motion judder/motion blur with highly rated LCD & LCos projectors - Page 2 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 39 Old 03-21-2013, 12:21 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
dlimatime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 19
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by dougri View Post

The below article is a few years old, but TI has not changed the technology/processes as far as we know (added some features such as support for 144Hz, though). My take is consistent with the optical engineer in the comments in the below article that it takes a better lens to get the same performance out of a .65" DMD vs a .95" DMD with the same process (at least as far as sharpness is concerned). While some manufacturers do very well with sharpness on lower end units (e.g. benq w7000), lenses also impact the colors and contrast. While it may be possible for a plastic lens made in China to perform on par with a glass lens made in Japan, it is unlikely across all lens attributes. Anyway, the below article is an interesting read if you have not seen it before. Having said that, I have high hopes for the Sharp, as I'm still looking for a 3D projector.

http://www.videovantage.com/?p=11

edit: on cost, the larger chip will require a larger lens for the same offset/throw... larger lens -> increased cost (especially for a glass lens).

Great informative article & testing done on the .95 & .65 dlp chips. Thanks!
dlimatime is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 39 Old 03-21-2013, 12:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Schenectady, New York
Posts: 4,422
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 533 Post(s)
Liked: 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlimatime View Post

As far as the dlp chip goes, I have never owned a .95 chip, only the .65 chip. Is there really that great of a noticeable difference? I you were looking at an image not knowing the projector I highly doubt you or anyone else could definatively determine which dlp chip it you were looking at.

I would bet you any amount of money that if I were to place the image of the Marantz (or Planar PD8150, or the NuVision P2) next to the Vivitek H5085's and asked someone which they thought had the larger DMD the results would probably be unanimous. A simple image would be a page like this that has text on it. NO COMPARISON. Every single one of the .95" DMD DLP machines I've owned has had a sharper image by a decent amount and not all of them were crazy expensive units. The BenQ W5000 for example looked amazingly sharp considering it's price. I'm telling you that it's really no comparison.

You contradict yourself. How can you make a claim like that and have never seen the larger chip before? Please take it from me (and many others who have seen both sides) and know that there is typically a very noticeable difference. I know I may come off a little snobby and I don't mean to. It's just after seeing the difference between the two its very hard to look at these cheaper projectors and be impressed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dlimatime View Post

You stated in your reply to me, "I don't understand how someone could be totally happy with it" (it being the Sharp XV-Z30000 I own). You contradict yourself because you admit that you have not seen the Sharp 30K in action so how would you know anything about it's performance and image quality? It seems you are knocking down any dlp projector that doesn't have the .95 chip in it or high-end name & pricetag.

Also, despite all the many so called "high-end" dlp projectors you have owned, I would ask you why have you owned so many? You are either searching for the holy grail of projectors or as you indicated to me, it must be that it is in fact you that is not "totally happy" with the projector(s) you have owned."

I am obviously partial to dlp projectors and I would be interested in knowing which dlp projectors you have owned and which one(s) you liked the best in terms of a sharp, crisp image, good color and smooth motion "judder-free" handling. In your experience, what have been the pros & cons of the best projectors you have owned?

You act like I was personally trying to offend anyone who owns a projector with the smaller DMD. You also didn't read what I wrote entirely. I said that I hadn't seen Sharp 30k and that I still had hope for it. From what Art has said, he thought as far as sharpness goes it looked a little less sharp than the Mitsubishi HC7800D. I've owed that unit and it wasn't particularly sharp. The JVC DLA-X3 I had was actually sharper. I'd say the Mitsubishi is just a tad better than the Vivitek H5080 that I have now. You have to look at price point. It seems, with the exception of BenQ, no manufacturer puts in a decent lens and that's the reason behind why these .65" DLP's look so much different compared to their larger brothers. Good lenses cost money. When you build a .65" DLP machine you typically have low MSRP in mind. The catch here is that you need an exceptional lens to resolve the same amount of detail the larger chip can with something less exceptional. The smaller surface area and the same amount of mirrors requires this. But at the price point of most .65" DLP machines you simple can't do that. So what you end up with is the .65" DMD getting shafted on contrast and sharpness and the larger DMD getting better native contrast and much better lenses and that results in a much sharper picture.

The reason I've owned so many is complicated. At one point (after only owning 4 or 5 units) I had gone up in PQ each time I bought a new unit. Then I had problems with my Planar PD8150 and it needed to go in for service. Unfortunately they had for almost 2 months. In the mean time I bought a couple cheap models (Optoma HD20 and then Epson 8100, the Epson was much nicer btw) to hold me over till I got the Planar back. I bought the Mitsubishi HC7800D because I wanted to try out 3D and now I have this Vivitek as a loaner unit I get the NuVision P2 back.

The best unit's I've ever owned in regards to sharpness and motion are the Planar PD8150 and the Marantz VP-11S1. Sure the Marantz doesn't have the best contrast in the world but like I said before, it's still better than the Vivitek H5085 with it's iris closed all way down and the dynamic iris in use. The Mitsubishi HC7800D only had a dynamic iris. It was a very bad implantation that was way too noticeable to use. Without it turned on the Marantz also had much better contrast and a much lower black level.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Crazy Projector Journey
Seegs108 is online now  
post #33 of 39 Old 03-21-2013, 12:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Elix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Dungeon, Pillar of Eyes
Posts: 1,255
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Let's concentrate on motion properties of projectors in this topic, okay? Seegs, have you tried testing your other projectors with that test? (test2.mp4)
Elix is offline  
post #34 of 39 Old 03-21-2013, 12:57 PM
Member
 
Aaron Inami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Tracy, CA
Posts: 56
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlimatime View Post

2nd place:
My second choice is the Sony VLP-HW50ES, which would be the best projector of the three if it only had better motion resolution but I simply could not live with the frequent motion judder being so prevalent on this Sony in 2D HDTV sports. The Sony is a spectacular projector with movies, particularly blu-ray. It also has a nice crisp image with excellent color. However, the Sony is $1,000 more than the Sharp & Epson.

Regarding this motion judder you experienced with the Sony. I'm wondering if you were seeing this while the Motion Enhance function was set to "High". My experience with this on the VW95ES is that motion is extremely smooth and realistic for slow to mildly moving objects and people. However, when you have a sudden fast-moving object (like when someone turns their face in a quick motion), the Sony logic that creates this interpolated frames in-between the real frames applies some sort of weird motion accelaration to the object and the end-effect can be jarring and not natural at all. The same goes for scenarios where you have a "shaky camera" (like a director would do during a fight scene). The inherit motion of the scene is unnaturally jarring and hard to see. This could come across as "motion judder". When you turn off the Motion Enhance function, this weird accelaration judder goes way (at least in my case it does).

Regarding "Motion Blur". On my VW95ES (and I suspect this could be happening on the HW50 as well) I can see blur and loss of edge detail on medium motion objects (like people's faces) on the screen if I feed the projector a 4:2:2 signal. This is due to the missing/reduced chroma information in 422 format. Sony is just outputting exactly what you put into it, so that means that the edge detail of an item on the screen is constanctly flickering as it moves across the screen, since the chroma values for that edge detail are constantly fluctuating depending if it's on an "odd" pixel or "even" pixel and what other pixel it's sharing the chroma values with. Feeding the sony with processed 4:4:4 (even though it's only 8-bit) will resolve this blur issue and edge detail will track much better as it moves across the screen.
Aaron Inami is offline  
post #35 of 39 Old 03-21-2013, 01:28 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
dlimatime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 19
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Seegs,

This is why I posed the questions about the two chips... because I have not owned a projector with the .95 chip. All I stated was I have my doubts one could tell the difference in chips but if you claim the .95 chip is sharper/better in your experience than I believe you. Unfortunately most of us don't get the opportunity to do side-by-side comparisons and have to rely upon our subjective memory.

How is the Planar 8150 and Vivtek 8085 with motion judder?
What other projector(s) do you have experience with that do well with motion resolution (w/out using CFI), particulary 2D HDTV with an emphasis on sports?
dlimatime is offline  
post #36 of 39 Old 03-21-2013, 01:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Schenectady, New York
Posts: 4,422
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 533 Post(s)
Liked: 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlimatime View Post

Seegs,

This is why I posed the questions about the two chips... because I have not owned a projector with the .95 chip. All I stated was I have my doubts one could tell the difference in chips but if you claim the .95 chip is sharper/better in your experience than I believe you. Unfortunately most of us don't get the opportunity to do side-by-side comparisons and have to rely upon our subjective memory.

How is the Planar 8150 and Vivtek 8085 with motion judder?
What other projector(s) do you have experience with that do well with motion resolution (w/out using CFI), particulary 2D HDTV with an emphasis on sports?

DLP is the only choice if you are viewing sports most of the time. especially if you aren't going to be using CFI. Both of the units you mentioned are fantastic with motion in general. No judder or other motion artifacts. All of the DLP units I've owned fair very well with motion. There is a link my signature if you're curious about which models I've owned.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Crazy Projector Journey
Seegs108 is online now  
post #37 of 39 Old 03-21-2013, 01:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Schenectady, New York
Posts: 4,422
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 533 Post(s)
Liked: 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elix View Post

Let's concentrate on motion properties of projectors in this topic, okay? Seegs, have you tried testing your other projectors with that test? (test2.mp4)

No, but I will when I get the NuVision back, but I would imagine at least 720 lines. It is the same as my Planar PD8150 (same light path, optics and processing). They basically just replaced the color wheel and lamp with the LED module.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Crazy Projector Journey
Seegs108 is online now  
post #38 of 39 Old 03-21-2013, 01:43 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
dlimatime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 19
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Motion Enhancer (ME) or creative frame interpolation (CFI) has 3 settings on the Sony HW50, "Off, Low & High."

With ME on, the low or high setting it does help minimize motion judder but does not totally eliminate it.; the judder still occurs way too frequently.
The Sony ME is actually not bad at minimizing the "soap opera" or as I like to call it "amateur video camera effect" that occurs commonly with the CFI feature engaged.

Still, even with ME engaged the Sony still has way too much motion judder for me when watching 2D HDTV sports on Charter Cable TV; it was a real annoying artifact I just couldn't live with, particulary on a $3,500 projector.

I returned the Sony and purchased the Sharp XV-Z30000 for under $2,500 and not longer have the motion judder problem; I also saved a $grand$.
The Sharp does not even have CFI... it must be the Sharp's dlp advantage versus the Sony's LCos in terms of handling motion.
dlimatime is offline  
post #39 of 39 Old 03-22-2013, 06:19 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,477
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 167 Post(s)
Liked: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlimatime View Post

Why do these Sony's, JVC's & Epson mainstream models get such great reviews all the time when they all have shortcomings/issues? (ie. motion judder, blur, screen door, brightness)..

I'm beginning to think Art at Projector Reviews put way too much emphasis on black level and strictly blu-ray movie viewing. Many of us will also use the projector for HDTV & sports on DirectTV and Cable TV and not just blu-ray movies. This is mainly why I'm happy with the Sharp and it does produce a nice image on blu-ray as well. I briefly owned both the Sony HW50 & Epson 5020 and returned both of them because I was not at all impressed with the Sony & Epson on HDTV 2D sports because of the frequent motion judder problem.

Art F. either didn't test for motion judder w/HDTV sports or he is simply omitting it from his reviews. As thorough as Art's reviews appear, he should also test and comment more thoroughly on projector performance with other viewing content besides blu-ray movies. I have not seen any motion judder on the Sharp and the image is crisp and sharper than the Sony & Epson. I believe this is an advantage of dlp technology.

For a long time black level/contrast on projectors was terrible, it was by far the biggest issue, so a lot of people/us got used to just evaluating projectors almost solely on their black level/contrast. I think a lot of that mindset remains. On top of that, I'd say "most" people "serious" into projectors are for the purpose of movie watching, so that also tends to be the focus.
Quote:
Based on reviews the higher end Runco's & Sim2 projectors also have flaws... As per Art's reviews and others I've read the black levels, rainbows, lower lumens etc. of these these so-called "high end" top $ projectors don't necessarily provide greater performance. One could argue that these higher end projector companies are overated/overpriced projectors that in many cases do not even outperform the mainstream models from companies like Sony, Epson, Optoma etc. Ask yourself which companies truly offer the better price/performance value?

I don't think that's fair, if you're curious, go over to the $20k+ forum and read about the Lumis vs JVCs, it's interesting. That aside, I think a lot of reviewers, especially "internet" reviewers are enamored by low price and they tend to overstate the "issues" of high end machines in an (unconscious?) attempt to justify complaining about the high price. To be sure the cost/value goes down with higher end machines, but to say they don't provide greater performance I think is naive. I might have gone along with that line of thought for my first few projectors, up until I got my Planar 8150. It replaced a BenQ W5000. By the "internet wisdom", they're very similar and the Planar would be overpriced. Same sized DMD (0.95") similar brightness, etc. Only "significant" difference is the DC3 in the Planar vs the DC2 in the W5000, so "internet wisdom" would say the Planar is overpriced vs the BenQ and not worth it. But the Planar was just in a different league. Colors, sharpness, contrast and just overall refinement are much better on the Planar (though admittedly, at this level/these days it's not a knock your socks off obvious difference).

I have no doubt a Lumis, Vango, Mico, etc would be a significant improvement too. A Sim2 may be my next projector (not soon) for all the reasons discussed here, confusingly/paradoxically/disappointingly (yet somehow happily) unless you're looking for 3D or Frame Interpolation or other "features", there's just nothing compelling out there to upgrade from one of the "older" top DLPs, other than an even better, more expensive ultra high-end DLP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlimatime View Post

Is the .95 chip the newest/latest dlp chip from Texas Instruments and what are the so-called advantages of the .95 chip?

FWIW, the 0.95" chip is "older" or should I say came out first. The first 1080p HT DLP chips were 0.95" and every 1080p DLP had them. There have been about 4 revisions from the original to DC2, DC3, DC4 (DC4 is found in projectors like the Sim2 Mico, the Vango, and other high end ones). For a long time the price differentiation in DLPs was the DCx chip (eg the 8150 had a DC3, the 8130 had a DC2).

My understanding is the 0.65" DMD was made only for cost considerations. The smaller chip allows building projectors good placement flexibility more cheaply. That was a common complaint with the large DMD DLPs, they were generally restrictive in placement because things like lens shift/zoom with large chips require large expensive optics. AFAIK there's no reason to use a 0.65" DMD over a 0.95" one other than to reduce cost (at the price of performance).

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

Tags
Epson 5020ub Powerlite Home Cinema 3d Front Projector , Sony Vpl Hw50es 3d Projector , Sharp Xv Z30000 Dlp
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