Brytewerks - 'nice'. - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 11 Old 06-08-2012, 03:16 PM - Thread Starter
_gl
Newbie
 
_gl's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'm posting this for anyone interested in the Brytewerks Model 1 projector. Sounds very promising on paper (reviews & reliability pending), and as I'm working on a projection-based project I'm seriously interested - so I signed up to their notification emails.

Today they sent out one about projector light sources, called 'Let there be Light'. At least one statement in it was incorrect. No big deal, I emailed them (the message actually solicited corrections). Got a reply within a few minutes from head honcho Justin Eugene Evans - pretty cool right? Not so much. Here is the full unedited correspondence (every message, nothing left out). It's not about the details (he's wrong, so what) - it's about the way the guy talked to me. I won't be replying to this thread, make up your own mind:

Section from their email I took issue with:

"So, we have an entire global projection industry built around projecting a slightly superior range of colors that were never captured on the set to begin with and therefore cannot be projected.

The logic is simple. The source is the source is the source. What you capture is the best you can ever hope to project."


Anyone who knows anything about the mechanics of 'colour grading' (ie. digitally recolouring the footage in post) knows this is fundamentally wrong. I'm a programmer (who's written grading code) as well as a grader, so I know it pretty well too. Grading can create new colours from a wider gamut that didn't or couldn't exist in the original footage. As a simplistic example, I can make a particular green shade in the footage much greener than the camera could have captured. Or that the lighting used on the set could have produced. In fact I can digitally create any possible colour in any possible colour space.

So you can easily create colours in post that require a better colour rendering than the original footage would have.


My correspondence with Justin:

Me:
[re. the email]
Interesting overall, but this bit is flawed:

"The logic is simple. The source is the source is the source. What you capture is the best you can ever hope to project."


That only holds true if the footage isn't graded.  Colour grading can create colours (as well as colour resolution) that didn't exist in the original footage, so also a larger gamut.  And pretty much all movies are graded these days.

Justin:
GL -

As a cinematographer and filmmaker I'd love to know how you expand the gamut beyond what was captured. I agree, all films are graded. My colorist is one of the best in the business. He's currently the senior colorist for Disney. And we've gone to great lengths to work together in pre-production because if I don't capture it on the shoot he can't make it appear in post.

Can he make a warm scene cool? Sure. But, that's not the same thing as expanding the gamut. That's scientifically impossible.

Me:
?  I can place the footage into any colour space I want, then manipulate its colours to use any colour in that colour space.

As an extreme example, I can place monochrome footage into any colour space, and colourize it in some way.  Of course the resulting colours are then part of that space.  Make sense?

Me (followup):
Another way to think of it.  I load a standard sRGB image into Photoshop, then convert it to Adobe RGB (which has a larger gamut).

I can now push the original sRGB colours into that larger gamut via, say, Hue/Saturation adjustments.  The manipulated image is now using colours from the larger space.

Justin:
I think we're going to have to disagree. Just because the footage has been placed in a particular color space doesn't mean the gamut is now wider. What you're talking about is artificial and doesn't look real in any way. You cannot take monochrome footage, colorize it and have it look natural.

Let's just agree to disagree.


Me:
> Just because the footage has been placed in a particular color space doesn't mean the gamut is now wider

Exactly - it's the colour manipulation (grading) after the conversion that makes it possible.

> You cannot take monochrome footage, colorize it and have it look natural.

I was using an extreme example to better illustrate the point.  As you know, modern digital grading can take any colour, or range of colours, and either shift them in some way, or completely replace them (or anything inbetween).  So you can manipulate pixels to any colours from the space you're working in.
In other words, (with grading) the limitation isn't the input footage - it's your final output format & its colour space.

I'm speaking as a video & general multimedia programmer.  Run it by your colourist, he'll confirm.

Justin:
GL -

Do you have a REAL name? Or am I supposed to debate with a pair of initials?

And, you just exposed the hole in your argument. Yes, you can load an image into a different color space. And yes you can manipulate it. And yes that color space is larger...but it doesn't matter because the original image's limitations still apply.

And we're done having this debate now. We clearly disagree. If you can't see the difference between manipulating an image in a larger color space and actually HAVING that large color space available to the image then I feel sorry for you. They aren't the same thing.

And I don't need a ****ing lecture from a mental midget.

Me:
> And I don't need a ****ing lecture from a mental midget.

Wow.  I was trying to share useful information.  Good to know what kind of guy is running this thing.

Justin:
It is easy to be anonymous.

I have no idea who you are. You choose to be anonymous. And your argument is...stupid.

You are confusing the ability to manipulate an image in a different color space with the magical creation of colors that were never captured. And I've already had this conversation with my colorist a dozen times. He teaches at class on this issue at Disney so idiot directors don't walk in and say "What do you mean you can't uncrush the image? What do you mean you can't make it even warmer? Why not? I thought color grading could do anything?"

If you had real knowledge you'd be signing a name, not initials. You know who I am. Now go away. I've banned your emails. I don't have the free time to debate something with someone who clearly can't grasp basic science.


From their original email:

"CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS
If you'd like to submit corrections or additions please email them to info@brytewerks.com. The first and only rule is simple: Keep it civil."
.
_gl is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 11 Old 06-08-2012, 04:26 PM
Advanced Member
 
motorman45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Vermont
Posts: 563
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 14
I think the post speaks for itself. and the quality of the projector is probably is about as good as the attitude. what gets me is he complained about your user ID ?? and not knowing your name. come on this is a forum. also i think he is claiming a wider gamut for the projector and he was not able to explain this well as opposed to color space of content. yes a xenon bulb offers possibly more gamut than rec709 but that is a non issue.
i would have to see one of these projectors at work to belive that a single large trasnmissive color LCD can deliver a good image. ive seen a few of this type and they are not great at blacks and colors that are realistic and not washed out. i could be wrong but the color of the promoter is not good lol

motorman45 is offline  
post #3 of 11 Old 06-16-2012, 05:41 PM
Newbie
 
ButchBear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I have a lot of problems with the Brytewerks "Model One" projector. The 1920 x 1200 resolution might look decent in any size under 100" or so, but that resolution is not going to look very good at 250" or above. Movie theaters are using "4k projectors " (typically 4096 by 2100) for larger screens so it look the same quality as a 35 mm film projector!

So, they are already giving us BS!

No one has seen this thing perform yet to me that is the most troubling aspect, until there is an independent review, I'll wait to see if the reality lives up to the "hype"!

Al
ButchBear is offline  
post #4 of 11 Old 06-18-2012, 06:46 AM
Advanced Member
 
BlackShark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Montpellier, France
Posts: 582
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Most theatres haven't upgraded to 4K yet, the vast majority of them only run 2K projectors and the picture looks just fine.

This projector looks promising, however, their one size fits all market-breaking approach is disturbing.
They use a 1:1 throw ratio so I guess they designed the projector to be located in front of the audience, probably sitting on a table. But at the same time, their all in one box is quite tall : it will block the view. So what does it mean ? Should we put that projector down on the floor ?
No lens shift but keystone correction, maybe but with a projector down on the floor, won't the amount of keystone be excessive ?
An other thing is their Lumen output claim which is enormous for a home projector. Such an amount of light means really large screen. Most people don't have walls large enough for that, so the picture will be super-bright, much too bright for a home theatre setup. Projector reviews complained about the Panasonic PT100u saying it was too bright for a home theatre and it's less than half the claimed lumen output of the model one. So how should we use this one ?
Should we leave the lights on ?

Passive 3D, forever !
My Full-HD dual-projector passive polarised 3D setup. (really out of date ! I need to update it some day...)

BlackShark is offline  
post #5 of 11 Old 06-24-2012, 01:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
donaldk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,362
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Guys this machine has been discussed before, it is simply an lumenlab projector, with a big high wattage and fairly expensive lamp sending its light through a single WUXGA LCD panel.
donaldk is offline  
post #6 of 11 Old 06-29-2012, 12:17 PM
Member
 
Guspaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 31
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
BlackShark: It's an interchangeable lens projector, and they're doing 2:1 and 3:1 lenses for it too (I think only the 1:1 and 2:1 are available near launch).

donaldk: So, you're basically complaining that it uses a multi-inch RGB panel in the optical path instead of some other approach? Care to explain why this is a problem?
Guspaz is offline  
post #7 of 11 Old 06-29-2012, 12:40 PM
Member
 
A.West's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Central NJ
Posts: 117
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I think this one is designed for 3rd world drive in movie theaters. Like that one proposed in Haiti.
A.West is offline  
post #8 of 11 Old 07-06-2012, 01:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
donaldk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,362
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Only if you plan to stack and blend 10 - 15 of these.

This reminds me of the Asian companies that offered cheap projector designs, just ha a bigger and very expensive lamp, where those used cheap halogen bulbs in their lumenlabstylemachines.
donaldk is offline  
post #9 of 11 Old 12-28-2012, 10:15 PM
Advanced Member
 
blake18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 866
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 61
I've seen his interviews, be is quite the douche.

Lumenlab "Community driven video lab".
blake18 is offline  
post #10 of 11 Old 12-30-2012, 12:03 PM
AVS Special Member
 
erkq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,520
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by ButchBear View Post

I have a lot of problems with the Brytewerks "Model One" projector. The 1920 x 1200 resolution might look decent in any size under 100" or so, but that resolution is not going to look very good at 250" or above. Movie theaters are using "4k projectors " (typically 4096 by 2100) for larger screens so it look the same quality as a 35 mm film projector!
So, they are already giving us BS!
No one has seen this thing perform yet to me that is the most troubling aspect, until there is an independent review, I'll wait to see if the reality lives up to the "hype"!
Al

The size of the screen doesn't matter. It's all about the angle of view. So, yeah, if someone gets a 250" screen and sits 10 feet from it, 2k isn't enough. But people rarely get that large of a screen so they can sit so close. Usually that size screen is for a large venue where people are going to be sitting at a greater distance. 1 screen width is 1 screen width, no matter what the size of the screen. And, generally, 1 screen width works for 2k projectors.
erkq is offline  
post #11 of 11 Old 12-30-2012, 02:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Highjinx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,769
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by erkq View Post

The size of the screen doesn't matter. It's all about the angle of view. So, yeah, if someone gets a 250" screen and sits 10 feet from it, 2k isn't enough. But people rarely get that large of a screen so they can sit so close. Usually that size screen is for a large venue where people are going to be sitting at a greater distance. 1 screen width is 1 screen width, no matter what the size of the screen. And, generally, 1 screen width works for 2k projectors.


For my vision(a bit better than 20/20) and consumer 2k(BluRay) optimum image quality is at 29 degrees/1.8x screen widths(66 pixels per degree), acceptable is 34degrees/1.5 screen widths(56 pixels per degree) can't sit any closer.

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

User Tag List

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


Forum Jump: 

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

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