I've said, (and what Drexler has said, see above) that it seems hopeless.

Rich H


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
R Harkness is offline  
post #112 of 145 Old 03-04-2012, 02:31 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Andy Lammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,506
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Rich, let's fantasize and say that the Schneider rig was only $2000, not $8000.
Would you buy into one ?

I have owned a couple Panamorphs in the past with previous lower-res projectors, so have experienced their merit. But I gave up on them once going to a JVC RS-1, then RS-10,and now RS-35.

I wonder at what point an A-lens will have no more tangible merit ?
To simplfy, the 2 benefits of the A-lens are added resolution and added brightness.
Let's say we are in the future days of 4K sources, and 4K or 8K panels with projectors that have TOO MANY lumens for the 8' - 14' wide screens in a typical home theatre.
At what point is the added resolution of an A-lens of no value ?
The brightness gain of the A-lens would be of no value as our PJs will have lumens to spare.

I still consider acquiring a quality A-lens but sway back & forth.
Current PJ technology is getting so damn good that spending big money on an accessory is a tough choice.
If Blu-Ray was indeed encoded anamorphically, then I would sway much more to getting an A-lens.
Andy Lammer is offline  
post #113 of 145 Old 03-04-2012, 04:15 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,995
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 329
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Lammer View Post

Rich, let's fantasize and say that the Schneider rig was only $2000, not $8000.
Would you buy into one ?

I wouldn't buy one if the only advantage was reducing pixel size even more, since even before with my RS20 that wasn't an issue, let alone with my RS55 where I can't see pixels even a couple feet from the screen.

But I would consider buying the A-lens if it were the case it would provide noticeable brightness on scope images vs not using an A-lens on the JVC (and providing I felt the need for added brightness).

Far from arguing against A-lenses, I'm still considering buying one (and may even buy a member's Panamorph A-lens). I'd do so on the basis that it could offer me something that I know I'd see, and can't get from my current set up: an even bigger scope image.

I built my screen to allow somewhat past a 124" wide image, but throw distance currently limits my widest zoomed image to closer to 120" wide (when the projector is pushed to the back wall). An A-lens would allow me to get those last bits of image size, should I desire. (I'm just not sure yet I really feel I need the added size).

Rich H


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
R Harkness is offline  
post #114 of 145 Old 03-04-2012, 04:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RapalloAV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 1,803
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

I wouldn't buy one if the only advantage was reducing pixel size even more, since even before with my RS20 that wasn't an issue, let alone with my RS55 where I can't see pixels even a couple feet from the screen.

But I would consider buying the A-lens if it were the case it would provide noticeable brightness on scope images vs not using an A-lens on the JVC (and providing I felt the need for added brightness).

Far from arguing against A-lenses, I'm still considering buying one (and may even buy a member's Panamorph A-lens). I'd do so on the basis that it could offer me something that I know I'd see, and can't get from my current set up: an even bigger scope image.

I built my screen to allow somewhat past a 124" wide image, but throw distance currently limits my widest zoomed image to closer to 120" wide (when the projector is pushed to the back wall). An A-lens would allow me to get those last bits of image size, should I desire. (I'm just not sure yet I really feel I need the added size).

Rich Ive been thinking about this thread and I wonder if you don't see the change in image clarity/pixel size since you don't have a "constant height" screen.

Since you use "variable image size" you raise the height of the top masking for 4:3 or 16:9 higher than the scope height through zooming, (rather than an "A" lens) the pixel size could in fact be greater on the 4:3 and 16:9 image than the scope image. In a "variable image size" situation all ratios zoomed could end up looking pretty similar.

If one was to only use a CIH screen when zooming, the scope image zoomed up would show with slightly less resolution to the 4:3 and 16:9 image. It does on mine thats why I use a "A" lens.

Murray Thompson

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

RapalloAV is offline  
post #115 of 145 Old 03-04-2012, 09:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Cam Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Tucson, AZ & Los Angeles,CA, USA
Posts: 2,503
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 64 Post(s)
Liked: 95
Holy crap! Post #107 is the longest post I have seen in my 12 years of hanging out here...and probably by a multiple factor.

I'm just recognizing the fact. Congrats, Gary.

(....and well said) +1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Lammer View Post

If Blu-Ray was indeed encoded anamorphically, then I would sway much more to getting an A-lens.

Ah, wouldn't that be sweet! We've all dreamed of that, I'm sure.
Cam Man is offline  
post #116 of 145 Old 03-05-2012, 05:02 AM
Scott Horton, techht.com
 
GetGray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mid-South USA
Posts: 5,450
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Rich has a very specialized, generally unusual setup, IMO. It is not a CIH setup. An A-lens that wasn't automated may not fit well into his setup. So I don't think whether or not it fits into his setup as well as he would prefer applies to all the rest who are doing CIH.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
GetGray is online now  
post #117 of 145 Old 03-05-2012, 11:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler View Post

I didn't call anybody a liar.

No, but it's very much inferred by you're telling him he can't be seeing what he's telling you he's seeing because it's placebo, or brightness, or bias...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler View Post

I have no reason not to think he was sincere. However, that does not prove there really was a difference. I'm also sure many audiophiles sincerely thought they heard differences when switching cables or that the wine experts tasted differences when drinking the same wine (which the brain scans actually showed!). Still they were unknowingly deceiving themselves.

And there you go again.

As I keep telling you. There really are more pixels in use on the screen with a lens. Are you saying they will never be visible compared to zooming which is like moving your seating 33% closer to the screen?

The difference between audiophiles and a lens is the very real fact that there are more pixels being used on screen - it's a major hardware addition. With listening to cables, and wire being wire, it's much harder to determine.

Have you ever played Where's Wally?

And you keep forgetting that some of us are sceptics and less open to placebo. We're not all the fools you suggest we are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler View Post

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The evidence in this case is not enough to convince me considering what we know about how bias work and what visible improvement we would expect with regard to the visibility of the e-shifted pixels.

Except the very real addition of 263 vertical pixels is hardly an extraordinary claim now is it? It's actually a very real fact and something you seem to be having trouble coming to terms with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler View Post

I don't know what else to write. IMHO, seeing what you write, I think you grossly underestimate the power of bias.

I think you grossly overestimate the the power of bias, and underestimate the addition of 33% more hardware/vertical pixels.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler View Post

This is not something you can say "I'm aware of it" or "I wasn't expecting a difference" and assume it won't affect you. It doesn't work that way. As Rich already has explained in his excellent posts.

Well, actually Rich already has - he can hear the difference between power cables, so which camp does he now fall into, in your eyes?

Yes Rich's posts are excellent, especially when he agrees with you.

Otherwise you'd be calling him a liar and a fool too.

Gary

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #118 of 145 Old 03-05-2012, 12:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Well, I'm at a loss as to what to say to Gary at this point. His comments so continually miss the point, and so reliably mischaracterize what I've said, (and what Drexler has said, see above) that it seems hopeless.

I think that's unfair and a cop out. I think my comments continually make the point.

If additional pixels don't make a visible difference, why do people buy 1080 instead of 720 projectors (it's only 360 placebic pixels)?

If you think about it, 817 over 720 isn't a very big difference at all and much smaller than the 263 pixels we gain with a lens (97 pixels). So when you zoom for scope you're almost going back to 720 and according to you and Drexler, that shouldn't be visible (if it is it's placebo). So why go for 1080?

Gary

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #119 of 145 Old 03-05-2012, 12:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man View Post

Holy crap! Post #107 is the longest post I have seen in my 12 years of hanging out here...and probably by a multiple factor.

I'm just recognizing the fact. Congrats, Gary.

Well, I think it looks longer than it is because I tend to leave more lines between comments for clarity. It's probably a lot smaller than it looks if you bunch the lines together and take out the quotes.

But now I'm wondering if I should bow out of this thread and take my placebo elsewhere...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man View Post

(....and well said) +1

Many thanks, you're too kind.

Gary

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #120 of 145 Old 03-05-2012, 12:34 PM
Scott Horton, techht.com
 
GetGray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mid-South USA
Posts: 5,450
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 52
If you are a glutten for punishment you can go over to the Sony 1000 thread and explain to one of the head Somy 1000 fanboys that the 4k pixels didn't create any detail on the from the 1080 source material that wasn't already there. You can get Amir's back on the science of it. I predict you will be just as frustrated LOL .


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
GetGray is online now  
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

Tags
Jvc Dla Rs55 Bundle

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