what happened to native 2.35 projectors? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 154 Old 08-15-2013, 02:44 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
showcattleguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: poplar grove IL
Posts: 19
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
What happened as I have not heard anything in a long time. A couple years ago Sim2 released specs for a Nero235 and now that I am in a financial position to purchase one nobody seems to have talked about it in over a year and a half. Did I miss something?
showcattleguy is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 154 Old 08-15-2013, 02:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Schenectady, New York
Posts: 3,737
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 96 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by showcattleguy View Post

What happened as I have not heard anything in a long time. A couple years ago Sim2 released specs for a Nero235 and now that I am in a financial position to purchase one nobody seems to have talked about it in over a year and a half. Did I miss something?

Digital Projection has a native 2.35:1 (2560 x 1080) model out. That's your best bet if you're looking for one.


Here it is:

http://www.digitalprojection.com/ProjectorDetail/tabid/87/ProjectorId/222/Default.aspx
Seegs108 is offline  
post #3 of 154 Old 08-15-2013, 03:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ron Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Florida and West Virginia, USA
Posts: 5,703
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Liked: 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post

Digital Projection has a native 2.35:1 (2560 x 1080) model out. That's your best bet if you're looking for one.


Here it is:

http://www.digitalprojection.com/ProjectorDetail/tabid/87/ProjectorId/222/Default.aspx

That Digital Projection model had a MSRP of $35K when introduced two years ago. I would suggest the less expensive Sony VW1000 with its 4K resolution and much better on/off contrast ratio will put up a superior 2.35:1 image from 1080p sources and as a bonus also will support upcoming 4K video sources (at least after Sony implements an upgrade in the coming months).

Ron Jones
Blog + Reviews + Articles: projectorreviews.com
Ron Jones is offline  
post #4 of 154 Old 08-15-2013, 04:58 PM
Senior Member
 
avsform1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 494
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Jones View Post

That Digital Projection model had a MSRP of $35K when introduced two years ago. I would suggest the less expensive Sony VW1000 with its 4K resolution and much better on/off contrast ratio will put up a superior 2.35:1 image from 1080p sources and as a bonus also will support upcoming 4K video sources (at least after Sony implements an upgrade in the coming months).

I dont thnk the he Sony doesn't have a anamophic lens. Correct me if I am wrong CattleGuy, but I think you are look for a PJ that has a built in anamorphic lens right?
avsform1 is offline  
post #5 of 154 Old 08-15-2013, 05:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Schenectady, New York
Posts: 3,737
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 96 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by avsform1 View Post

I dont thnk the he Sony doesn't have a anamophic lens. Correct me if I am wrong CattleGuy, but I think you are look for a PJ that has a built in anamorphic lens right?

It has built in lens memory so you can have the lens automatically zoom to fill the screen.
Seegs108 is offline  
post #6 of 154 Old 08-15-2013, 05:08 PM
Senior Member
 
Gradius2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iquique, Chile
Posts: 397
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 13
2560 x 1080 = 2.37:1

Not 2.35:1.

To me is better than 2.35, due to the 16:9 and 4:3 aspects.

[]s,
Fernando
Gradius2 is online now  
post #7 of 154 Old 08-15-2013, 05:08 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
AV Science Sales 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: A beautiful view of a lake
Posts: 7,174
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Liked: 341
Quote:
Originally Posted by showcattleguy View Post

What happened as I have not heard anything in a long time. A couple years ago Sim2 released specs for a Nero235 and now that I am in a financial position to purchase one nobody seems to have talked about it in over a year and a half. Did I miss something?

Sent you a PM. smile.gif

Mike Garrett, AV Science Sales
Call Me: 585-671-2968
Email Me: Mike@AVScience.com

Brands we sell: http://avscience.com/brands/

 

Call for B-stock projectors

Stewart, Seymour, SE, SI & many more.
Klipsch, RBH, Martin Logan, Triad, Atlantic Technology, MK Sound, BG Radia, SVS & Def Tech.

AV Science Sales 5 is online now  
post #8 of 154 Old 08-15-2013, 05:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Schenectady, New York
Posts: 3,737
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 96 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gradius2 View Post

2560 x 1080 = 2.37:1

Not 2.35:1.

To me is better than 2.35, due to the 16:9 and 4:3 aspects.

Anamorphic movies vary between 2.35-2.40 so the best choice for an aspect ratio would be in the middle, hence the 2.37:1 one utilized here. Many people go with 2.37:1 screens for this very reason. It's a happy median between all the anamorphic aspect ratios.
Seegs108 is offline  
post #9 of 154 Old 08-15-2013, 05:45 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
AV Science Sales 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: A beautiful view of a lake
Posts: 7,174
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Liked: 341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Jones View Post

That Digital Projection model had a MSRP of $35K when introduced two years ago. I would suggest the less expensive Sony VW1000 with its 4K resolution and much better on/off contrast ratio will put up a superior 2.35:1 image from 1080p sources and as a bonus also will support upcoming 4K video sources (at least after Sony implements an upgrade in the coming months).

35K is the current MSRP.

Mike Garrett, AV Science Sales
Call Me: 585-671-2968
Email Me: Mike@AVScience.com

Brands we sell: http://avscience.com/brands/

 

Call for B-stock projectors

Stewart, Seymour, SE, SI & many more.
Klipsch, RBH, Martin Logan, Triad, Atlantic Technology, MK Sound, BG Radia, SVS & Def Tech.

AV Science Sales 5 is online now  
post #10 of 154 Old 08-15-2013, 06:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
AV_Integrated's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Northern, VA - Washington, DC
Posts: 2,881
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Liked: 266
ProjectionDesign is the manufacturer for the DP model, and their price is closer to $25K or so depending on the lens you are looking to use with it.

http://www.avielo.com/product-optix-superwide235.html

http://www.projectiondesign.com/products/f35-series

The issue as I see it at this time is that there isn't actually a 2.35 DLP chip in use. They are modding the 2560x1600 chip for 2.35 (2.37) use right now. I saw the F35 today and it looks really good and can handle a very large screen in a good theater no problem, but it is not a 3D projector and would require some external work to deliver 3D on screen.

I'm thinking, while UHD is starting to take off, at some point we will see Epson deliver a 2.35 LCD chip set and then TI will respond in kind with DLP... Five years... That's my guess right now.

AV Integrated - Theater, whole house audio, and technology installation in the Washington DC metro area.
AV_Integrated is offline  
post #11 of 154 Old 08-15-2013, 08:03 PM
Member
 
yuettoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 67
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Two years ago I placed an order of F35 but the supplier couldn' t got it.
This yeay I bought my 1000ES from Japan directly.
yuettoi is offline  
post #12 of 154 Old 09-28-2013, 04:31 PM
Member
 
New Design's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 104
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV_Integrated View Post

ProjectionDesign is the manufacturer for the DP model, and their price is closer to $25K or so depending on the lens you are looking to use with it.

http://www.avielo.com/product-optix-superwide235.html

http://www.projectiondesign.com/products/f35-series

The issue as I see it at this time is that there isn't actually a 2.35 DLP chip in use. They are modding the 2560x1600 chip for 2.35 (2.37) use right now. I saw the F35 today and it looks really good and can handle a very large screen in a good theater no problem, but it is not a 3D projector and would require some external work to deliver 3D on screen.

I'm thinking, while UHD is starting to take off, at some point we will see Epson deliver a 2.35 LCD chip set and then TI will respond in kind with DLP... Five years... That's my guess right now.
I

I have seen the projectiondesign 21:9 projector in the flesh at their demo suite in Manhattan (along with many of their other high end models). They really are very nice gear. Forget the specs that manufacturers use to sell their technology, those numbers mean nothing without the context of how they were measured.

The projectiondesign models I saw were in a different league to almost any home theater projector I have ever seen and I have seen more than most. This isn't surprising, they should be better considering the price. The amount you save on an anamorphic lens is nothing in comparison to what the native 21:9 projectors cost. The one I saw was north of $35k rack rate. Now I'm sure negotiating discounts is possible but they are never going to be cheap.

I saw them in dark and bright conditions. In the dark, the colors were perfect, the black levels were fantastic and there was no distortion in the image like you often get with anamorphic lenses. There was also multiple image adjustments possible to tweak it depending on the application and preferences. In the light, they retained good black levels considering the conditions. I came away with projector envy. I wanted to come away thinking that it was just overpriced hype. It is overpriced but it is far from just a home theater projector with a wider image.

The contrast ratios quoted have gotten so far from reality that there is little point using them as any sort of guide. Read the reviews. Doubling the contrast ratio is no guarantee of double the contrast. The average digital theater projector only has 1000:1 to 2000:1 contrast ratios yet, they put out a better looking image than home theater projectors with a claimed 50,000:1+. The contrast ratio measures the difference between the brightest and darkest image the device can put out. One big variance is how bright it is to start with. Getting 10,000 times darker than 700 lumens is different to getting 10,000 times darker than 5000 lumens.

The projectiondesign gear is far brighter than any of the Sony home theater models. The contrast ratio is a claimed 7000:1 which is better than most other devices of comparable brightness, including the $70,000 + digital theater and post production models. It is far less than the ht devices claim but you wouldn't know by watching one. brighter images can give the appearance of better contrast. A dull image with great blacks can appear to have poor contrast.

Perhaps the 2 most important points are that manufacturers measure contrast in pitch black ideal conditions. The effect of the tiniest amount of light, such as the red power light on your Blu Ray player, is surprisingly large and quickly sends those impressive numbers crashing back down to earth. There is also a debate over how much difference the human eye can really see between 10,000:1 contrast and 20,000:1 contrast for example. It is possible that the manufacturers have us chasing "performance" we can't really see. That is great for them, it makes us buy more devices we don't need and can't complain about the lack of incremental performance that we could never measure. 4 years ago, devices with 2000:1 from companies like Runco got rave reviews for image quality including black levels. This year, cheaper projectors with a claimed 50,000 get accused of having mediocre black levels. Did our standards rise that much?

Back to the 21:9 projectors. They are available now from projectiondesign and Digital Projecion. They are both the same inside. Both expensive. Both mainly sold as expensive installation projectors. Both look amazing.

I have seen the Sony 4k projector and that looks great too. If you have a dark theater, you would be very happy with it. I personally can't make out a huge difference in resolution from a normal seating position. I can tell if I go close to the screen. They use a lot of frame smoothing to make the image appear sharper but it doesn't look very different to high end 1080p tv's or projectors that also have frame smoothing or "game show mode" as they affectionately call it in reviews.

The Sony does support an anamorphic lens as well as having the option to just zoom in. For pure 2.40:1 quality, the native projectiondesign set-up looks better and is far more convenient. If you have the money for a decent lens and a professional installation, I'm sure you would be happy with either. If you want ambient light performance without losing all of your contrast, the digitalprojection 21:9 model wipes the floor with most home theater models but costs a lot more too. At least the Sony projector is actually 4k as used in theaters and not 300 lines narrower like the ultra HD tv's that claim to adhere to the 4k standard. If Sony ever plan on making their 4k theater content available for home use, having the same resolution as the theater devices will help. Every other 4k device will have to scale unless they recut the content in which case the 4k projector will have to scale. A guy from Sony told me you might be able to download some 4k movies soon for $30 each and it will take 2 hours to download each movie. I don't know if that is true or not.

In 2 years, you are more likely to find an affordable used Sony 4k projector than a used 21:9 digitalprojection given how few are in circulation. I was surprised they were already on sale when I asked, as I had heard nothing about them apart from the annual announcement at trade shows, every year. Apparently, they have been on sale for a while but mainly through the pro division (who I engage with) and mainly for digital signage applications as an alternative to using 2 devices and their edge blending box for wide displays. .

The zoom option on the Sony is not really different from zooming on any projector. The claims about upscaling to give you higher resolution is misleading. They take the same 1920 x800 blu ray that everyone else uses and stretch it over a larger number of dots. They then use software to fill in the gaps with fake pixels. They do a nice job of it but they can't create new information that isn't there to begin with. Many people think one to one mapping is the best way. The 21:9 device also have to stretch 1920 x 800 content over 2560 x 1080. There is no solution right now that gives full screen 21:9 without stretching the image. It is just a case of doing it with software or glass.

Btw, on the exact ratios, I thought that 2.35:1 isn't used anymore, it was an old standard that just became the jargon for any extra wide movie. Most of the wide movies I have are 2.40:1 which seems fairly common. If the screen was 2.37:1 instead of 2.40:1 and you adjusted the image to make it fit anyway, I doubt the difference would be enough to notice any major distortion. I though that 2560 x 1080 came out to 2.37:1 but I'm not 100%.

Also, it doesn't matter that the chip was originally 1600 lines instead of 1080. Their devices are meant to he configurable. I would personally prefer not to have unused lines projected so configuring it for 1080 lines is perfect. The signage industry has used cut down panels for extra wide displays for years. Maybe it is just efficient to use existing technology with some tailoring than adding additional custom development costs for an already expensive niche product. I'm not sure what you think is lost in the process.

I wish a mainstream manufacturer would bring out a native 21:9 device. It makes so much sense for projectors which have been available in multiple aspect ratios for years. Home theater projectors are often bought by movie fans who watch a large percentage of wide content. It is a shame they always seem to be priced as exotic items and then referred to as justification for a view that there is no market for it. Just because someone who was going to spend $3000 on a device didn't buy the $30k one, doesn't mean no demand. It just means that a wider image is not worth the price of a used porche in additional cost.
rabident likes this.
New Design is offline  
post #13 of 154 Old 09-29-2013, 07:11 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
noah katz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Mountain View, CA USA
Posts: 20,348
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 81 Post(s)
Liked: 133
Thanks for the interesting and informative post.

A few points on which I feel qualified to comment; the rest is beyond my pay grade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Design View Post

The average digital theater projector only has 1000:1 to 2000:1 contrast ratios yet, they put out a better looking image than home theater projectors with a claimed 50,000:1+.

Perhaps they do overall, but not in contrast performance in dark scenes, where my JVC RS10 is obviously superior to what I see in the theater.
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Design View Post

...This year, cheaper projectors with a claimed 50,000 get accused of having mediocre black levels. Did our standards rise that much?

I believe JVC has raised the standard, and of course mfgr's of taken advantage of the specmanship opportunities afforded by DI's (dynamic iris).

Noah
noah katz is online now  
post #14 of 154 Old 09-29-2013, 09:20 AM
Member
 
New Design's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 104
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post

Thanks for the interesting and informative post.

A few points on which I feel qualified to comment; the rest is beyond my pay grade.
Perhaps they do overall, but not in contrast performance in dark scenes, where my JVC RS10 is obviously superior to what I see in the theater.
I believe JVC has raised the standard, and of course mfgr's of taken advantage of the specmanship opportunities afforded by DI's (dynamic iris).

I won't disagree with that on the JVCs. I am generalizing and haven't done side by sides with this specific combination. I have done a side by side with other devices alongside a digital theater projector. I can say the same with high end home devices and cheaper devices which claim better numbers too. The high end Runco devices from 4-5 years ago that claim 3000:1 contrast ratio, for example, considerably outperform some of the newer and cheaper devices that claim 15,000:1 to 100,000:1.

I'm sure you would agree that some of the Viewsonic devices that claim high numbers, for example, can't get anywhere close to matching your JVC, even if they claim similar or better numbers. I know there is the native vs dynamic issue but in general, devices with better numbers do not outperform your JVC.

My point is simply that those numbers can't be relied upon and that you can get amazing performance from devices that look a little light on paper. You can also get disappointing performance from devices that look amazing on paper and like the best bargain in the world. User opinions on some of the new BenQ devices that claim high contrast and very high brightness are the complete opposite of that.

The context here is the quality of projectiondesigns high end devices and that the stated numbers, while lower than some far cheaper devices, are not an indication of poorer performance. In fact, they look great which means there is more to consider than what manufacturers would like us to believe. They show us the super models face and how pretty it is but then fail to mention that she was in an accident and has no arms and legs. Now you're stuck dating a head and all your friends are laughing at you in the pub. Ok, not the best example but you get my point.

I am trying to find out how much contrast variance it is possible for a human to see. I read that 5000:1 is the limit to what can be detected without equipment but I would like another source. I read that in a magazine review of one of the Panasonic plasma tv's where they compared the top model which had 30,000:1 at the time and the second model which had 5000:1. They claimed not to be able to see a difference and that they both just looked great. I never know where reviewers get that kind of info. Sometimes I think they just make it up.

I have been interested in the JVC projectors for a while and only decide against buying one because of the brightness limitations. I have other home theater projectors (including a few in the Sony line up) and I'm almost always disappointed with them. The professional installation projectors normally look better to me, especially as I like to keep some lights on. While they are a lot more expensive, I like the high quality glass, extra brightness, and flexibility in lens choice.

I have heard that the JVC line up is in a class of its own though. I have seen some in stores but not in ideal conditions. I haven't read about many unhappy owners. There is actually a JVC digital theater projector for sale on Ebay right now. I think it is going for about $5000 with the real 3d modulation plate. It has 1000:1 contrast ratio but 10,000 lumens. I haven't seen that one in the flesh, but I bet it looks better than most of the low cost home theater devices.

I was looking at the newer 4k (well simulated 4k) JVCs but I am not sure yet. I have no doubt that they look great.

How does yours perform with a few lights on?

I agree that JVC raised the bar on black levels but only in terms of their own devices and what other manufacturers now claim. Despite seeing many devices with claims of similar or higher contrast ratios, no other projectors in the same price range have comparable or better black level performance (based on reviews anyway). Since the first of the super contrast ratio devices came out from JVC, the claims from other manufacturers have gone through the roof. $20,000 home theater projectors from 5 years ago were no embarrassed by 3000:1 and they got great reviews. Today, even if they lead the market in performance, a 3000:1 device would be dismissed as inferior regardless of the reality. I think they should be forced to state how they measured including lighting conditions.

There is of course, more to consider than just blacks. I know that makes me a hieratic to some but rich vibrant colors are equally important to me. Bright colors can give the appearance of better black levels. It also does more to improve my viewing experience when the lights are on which is most of the time for me. I hate watching tv in the dark. Plus my living room walls are white so I use a black screen. It's shadow detail that separates the pack. On the black screen, getting solid blacks is easy with most projectors, but better ones have detailed shadow information that is lost on lesser devices.

I hear that JVCs pro line sacrifice some black performance for additional brightness. I'd be interested to hear any experience on how successful that trade off is. It sounds like it should leave a projector with great contrast and decent brightness. It also could leave it in no-mans-land - being still too dim for ambient light use and without its major advantage around leading edge contrast. If that magazine was right, dropping from 50,000:1 to 10,000:1 in exchange for doubling the lumens would make an attractive device for living room users.

I want a device that looks good, not just looks good on paper.
New Design is offline  
post #15 of 154 Old 09-29-2013, 09:25 AM
Member
 
New Design's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 104
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
I am going to do some side by side pics showing black level performance between devices at various contrast ratios to see if I can capture the difference on screen.

I am going to try with both a white and black screen to see if it changes the outcome. My theory is that on a white screen the differences will be a lot more obvious, therefore making it more necessary to get a device with strong blacks and, on the black screen, the performance gap will correlate to brightness more than contrast. Ie brighter devices will make me perceive better contrast. Sounds like a reasonable assumption right?
New Design is offline  
post #16 of 154 Old 09-29-2013, 12:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,953
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 140
How the eye interprets light and contrast is called the adaptation within our ocular physiology. It is studied some by even regular Ophthalmologists that are involved in post-surgical testing of eye sight. Another area where you will find deep and highly advanced studies of contrast interpretation is in Radiologic R&D, specifically the scientists that try to further the science of radiology.

The below article says the eye can see about 1 billion delineations of light, but at the same time, only about 1000:1 intrascene contrast (though I bet that depends on what lighting levels we are talking, as I'm sure this is not linear).

When in doubt, the Wiki usually has some info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation_%28eye%29

Ocular is the key scientific word for visual perception, and as such many of the questions often brought up in the forums about visual perception can actually be resolved by finding studies on Google simply by googling the word ocular.


Quick and Easy Shelf Mount Method for both one projector or dual stacks

Web Calculator v023 & v025
- Quick Peak at the new upcoming calculator
**Current Projector Calculator** -- http://www.eliteprojectorcalculator.com

Coder's Top Projector Picks of 2012 --http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread....

coderguy is offline  
post #17 of 154 Old 09-29-2013, 12:58 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,165
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Design View Post

I am going to try with both a white and black screen to see if it changes the outcome.
By black screen do you mean a physical screen material, or black for projector source input?

You might be interested in an article I wrote about 7 years ago about contrast ratio that is here:

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_13_2/feature-article-contrast-ratio-5-2006-part-1.html

You are right about native on/off CR and dynamic on/off CR being different. Manufacturer's specs mostly just matter as information based on things like how honest they've been with us in the past. Actual values are what matter.

System on/off CR matters, but for those who like room lights on like you the projector's on/off CR doesn't tend to have much impact on system on/off CR. For those of us who kill other light sources the projector's on/off CR has a big impact on the system on/off CR, even in a white room.

--Darin

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
darinp2 is offline  
post #18 of 154 Old 09-29-2013, 01:22 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,165
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

The below article says the eye can see about 1 billion delineations of light, but at the same time, only about 1000:1 intrascene contrast (though I bet that depends on what lighting levels we are talking, as I'm sure this is not linear).
I think we need to be careful about using intrascene contrast for what the human eye can see at a moment in time in case people thinks that means people are limited to that in a static image or moving images.

Normal human vision can focus from infinity to up close in about 1/5th of one second and I think it can adjust across some CR range in about the same amount of time, with more adjustment give 1 second, 10 seconds, 1 minute, ..., 30 minutes.

People often misapply science. An experiment where vision is limited to some range given specific conditions does not necessarily mean it is limited to the same given other conditions. When I have read certain things that don't seem to match my own experience I often did my own experiments to see and try to figure out why people made a certain claim about what humans couldn't see.

For a while there was a claim that people couldn't see more than 100:1 at once and I have yet to have somebody give me the source for that other than the Contrast Sensitivity Function (CSF). However, CSF is a 1/x function. 100 for CSF is about 1/100, or a contrast ratio of 1.01:1. I think people can figure out how incorrect it is to take some testing that found people had trouble seeing differences of less than 1% and claim what the testing showed is that people couldn't see differences of more than 100x.

In my own testing I could see a range of about 2 million to 1 in about 2 minutes. Of course with 30 minutes I could see more, but full adaptation taking a long time does not mean that human vision is limited to the small ranges during movies that many claim.

How much people care is up to them, but some of the claims by some industry experts over the last decade about what people wouldn't be able to see are pretty ridiculous.

New Design,

As far as liking good colors, part of getting good colors in dark scenes is having good system on/off CR. A raised black pedestal is basically adding gray (a white color balance) to the images and it is hard to get pure red in a very dark image if there is a bunch of blue and green being added due to poor system on/off CR. Doesn't mean we need 1 million to 1 for that, but it is relevant (as system ANSI CR is).

--Darin

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
darinp2 is offline  
post #19 of 154 Old 09-29-2013, 01:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,953
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 140
I did say depending on the light, so I was "careful".

I doubt the test is objectionable as it was done using actual light and is a benchmark used in surgery.

However, yes the area coverage of the eye and how much intensity per area covered also affects our ability to decipher contrast. So it would vary depending how big the lighted area is, but our eyes, much like projectors will eventually crush the delineations of contrast together if too much area coverage given enough intensity of the larger coverage. It also changes over time as things move, but this is another story and makes it too complicated.

And yes it gets very complicated, even if you changed the angle that you are seeing, but 1000:1 is considered about the maximum you can see in any significant coverage area, I've seen this number mentioned in many studies and applied in different benchmarks. Once you get enough light coming towards the eye, our IRIS and adaptation quickly loses the ability to decipher large contrast delineations when too much bright light comes in. In very dark scenes, we can probably go well over that number and see larger amounts of contrast if you count specs that are bright in corners of dark scenes, but it's not really the same thing since I am speaking of what we really can see most of the time in our immediate field of focus, not compared to the outer peripheral vision (that might be much higher).

That doesn't mean that is the max of ANSI contrast we can use of course, because ANSI is only a smaller indicator of intrascene contrast, so 5000:1 Ansi could still make that intrascene contrast better depending on the intrascene ramp-up capabilities of a given device.

And remember what the meter tells us is only a uni-directional measurement on a test pattern, it's not directly applicable to the eyes in the adaptive non-linear since of moving images.


Quick and Easy Shelf Mount Method for both one projector or dual stacks

Web Calculator v023 & v025
- Quick Peak at the new upcoming calculator
**Current Projector Calculator** -- http://www.eliteprojectorcalculator.com

Coder's Top Projector Picks of 2012 --http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread....

coderguy is offline  
post #20 of 154 Old 09-29-2013, 01:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,953
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post

I think we need to be careful about using intrascene contrast for what the human eye can see at a moment in time in case people thinks that means people are limited to that in a static image or moving images.

Normal human vision can focus from infinity to up close in about 1/5th of one second and I think it can adjust across some CR range in about the same amount of time, with more adjustment give 1 second, 10 seconds, 1 minute, ..., 30 minutes.

Human vision is fairly slow at adjusting itself back from bright light to dark, takes 30 minutes after coming in the sun (read article). A similar effect applies when seeing even bright light on a screen, though the effect is not as pronounced. Our adaptation of contrast and light is not nearly as fast as the eye can focus, not even close, and I am not sure why you would even state this?

Very easy to prove this, how dark does the room need to be and how long does it take after viewing your projector (even in averagely bright content) to be able to see the maximum amount of detail after walking into an almost pitch black room. It generally takes 30-60 seconds even going from a fairly dark room to a pitch black room. So the adaptive nature of our eyes in contrast is very much limited by the brightest light we saw in the last few minutes. It's all the more reason though that the area coverage of the light also matters, though you will see a retina burn effect if a high intensity light in small area of the eye and this will still reduce contrast perception.

That is why in any significant coverage area, the maximum contrast we can see really is about 1000:1, give or take.


Quick and Easy Shelf Mount Method for both one projector or dual stacks

Web Calculator v023 & v025
- Quick Peak at the new upcoming calculator
**Current Projector Calculator** -- http://www.eliteprojectorcalculator.com

Coder's Top Projector Picks of 2012 --http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread....

coderguy is offline  
post #21 of 154 Old 09-29-2013, 01:58 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,165
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

And yes it gets very complicated, even if you changed the angle that you are seeing, but 1000:1 is considered about the maximum you can see in any significant coverage area, I've seen this number mentioned in many studies and applied in different benchmarks.
Just because people apply it diesn't mean it is correct to apply. smile.gif

Heck, many experts in this industry apply that ANSI CR is what matters and on/off CR is irrelevant. I consider that idiotic and consider those who still hold onto it to be like flat earthers back when the experts thought the earth was flat. To them it seemed logical and to many experts in this industry today it seems logical that on/off CR doesn't matter. Neither is true, but the truth doesn't always stop the "experts" from some of their claims.

Years ago Brightside had a local dimming display where they could demonstrate some of this stuff. They told me that the PhD people they worked with said people could see across up to about 100k:1 in a scene. An example would be an office scene with desk lamps and dark shadows under desks. A person can look under the desks and their vision can do some adaptation because the light level isn't high near the center of the place they are looking.

It doesn't require seeming across the 100k:1 in a moment (whatever that is in this case where light and signals to the brain take time to travel). One/fifth of 1 second can feel pretty fast. People can stare at something far away and the back to whatever they are viewing this on to see how the eye can adapt its focus fairly quickly.

As technology has advanced more people should be able to do experiments with this stuff. OLED makes it somewhat easier, but even now people could get 10k:1 in one image and compare that to 1k:1 from a second device.

--Darin

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
darinp2 is offline  
post #22 of 154 Old 09-29-2013, 02:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Schenectady, New York
Posts: 3,737
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 96 Post(s)
Liked: 144
I don't think that any "expert" would say on/off is irrelevant but more that ANSI contrast is more important than many make it out to be.
Seegs108 is offline  
post #23 of 154 Old 09-29-2013, 02:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,953
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post


In my own testing I could see a range of about 2 million to 1 in about 2 minutes. Of course with 30 minutes I could see more, but full adaptation taking a long time does not mean that human vision is limited to the small ranges during movies that many claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post

Just because people apply it diesn't mean it is correct to apply. smile.gif
-Darin

If it didn't apply, then all eye surgery would be a failure. How quick our eyes focus and how quick they adjust to light are two different things.

They have measurements for how sensitive a normal eye is, and they have to compare this when you go back after certain types of eye surgery. They can definitely say that you can still see the same ranges as before, or they can say you cannot see quite as good of a range as before. It is not subjective, they mastered this in ophthalmology quite a while ago. If they didn't know the range or couldn't measure it, a lot of their surgeries would be causing partial contrast range blindness without them even knowing it did.


Quick and Easy Shelf Mount Method for both one projector or dual stacks

Web Calculator v023 & v025
- Quick Peak at the new upcoming calculator
**Current Projector Calculator** -- http://www.eliteprojectorcalculator.com

Coder's Top Projector Picks of 2012 --http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread....

coderguy is offline  
post #24 of 154 Old 09-29-2013, 02:18 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,165
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

Human vision is fairly slow at adjusting itself back from bright light to dark, takes 30 minutes after coming in the sun (read article). A similar effect applies when seeing even bright light on a screen, though the effect is not as pronounced. Our adaptation of contrast and light is not nearly as fast as the eye can focus, not even close, and I am not sure why you would even state this?

Very easy to prove this, how dark does the room need to be and how long does it take after viewing your projector (even in averagely bright content) to be able to see the maximum amount of detail after walking into an almost pitch black room. It generally takes 30-60 seconds even going from a fairly dark room to a pitch black room.
Have you actually ever measured those ratios? Some people like to make claims about cases that are millions to 1 or more and then apply them to cases of low thousands as if they are the same. I've seen it for more than a decade.

How about actually doing some of your own measurements of this? As I said, I have and could see across a range of about 2 million to 1 in about 2 minutes. This was 1 step in from the brightest and one step in from the darkest using sunlight coming in my skylight to black velvet board set against my screen in a a mostly black velvet room with no room lights on, the projector doing a black image and maybe some ND filters on it to make it antpy darker.

I also tested with how long it took to read things like the large lettering on a tape measure in a dark room.

According to NASA data people can see across a range of about 10 to the 14th power total given enough time. Adaptation can taking a long time, but trying to claim that people can't ever see across significantly smaller ranges in much shorter periods of time i misapplying the science IMO. Actually measure and test yourself and I think you would find that out.

Before projectors had as much capability as they do now I used ND filters, screen materials of very different gains, and thing like that to show people that they can see things in short periods of time that some people who read and don't know the actual light levels they are talking claim they wouldn't be able to see. It is hard for a person to claim people can't see something as they can clearly see it and do things like tell me how many fingers there are in a shadow puppet.
[quote name="coderguy" url="/t/1486212/what-happened-to-native-2-35-projectors#post_23784289"
That is why in any significant coverage area, the maximum contrast we can see really is about 1000:1, give or take.[/quote]You make it sound like you think this means people wouldn't be able to perceive any improvement if a scene on screen had 1000:1. Is that your position?

--Darin

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
darinp2 is offline  
post #25 of 154 Old 09-29-2013, 02:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,953
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 140
Intrascene at the same time YES, contrast over time, of course not. You can see in order of magnitudes in a few seconds as long as you are not watching something bright. That said, the eye isn't that fast at adjusting to contrast, it takes a second or two to even have a noticeable adjustment even at semi-low white levels.

See post above, go discuss with ophthalmologist, this has already been solved in their field, they already know how to tell if the eye has developed any contrast blindness even at tiny ranges. NASA people say a lot of things, I have now deceased family members that worked at NASA, so what... I grew up right down the street from NASA, doesn't impress me.

I once knew a retired guy that worked at NASA that was trying to build a collision avoidance system for fun, even though the big car companies were already doing it. He never did it, and the car companies now already have it. There are some really smart people at NASA, don't get me wrong, but they also blew up quite a few rockets.


Quick and Easy Shelf Mount Method for both one projector or dual stacks

Web Calculator v023 & v025
- Quick Peak at the new upcoming calculator
**Current Projector Calculator** -- http://www.eliteprojectorcalculator.com

Coder's Top Projector Picks of 2012 --http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread....

coderguy is offline  
post #26 of 154 Old 09-29-2013, 02:28 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,165
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post

I don't think that any "expert" would say on/off is irrelevant but more that ANSI contrast is more important than many make it out to be.
If you mean that they aren't actually experts then I might agree. If however you mean that people who are considered experts in this industry don't claim that then I think you need to read more. smile.gif

Let's see. I remember at least Sam Runco and Joe Kane saying they didn't care about on/off CR at all, along with some others where I have forgotten their names. There is even an INFOCOMM standard that completely ignores on/off CR and uses system ANSI CR to tell you where your shadow detail will be bad (80:1) even though from everything U can gather the way they tested was by ruining on/off CR along with ANSI CR (shined lights at the screen) and then blamed ANSI CR. As I told them, proper testing would be to just change the one thing you want to claim as the sufficient cause of the problem.

--Darin

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
darinp2 is offline  
post #27 of 154 Old 09-29-2013, 02:34 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,165
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

Intrascene at the same time YES, contrast over time, of course not.
to be clear, same time is not look anywhere else on the screen and absolutely no iris movement, right? Not even 1/5th of a second.

So, if any office scene was shown it doesn't seem like you actually believe it would be impossible for people improvement beyond 1000:1 coming off the screen for that scene. Is that right?

--Darin

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
darinp2 is offline  
post #28 of 154 Old 09-29-2013, 02:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,953
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 140
I know very little about videopupillometry, or pupil latency, as I am not an ophthalmologist, or how much error metric exists in their test. It is simply what I read online in research paper by a scientist referencing stuff ophthalmology, that the maximum contrast is about 1000:1 in any given time (the difference we can see between light and dark). I have seen that many times referenced. They didn't give the pupil latency responses or what exact millisecond reaction that was, or draw the curve that shows the exact reaction to light over time. You can find all that if you want, but I think it is too much info. I have also asked an Opthamologist once, and they said it seemed about right.

There is no way you can test contrast reflex by a pattern in judging from your own eyes in response to correlating it with a meter, you can tell which projector has better contrast but that is not the same thing as saying, I saw 2,000,000:1 in 2 seconds or 500,000:1 in 0.5 seconds, that is impossible to test by eye unless you had a machine measuring your eye's response. The brain cannot accurately determine such things on its own (what number you are seeing), no matter how well trained your eyes are.

The meter is uni-directional and operates on a simpler spectrum, and is not correlative to the contrast the eyes received in any accuracy that would be a direct convertible manner without testing this directly and independently. Sure the meter can tell us stuff since we know what 50,000:1 looks like, but that doesn't mean that is the actual contrast we are seeing, it simply means that is the contrast we are seeing when the meter reads 50,000:1.


Quick and Easy Shelf Mount Method for both one projector or dual stacks

Web Calculator v023 & v025
- Quick Peak at the new upcoming calculator
**Current Projector Calculator** -- http://www.eliteprojectorcalculator.com

Coder's Top Projector Picks of 2012 --http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread....

coderguy is offline  
post #29 of 154 Old 09-29-2013, 02:53 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,165
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

There is no way to test actual delineation ranges in the eye's sensitivity unless you used equipment from an ophthalmologist, I am not sure how you could do that.
I thought we were talking about what the images had for CR, which I can definitely measure. If you are talking about what the brain perceives then I would say you are misapplying what you read, or at least stating it in a way that makes some of us think you are claiming the scene itself coming off the display doesn't need more than 1000:1 because people could never tell a difference from anything higher.

I explained something years ago, but I'll do it again. If the brain would perceive 100:1 in an image that had 1000:1, and 150:1 in an image if it had 100000:1, then that wouldn't not mean that images should not go higher than 150:1 because people couldn't see more than that.

Why would I have to use equipment from an ophthalmologist? I can measure the actual light levels and figure out whether I can see something or not. If I couldn't see something very dark for instance then I could not walk into an almost completely dark oom with only some idea of where an object was and walk up and put my finger on it.

"The eye doesn't see the same white intensity from one moment to another when viewing different ranges, so no way to confirm the results."

What does that have to do with the limitations of the visual system seeing a difference relative to the light levels in the images themselves (not the light levels in the eye).
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

How quick our eyes focus and how quick they adjust to light are two different things.
They are, but the fact that the eye can focus that quickly is relevant here as changes in the iris position are relevant to the CR discussion. It is not the only factor, but it is a factor. For instance, if a person applies what a CR range for the retina is directly to a limit for CR in the images viewed without taking into account different iris positions then they are misapplying the science.

--Darin

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
darinp2 is offline  
post #30 of 154 Old 09-29-2013, 02:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,953
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post


Why would I have to use equipment from an ophthalmologist? I can measure the actual light levels and figure out whether I can see something or not. If I couldn't see something very dark for instance then I could not walk into an almost completely dark oom with only some idea of where an object was and walk up and put my finger on it.

Because the brain misperceives light at the actual intensity that it exists at depending on how bright the light we last saw was, and this is in response to the pupil or whatever I guess. So at all different light intensities and dynamic range changes in the image from one scene to another, the eye will have a different response than before. That's why ophthalmologists use equipment and that's why many of their tests have to be done with the pupil fully open. Your pupil response time would also vary from eye fatigue over time, and there are other reasons that would invalidate the test.

You might be able to say you see 50,000:1 is better than 25,000:1, but you couldn't say exactly what your eyes are seeing. The eye is not seeing what the meter says, it is just seeing an increase that you are equating it to what the meter says.

You can figure out if you can see something, yes I agree, but you cannot state that in degrees of what you see, that's the problem. The variations you see would simply be wrong to what the variations actually are, you could never get it right, no-one could, our eyes don't work like that.

Next time I'll tell my opthamologist, don't worry about measuring before I get this laser surgery, just show me a pattern, that will be good enough.


Quick and Easy Shelf Mount Method for both one projector or dual stacks

Web Calculator v023 & v025
- Quick Peak at the new upcoming calculator
**Current Projector Calculator** -- http://www.eliteprojectorcalculator.com

Coder's Top Projector Picks of 2012 --http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread....

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

Tags
Sony Vpl Vw1000es Projector
Gear in this thread

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


Forum Jump: 

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

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