Official Sony VPL-VW500ES / VW600ES 4K Projector Thread - Page 106 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #3151 of 3967 Old 06-14-2014, 12:57 PM
Member
 
waltiesantos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 61
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Dear Mike Garret: Of course we're coping with expectations and as a dealer you have a very respectful pont of view, which I respect deeply. I only dare think that if Sony doesn't make a move forward on its 4k existing units, it may lose the step ahead it has on the technology. I'm convinced that JVC, the closest contender, will come with something new and undoubtedly attractive, It's a question of price/performance, where the risk of being overcome is always present. The result may be the lost of the share Sony acquired in the market, and that is translated in profit loss, depending on the scenario in a short and long term. Anyway, in this sea of supposals we're eying things, only when Cedia comes in september we will have things cleared up. My regards.
waltiesantos is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #3152 of 3967 Old 06-14-2014, 01:45 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 20,222
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 611 Post(s)
Liked: 583
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojodyne View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojodyne View Post
....
Also be aware that the sony 500/600es has TWO sharpening functions - one is RC, and the other is a general "sharpening". The latter should be turned down, because it behaves much like a normal unsharp mask (according to hdtvtest.uk a setting of 10 is supposed to be neutral here). ....
Thank you very much for your detailed discussion. Two simple questions: by 'general sharpening' I presume you mean the 'Sharpness' setting, right?, and ~ 10 is a recommended value?

Second, RC itself has 2 components, 'Resolution' and 'Noise Filtering'. Does your discussion have to do primarily with the 'Resolution' setting? What about 'Noise Filtering'?
Yes, it seems that "sharpness" has to be set to 10 to be neutral (according to hdtvtest.uk). The neutral setting is recommended here as the algorithm behind "sharpness" seems like a basic unsharp mask, so that it's use might introduce unwanted ringing. Also, the RC does a better job, so why not use it.

In regard to noise filtering. Most detail enhancement methods have a hard time differentiating wanted detail from film grain, video noise, compression noise or low light camera noise. If these get enhanced/boosted the picture might look excessively noisy. That's why many detail-enhancement methods also include a noise filtering stage. All settings interact a little (the lower "resolution" is set, the less "noise filtering" you are probably goin to need). Also the sony has two noise reduction functions. The non-RC noise reduction is a temporal noise reduction, which might lead to some "smearing" or "noise" patterns". It tries to identify noise by comparing successive frames (or just averaging high frequency components over two or more frames).

For good bluray content without to much noise you could use: RC-resolution 20-25, RC-noise filtering 5-15 and sharpness 10, and noise reduction off. If you like it sharper or like it less noisy artificial you can play around with these parameters. Setting RC resolution to low (<3-5) results in the sony reverting to point-sampling - this should be avoided.

So you are saying that at R 6 or so the Sony RC switches from point sampling to something else?




I find that R above say 4 introduces just too many artifacts requiring higher noise filtering settings which inturn mask detail. This is even more intensified by applying RC to ring free scaling. I use minimum for both noise and resolution on my RC settings. Most here have concluded that these settings or close to them result in the best image to their eyes. What's the point of switching from point sampling if the result is worse to one's eyes?




Through our several years with RC on our 100/1100ES machines, many times people want to know what settings are best. I suppose there really is no answer except what is best for themselves. We can share what we do and what to look for at different setting levels but the bottom line should not be based on theory should yours actually be right. Its the result that counts ad unfortunately that must be subject based on a variety of factors including an individual's perceptive abilities.

Mark Haflich
markhaflich@yahoo.com
call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
post #3153 of 3967 Old 06-14-2014, 02:10 PM
Member
 
jojodyne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 50
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post
Let me try and explain what I am saying with greater clarity. Suppose you have three points defining a triangle. very sharp. Now if you put a extra points around the points to define the three junction points. The triangle at the junction points will not be as sharp. You have to try and regain the sharpness. This was explained to me many years ago by Yves Faroud ja in a long private discussion about going from line doubling to line quadrupling.
If Faroudja told it to you like this, he greatly oversimplified to make another point. Also in his time, computational resources were scarce for real time processing, maybe thats why he used some shortcuts. Let me explain what is really going on as what you believe is conceptually not the best approach:
(1) You have a real world "scene" that you sample with some device
(2) The sampled representation has three points somewhere, without knowing (1) you will NEVER know if it is a triangle, or any other structure that has these 3 sampled points in common. You commit the common fallacy of trying to somehow argue from the already sampled picture which needs to be approximated.
(3) You resample the image under (2) not to get a "supposed" "triangle" but you TRY to reconstruct (1) within the bandwidth limitations
(4) 80 years of sampling theory already came up with a neat parsimonious model that uses 1+2+3 instead of only 2+3: the shannon-whittaker interpolation theorem. You can really quickly work out the formulas yourself: model sampling with the dirac impuls (or comb) and use (2d) fourier transform. This will quickly lead to the sinc interpolation formula.
(5) You really should low-pass filter after up-sampling (or before) to minimize aliasing artefacts (due to shannon frequency). This determines the tradeoff of aliasing and perceived sharpness. Sharpness on top of the gain due to the higher pixel count and the resulting better reconstruction under the bandwidth limitations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post
I think we are differing mostly in semantics. Why do so many scalars ring rather than being ring free as in the Lumagens? The ringing in ringing scalars is done deliberately as part of the overall design. You can't eliminate the ringing caused by the Sony scaling algs. It is introduced in the design to improve the sharpness to ones eyes. Ringing is seen at contrast transitions.
This is just wrong. Of course you can reduce ringing even after the fact - the AR filter in madVR for example does just this. Also, the sony 4K upscaling does NOT introduce excessive ringing - did you even look at the images i linked to? It is amazing that you not once look at the evidence. Sony's 4k upscaling and RC process does show much less ringing than most other scalers/sharpeners including the Oppo and many variations of lanczos scaling. It is compared with those methods in the testpatterns i provided. How you can continue to argue that Sony's upscaling has "excessive" ringing is beyond me. It is true that the 1000es RC was very strong - but Sony changed that with the 500/600... set at resolution levels between 5 and 30 (with sharpness at 10) you will be hard pressed to see much ringing, while still having upscaled to 4K and additional sharpening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post
Ringing doesn't increase either. It hides the high frequency detail that otherwise would be visible at the transition. Semantics. Its still there but it burns out the detail as you say through over amplification. Whatever, but it is akin to amplification that clips.You can't see something that other wise would be there except for the clipping which in essence masks it. The downside of not creating the ringing is that because the lark of a clear let's call it black to white transition is that ones eyes won't see the transition as clearly.
This is no semantics, this is plain wrong - it does not hide high frequency detail, it is high-frequency over and undershoot AROUND the original high frequency detail. Thats why its called ringing (or pre- and post echo in audio terms) nothing is hidden, the "transition" is overly exaggerated through this "ring".You clearly have some misconceptions here. Let me find some common ground: The over and undershoot looks nasty and draws visual attention, on that we agree. Also, we agree that over and undershoot should be avoided, but it just does not hide anything and it is not due to clipping (it might clip also, but that is another story). We agree that it would look much better without ringing drawing attention to these parts of the image.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post
RC is not scaling. It is treatment applied after all scaling. It is not reality. It causes artifacts but most here have now concluded it to their eyes results in a sharper image with visible artifacts if applied minimally.
This is wrong. Most here have concluded that the 500/600es RC is linked to the machines upscaling. Which was proven by the images i provided -and by a test anybody can do themselves. Just compare the RC on/off image on you machine - you will find that the 500/600ES resorts to point-sampling when RC is off. Please do not mix this up with the previous version of RC in the 1000ES. Also testpatterns - which i also provided in this thread - show an extremely low amount (if any) of ringing compared to other upscaling methods, including JINC+AR (which many think is best at the moment). As long as you refuse to look at the evidence, i will no longer dwell on this subject. I urge everybody to just check the images and decide for themselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post
If applied minimally, the contrast resolution is improved without visible artifacts provided the Darbee application is kept low, say below 30% though more critical viewers might suggest 20% as where artifacts start to become visible.
Don't even get me startet on the Darbee.
rak306 likes this.

Last edited by jojodyne; 06-14-2014 at 02:40 PM.
jojodyne is offline  
post #3154 of 3967 Old 06-14-2014, 02:21 PM
Member
 
jojodyne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 50
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post
So you are saying that at R 6 or so the Sony RC switches from point sampling to something else?
The RC on 500/600ES switches to point sampling if turned to off. If "resolution" is set below 4 it also looks like point sampling (or at best a very mild linear interpolation). I would strongly advise to set it at least to 5 and use RC to get a decent upscaling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post
I find that R above say 4 introduces just too many artifacts requiring higher noise filtering settings which inturn mask detail. This is even more intensified by applying RC to ring free scaling. I use minimum for both noise and resolution on my RC settings. Most here have concluded that these settings or close to them result in the best image to their eyes. What's the point of switching from point sampling if the result is worse to one's eyes?
Please do not mix up the 1000ES RC with the newer RC on the 500/600ES and presumably (I take your word for it) the 1100ES. The settings on the 500/600ES work much more subtle than on the 1000ES. I know of NO single 500/600ES owner (and i know a couple, not only here but also in person and on the german forums) who thinks that setting RC to "min" looks better or even remotely good. I think you are delusional here, or mix up the 1000ES RC with the newer incarnation on the 500/600ES (Firmware 1.006 - maybe you have a 1.000 model). You are on your own here in regard to the 500/600ES. If you do not believe me check out this review and their comments on the reality creation of the 500es when compared to the 1000es: http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/vpl-v...1311073419.htm

Last edited by jojodyne; 06-14-2014 at 02:48 PM.
jojodyne is offline  
post #3155 of 3967 Old 06-14-2014, 02:58 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
AV Science Sales 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: A beautiful view of a lake
Posts: 8,333
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 640 Post(s)
Liked: 526
Quote:
Originally Posted by bweissman View Post
Do any of you use a Darblet with your 600? Does it make a worthwhile difference? I'm on the fence about trying the Darblet and wondering how my 600's picture could be any better than it is now.
I use a Darbee with my 600. Yes it does add a nice little improvement. Give us a shout, if we can help you.

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, Falcon, DNP & more.
RBH, Martin Logan, Triad, Atlantic Tech., MK Sound, BG Radia, SVS & Def Tech, Denon, Marantz & Yamaha .
AV Science Sales 5 is offline  
post #3156 of 3967 Old 06-14-2014, 03:05 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
AV Science Sales 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: A beautiful view of a lake
Posts: 8,333
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 640 Post(s)
Liked: 526
Quote:
Originally Posted by waltiesantos View Post
Dear Mike Garret: Of course we're coping with expectations and as a dealer you have a very respectful pont of view, which I respect deeply. I only dare think that if Sony doesn't make a move forward on its 4k existing units, it may lose the step ahead it has on the technology. I'm convinced that JVC, the closest contender, will come with something new and undoubtedly attractive, It's a question of price/performance, where the risk of being overcome is always present. The result may be the lost of the share Sony acquired in the market, and that is translated in profit loss, depending on the scenario in a short and long term. Anyway, in this sea of supposals we're eying things, only when Cedia comes in september we will have things cleared up. My regards.
Sony may come out with another 4K projector, I just don't think they will come out with a replacement for the 500/600 this year. I think the 500/600 will have a two year run. Just like the 1000 had a two year run and then the 1100 came out. Sony has a large gap in their line up, between the HW55ES and the VW600ES. That gap used to be filled with the VW95ES. I would not be surprised to see a projector fill that slot. Note, this is purely speculation on my part.

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, Falcon, DNP & more.
RBH, Martin Logan, Triad, Atlantic Tech., MK Sound, BG Radia, SVS & Def Tech, Denon, Marantz & Yamaha .
AV Science Sales 5 is offline  
post #3157 of 3967 Old 06-14-2014, 03:08 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
AV Science Sales 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: A beautiful view of a lake
Posts: 8,333
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 640 Post(s)
Liked: 526
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojodyne View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post
So you are saying that at R 6 or so the Sony RC switches from point sampling to something else?
The RC on 500/600ES switches to point sampling if turned to off. If "resolution" is set below 4 it also looks like point sampling (or at best a very mild linear interpolation). I would strongly advise to set it at least to 5 and use RC to get a decent upscaling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post
I find that R above say 4 introduces just too many artifacts requiring higher noise filtering settings which inturn mask detail. This is even more intensified by applying RC to ring free scaling. I use minimum for both noise and resolution on my RC settings. Most here have concluded that these settings or close to them result in the best image to their eyes. What's the point of switching from point sampling if the result is worse to one's eyes?
Please do not mix up the 1000ES RC with the newer RC on the 500/600ES and presumably (I take your word for it) the 1100ES. The settings on the 500/600ES work much more subtle than on the 1000ES. I know of NO single 500/600ES owner (and i know a couple, not only here but also in person and on the german forums) who thinks that setting RC to "min" looks better or even remotely good. I think you are delusional here, or mix up the 1000ES RC with the newer incarnation on the 500/600ES (Firmware 1.006 - maybe you have a 1.000 model). You are on your own here in regard to the 500/600ES. If you do not believe me check out this review and their comments on the reality creation of the 500es when compared to the 1000es: http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/vpl-v...1311073419.htm
Mark's 1000ES, has been upgraded to a 1100ES.

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, Falcon, DNP & more.
RBH, Martin Logan, Triad, Atlantic Tech., MK Sound, BG Radia, SVS & Def Tech, Denon, Marantz & Yamaha .
AV Science Sales 5 is offline  
post #3158 of 3967 Old 06-14-2014, 03:14 PM
Member
 
BakeApples's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Sweden
Posts: 163
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by bweissman View Post
Do any of you use a Darblet with your 600? Does it make a worthwhile difference? I'm on the fence about trying the Darblet and wondering how my 600's picture could be any better than it is now.

I use a Darblet with my vw500, very satisfied with the result.
First, i was a bit afraid that Darbee + RC would be too much enhancement resulting in a overly sharp picture but after turning the RC levels down from default i think they work really good together. I have RC resolution set to 25 and RC noise filtering at 10. General sharpening is set to 10 while i use Darbee at 30 in high-def mode.
The result is fantastic
BakeApples is offline  
post #3159 of 3967 Old 06-14-2014, 03:15 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 20,222
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 611 Post(s)
Liked: 583
OK Mike. I'll turn up the heater on the toilet seat for you. You have both an 1100ES and a 600 ES. Where do you find the RC settings best for each one? I would profer that the cheaper lens on the 600ES vs the 1000/1100ES requires a touch more on the R setting and consequently a higher degree of noise filtering to make the lens APPEAR as sharp.

On the 1100ES (or an upgraded 1000ES which most 1000ES owners here on AVS Forum have), setting the R above 4 causes artifacting which degrades the image.

As for Jojodyne, and I do appreciate your contributions here and our discussions, you have not seen a 1100ES or an upgraded 1000ES by which you could urge a particular RC setting(s) for it. On the non upgraded 1000ES it was almost impossible to tune the RC settings in an attempt to set them for best results. Pretty much once RC was turned on, changing the settings made little difference. On the upgraded 1000ES or 1100ES, changes in settings became quite visible with very very low setting being the pervailing concensus for best setting. Cleary minimum of just above for R and for noise appear best. I have tried a broad range.


Dr. Miller. The traditional advice for the sharpness setting has been 10. Above this, ringing becomes apparent. The traditional test patterns use the start of line thickening or ringing as the back up one click setting. 10. Traditionally all here well know that ringing introduce by over cranking the sharpness control is a bad. A BIG No No. Drilled into all calibrators by ISF etc. Conversely Ringing is OK if introduced by the scaling algs employed in the display. Why? Because the only way to avoid built in ringing is to use an external scalar that is ring free. Many calibrators sell Lumagens to their clients but I doubt many calibrators even think of the elimination of ringing as a a selling point, they use the multipoint and automation features for the calibration, better more accurate color and gamma, better pizza.


I am a purist here. I want absolutely no ringing to be observable. I recognize that most scalars ring and the ringing is a deliberate part of the design. Jojodyne thinks its not deliberate but unavoidable as a design compromise. Clearly scaling algs that don't ring can be employed. They are not because, and here Jojodyne and I differ, because the introduction of ringing is needed to improve the visibility of contrast transitions which to the observer reduce the loss of sharpness that scaling causes. Introducing a minor amount of ringing, and the word minor, is significant, is an acceptable way for designing a scalar. Leave out the ringing and they image will actually be sharper but will appear softer. If you have a ring free scalar, you can obtain the appearance of greater sharpness by using the sharpness control to introduce a modest amount of ringing. Its a free choice Ringing is ringing. The bells are ringing for me and my gal. In this sense it should not be taboo to introduce a small amount of ringing by the sharpness control




Anyhow, I don't want any ringing. None. That's why I scale externally with a Lumagen 4K out machine. Then I apply RC at both settings minimum. Darbee is applied at input resolutions (being limited to 1080p and below). No ringing is introduced as long as the degree on the Darbee is set at 20 or a bit above. I think I have it set to 30 though From my seating positions that results in the best image for my aging eyes. I like what it does and how it does it. Many UK folks don't.

Mark Haflich
markhaflich@yahoo.com
call me at: 240 876 2536

Last edited by mark haflich; 06-15-2014 at 09:11 AM.
mark haflich is offline  
post #3160 of 3967 Old 06-14-2014, 03:19 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 20,222
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 611 Post(s)
Liked: 583
Quote:
Originally Posted by BakeApples View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by bweissman View Post
Do any of you use a Darblet with your 600? Does it make a worthwhile difference? I'm on the fence about trying the Darblet and wondering how my 600's picture could be any better than it is now.

I use a Darblet with my vw500, very satisfied with the result.
First, i was a bit afraid that Darbee + RC would be too much enhancement resulting in a overly sharp picture but after turning the RC levels down from default i think they work really good together. I have RC resolution set to 25 and RC noise filtering at 10. General sharpening is set to 10 while i use Darbee at 30 in high-def mode.
The result is fantastic
I wouldn't disagree on any of your settings. Going up to 30 HD on the Darbee is used by many and I use it myself though industry professions have said to me for critical viewing they limit the Darbee setting to 20. As for your Sony RC settings, I think the lesser lens on the 600ES compared to the 1000/1100ES requires higher RC settings to make the apparent sharpness equivalent or close to that of the 1000/1100ES.

Mark Haflich
markhaflich@yahoo.com
call me at: 240 876 2536

Last edited by mark haflich; 06-15-2014 at 09:14 AM.
mark haflich is offline  
post #3161 of 3967 Old 06-14-2014, 04:41 PM
Member
 
WIKED's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Posts: 78
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojodyne View Post
Some people report that the mac creates a hidden file in the update folder that needs to be deleted. Others just take the simple route of formatting and copying the files in a virtual windows machine on their mac - this is supposed to work reliably.
Thanks for the reply. I looked at the USB on one of my PC's and yes there were about 7 hidden files. Re-did it on the PC and it updated fine in about 3 mins.

Strange SONY do say you can use a MAC and not mention this.
WIKED is offline  
post #3162 of 3967 Old 06-15-2014, 01:45 AM
Advanced Member
 
magicj1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Lake district, England
Posts: 591
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojodyne View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by waltiesantos View Post
I"m sorry for MaDBen reported issue. Are there more people experiencing it? If it's not an issue with the PJ, wouldn't other owners be panging hard by the time? I was interested in this unit, but, thinking better, I shall wait for Cedia to see if more 4k projectors come into scene, or even better, if sony presents a replacement for the 600ES and the 500, with features that improve the quality of the image more noticeably . Lastly, does the upscale in 2k pictures in these projectors is something that can be detected easily or, at the most, It is something subtle? Thanks for the information.
The effect of upscaling/sharpening HD material to 4K is not subtle at all. In my opinion it is one of the best features of the 500/600es as the reality creation is improved over the 1000es. In fact I even prefer it to my HTPC upscaling with JINC+AR or NEEDI. But much of the better image is due to the 4K pixel count - as it allows for better image reconstruction (basic sampling theory). Now, I can only speak for myself - If you would perceive the benefit as subtle or not, I can't tell - you have to find out for yourself.

Regarding the MaDBen issue: As of now I only know of ONE other machine with a similar problem.

Really, that is interesting. I was at my friends and we did a quick A/B. We both thought madVR with JINC+AR looked better. Mind you it was a quick, I will have to check this again.
magicj1 is online now  
post #3163 of 3967 Old 06-15-2014, 07:07 AM
Member
 
jojodyne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 50
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by magicj1 View Post
Really, that is interesting. I was at my friends and we did a quick A/B. We both thought madVR with JINC+AR looked better. Mind you it was a quick, I will have to check this again.
madVR with JINC+AR or NEEDI is also very good. In some scenes I prefer JINC+AR in others I prefer RC. I settled on RC for now. If you like the sharpening to be more subtle with RC, you could try setting RC-Resolution to 5, RC-Noisefilter to min, and "sharpness" to 10 (looks about neutral). If this is still to strong for you, I would stay with JINC+AR.
jojodyne is offline  
post #3164 of 3967 Old 06-15-2014, 08:42 AM
Member
 
waltiesantos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 61
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I was reading the VPL 600ES specs and noticed something that was completely unperceived by me. The projector aspect format is 17.9. Since my screen is 16:9, will that bring me trouble? Can I manage the pj to fit my present screen? Sorry, if it's a dumb question.

Last edited by waltiesantos; 06-15-2014 at 08:59 AM.
waltiesantos is offline  
post #3165 of 3967 Old 06-15-2014, 09:33 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 20,222
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 611 Post(s)
Liked: 583
The aspect ratio of the three chips in the Sony 500/600ES and 1000/1100ES are in fact 17/9. The aspect of the chip is calculated by dividing the horizontal number of pixels on the chip, 4096) by the vertical number of pixels, 2160.


UHD is 3840/2160 or an aspect of 1.7777 just like it is for HD 1920/1080. When you set your zoom ratio on the Sony's to normal, the setting automatically blanks out the extra side pixels between 1.88888 and 1.7777. Black bars on the sides for where the extra pixels are. There is no active image there as your sources are 1920 x 1080 or with the puck 3840 x 2160. Just use the set up pattern on the Sony with the 1.78 side lines and zoom to fill the screen with those lines just at the screen side edges. There are other set ups possible to use the extra pixels for images with source aspects of 1.78 by shot or whatever in 2.35 or above. Using them and setting up using the full chip markers will reduce the size of the top and bottom black bars but many fell the extra scaling makes the image softer. If you find this confusing, give me a call, I really don't feel like writing a longer post to discuss what has been discussed many times before on AVS. But no big deal discussing orally. I type too slow.

Mark Haflich
markhaflich@yahoo.com
call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
post #3166 of 3967 Old 06-15-2014, 10:33 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
joerod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: MIDWEST (just outside Chicago)
Posts: 22,128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Liked: 117
I had a 1100 and 600 here at the same time as well. We actually would watch half a movie with one then switch it to the other for the second half. My settings were right on where Mark has indicated. I noticed the default RC setting was very high with most of the picture modes on the 600. And yes we have always had Sharpness at 10. For the 1000/1100 and RC I keep the Noise Filtering to minimum with Blu-ray. With DirecTV HD I think I have it at 10. As for RC itself with Blu-ray I favor 20ish and same for DirecTV. The 600 was somewhat higher (mid 30s). Yes, there is no right or wrong setting. What your eyes like is the correct setting.

And trust me I wanted to like the 600 enough to keep it and sell the 1100. Jaclyn was upfront and honest when she said you can't. The other one (1100) just looks better all around. Especially with 3D. And of course it should given the msrp difference but everyone once in awhile something that costs a lot less can shock you. I remember the Sony Ruby. Anyway, the last handful of posts have been very informative and definitely useful.


For my latest Reviews and Stuff google -> Joe Rod Home Theater .Com
Check out my Dolby Atmos/Surround first take:
http://hstrial-jrodriguez996.homeste...=1409517748063
joerod is offline  
post #3167 of 3967 Old 06-15-2014, 10:07 PM
Member
 
jlohojo7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 171
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 18
alignment problem

I also have been on the fence about the Darbee, but now I will give it a shot. Anyways, sorry to change the subject on you guys but having a problem lining my 600 up with my screen. Its 166" 2.35:1 da-lite. The distance according to the manual seems to be within specs. The problem is overhang on the top and bottom. You can adjust it and get that to fit then the sides are off the screen. Its always one or the other. When I play a bluray thats in 2.35 aspect I can get it to fit. However, Directv my HTPC and the PS4 are a debacle and to me unwatchable like this. Im sure im missing something simple, but any and all guidance would be appreciated. Ive had 4 Sony PJs in the past and this is the first time I have ever had this kind of problem. Normally alignment is a piece of cake. Thanks again.
jlohojo7 is offline  
post #3168 of 3967 Old 06-15-2014, 10:18 PM
Member
 
WIKED's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Posts: 78
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 29
I have the Darbee in my Oppo 105D but until my Stewart screen arrives I wouldn't be able to see much difference.

I had the same problem with my 500ES. Set it to 2.35 aspect...watched a BluRay and then watched 16:9 content and it displayed it same width instead of same height.
Then I worked out it wasnt going to be an automatic thing. I zoomed out while playing 16:9 content so it would fit the 2.35 screen vertically and then saved that size and settings.
Now I can just press the picture button and choose it from the options and the PJ will resize to 16:9 from 2.35. Here I was thinking the PJ would recognize it was 16:9 contect and since I had it runnung in 2.35 aspect it would resize it automatically but I was mistaken....well unless I have missed something.



Sent from my GT-N7105T using Tapatalk
WIKED is offline  
post #3169 of 3967 Old 06-15-2014, 10:39 PM
Member
 
jlohojo7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 171
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Well I didn't think about saving the settings. Thats a good idea. Wow for such an expensive machine you would think you wouldn't haven't to manually change it. So when you are watching something in 16:9 (directv) you will have bars or empty space on the sides ?

good insight.
jlohojo7 is offline  
post #3170 of 3967 Old 06-15-2014, 11:17 PM
Member
 
WIKED's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Posts: 78
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 29
They way I described above will show your 16:9 content in a 16:9 aspect (inside the 2.35 height) so it will not produce any black bars.

I guess if the PJ was indeed auto (in a constant height) then I would definitely have to mask my screen so either way im happy.


Sent from my GT-N7105T using Tapatalk

Last edited by WIKED; 06-15-2014 at 11:20 PM.
WIKED is offline  
post #3171 of 3967 Old 06-16-2014, 02:01 AM
Member
 
waltiesantos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 61
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thank you MarK Haflitch for your helping. I got the idea that the difference of resolution (HD and UHD) in a screen 16:9, like mine, will create dark bars sideways. How to get rid of them was something I didn't understand well, especially applying the settings tor the 1:78 and zoom out to fill the blanket parts in image.. Since I live in Brazil it is hard to have a contact with you by fone, which would be a pleasure for me. Anyway when I buy this or another UHD projector, after CEDIA or IFA, the installation will be done by technicians, so, by then, I expect them to know what to do. My regards.

Last edited by waltiesantos; 06-16-2014 at 02:03 AM. Reason: correcting errors
waltiesantos is offline  
post #3172 of 3967 Old 06-16-2014, 07:30 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
AV Science Sales 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: A beautiful view of a lake
Posts: 8,333
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 640 Post(s)
Liked: 526
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post
OK Mike. I'll turn up the heater on the toilet seat for you. You have both an 1100ES and a 600 ES. Where do you find the RC settings best for each one? I would profer that the cheaper lens on the 600ES vs the 1000/1100ES requires a touch more on the R setting and consequently a higher degree of noise filtering to make the lens APPEAR as sharp.

On the 1100ES (or an upgraded 1000ES which most 1000ES owners here on AVS Forum have), setting the R above 4 causes artifacting which degrades the image.

As for Jojodyne, and I do appreciate your contributions here and our discussions, you have not seen a 1100ES or an upgraded 1000ES by which you could urge a particular RC setting(s) for it. On the non upgraded 1000ES it was almost impossible to tune the RC settings in an attempt to set them for best results. Pretty much once RC was turned on, changing the settings made little difference. On the upgraded 1000ES or 1100ES, changes in settings became quite visible with very very low setting being the pervailing concensus for best setting. Cleary minimum of just above for R and for noise appear best. I have tried a broad range.


Dr. Miller. The traditional advice for the sharpness setting has been 10. Above this, ringing becomes apparent. The traditional test patterns use the start of line thickening or ringing as the back up one click setting. 10. Traditionally all here well know that ringing introduce by over cranking the sharpness control is a bad. A BIG No No. Drilled into all calibrators by ISF etc. Conversely Ringing is OK if introduced by the scaling algs employed in the display. Why? Because the only way to avoid built in ringing is to use an external scalar that is ring free. Many calibrators sell Lumagens to their clients but I doubt many calibrators even think of the elimination of ringing as a a selling point, they use the multipoint and automation features for the calibration, better more accurate color and gamma, better pizza.


I am a purist here. I want absolutely no ringing to be observable. I recognize that most scalars ring and the ringing is a deliberate part of the design. Jojodyne thinks its not deliberate but unavoidable as a design compromise. Clearly scaling algs that don't ring can be employed. They are not because, and here Jojodyne and I differ, because the introduction of ringing is needed to improve the visibility of contrast transitions which to the observer reduce the loss of sharpness that scaling causes. Introducing a minor amount of ringing, and the word minor, is significant, is an acceptable way for designing a scalar. Leave out the ringing and they image will actually be sharper but will appear softer. If you have a ring free scalar, you can obtain the appearance of greater sharpness by using the sharpness control to introduce a modest amount of ringing. Its a free choice Ringing is ringing. The bells are ringing for me and my gal. In this sense it should not be taboo to introduce a small amount of ringing by the sharpness control




Anyhow, I don't want any ringing. None. That's why I scale externally with a Lumagen 4K out machine. Then I apply RC at both settings minimum. Darbee is applied at input resolutions (being limited to 1080p and below). No ringing is introduced as long as the degree on the Darbee is set at 20 or a bit above. I think I have it set to 30 though From my seating positions that results in the best image for my aging eyes. I like what it does and how it does it. Many UK folks don't.
Have the Darbee connected to the 600. Setting is HD and 35, I believe. Have not bothered to switch the Darbee to the 1100ES. In the middle of reworking my front wall again. Going to a baffle wall set up. The baffle wall will have two sealed 18" subs and my MTM LCR's in it. Currently building the boxes and waiting on some TD12M drivers to show up. So have not been using the theater a whole lot. Also lots of activities this summer.

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, Falcon, DNP & more.
RBH, Martin Logan, Triad, Atlantic Tech., MK Sound, BG Radia, SVS & Def Tech, Denon, Marantz & Yamaha .
AV Science Sales 5 is offline  
post #3173 of 3967 Old 06-16-2014, 07:34 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
AV Science Sales 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: A beautiful view of a lake
Posts: 8,333
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 640 Post(s)
Liked: 526
Quote:
Originally Posted by joerod View Post
I had a 1100 and 600 here at the same time as well. We actually would watch half a movie with one then switch it to the other for the second half. My settings were right on where Mark has indicated. I noticed the default RC setting was very high with most of the picture modes on the 600. And yes we have always had Sharpness at 10. For the 1000/1100 and RC I keep the Noise Filtering to minimum with Blu-ray. With DirecTV HD I think I have it at 10. As for RC itself with Blu-ray I favor 20ish and same for DirecTV. The 600 was somewhat higher (mid 30s). Yes, there is no right or wrong setting. What your eyes like is the correct setting.

And trust me I wanted to like the 600 enough to keep it and sell the 1100. Jaclyn was upfront and honest when she said you can't. The other one (1100) just looks better all around. Especially with 3D. And of course it should given the msrp difference but everyone once in awhile something that costs a lot less can shock you. I remember the Sony Ruby. Anyway, the last handful of posts have been very informative and definitely useful.

Did you update the 600? The latest firmware update improved the 3D a fair amount.

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, Falcon, DNP & more.
RBH, Martin Logan, Triad, Atlantic Tech., MK Sound, BG Radia, SVS & Def Tech, Denon, Marantz & Yamaha .
AV Science Sales 5 is offline  
post #3174 of 3967 Old 06-16-2014, 07:54 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
joerod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: MIDWEST (just outside Chicago)
Posts: 22,128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Liked: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by joerod View Post
I had a 1100 and 600 here at the same time as well. We actually would watch half a movie with one then switch it to the other for the second half. My settings were right on where Mark has indicated. I noticed the default RC setting was very high with most of the picture modes on the 600. And yes we have always had Sharpness at 10. For the 1000/1100 and RC I keep the Noise Filtering to minimum with Blu-ray. With DirecTV HD I think I have it at 10. As for RC itself with Blu-ray I favor 20ish and same for DirecTV. The 600 was somewhat higher (mid 30s). Yes, there is no right or wrong setting. What your eyes like is the correct setting.

And trust me I wanted to like the 600 enough to keep it and sell the 1100. Jaclyn was upfront and honest when she said you can't. The other one (1100) just looks better all around. Especially with 3D. And of course it should given the msrp difference but everyone once in awhile something that costs a lot less can shock you. I remember the Sony Ruby. Anyway, the last handful of posts have been very informative and definitely useful.

Did you update the 600? The latest firmware update improved the 3D a fair amount.
That was the very first thing I did. We are just used to the 3D on the 1100. Of course the glasses didn't help either. And I know the discomfort has nothing to do with the image. All around 3D was far superior on the 1100. We did an A/B with scenes from Frozen, Avatar and a few other titles. Not that it is terrible on the 600. If you don't compare you should be fine.

For my latest Reviews and Stuff google -> Joe Rod Home Theater .Com
Check out my Dolby Atmos/Surround first take:
http://hstrial-jrodriguez996.homeste...=1409517748063
joerod is offline  
post #3175 of 3967 Old 06-16-2014, 08:05 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 20,222
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 611 Post(s)
Liked: 583
No projector that I know will change zoom, focus, and lens shift settings on its own in recognition of the active image area on a frame. When an area on a frame is blank, the projectors will generate black bars for the inactive area. So you must consider the input aspect and adjust your projector for it and your screen size. If the input aspect is less than the chip aspect, you will get black bars on the side. There is nothing you can do to get rid of them without drastically distorting the image or stretching things horizontally electronically and using a vertical stretch lens. When the input aspect is the same as thye chip, the chip will be completely filled. No bars, nothing needed to be done. When the image aspect is greater than the chip aspect, you will have black bars top and bottom and you can stretch things electronically vertically and stretch them horizontally with a horizontal stretch lens.


Notice, I have not talked about zooming etc. This does not get rid of anything, it just can throw the black bars off your screen should it be wide enough so you don't see them on your hopefully black wall behind your screen.




Now the situation becomes a little more complex with the Sony's because the chip aspect is let's round it and call it 1.89 vs the standard 1.78. This is because of thev true 4K pixel count of 4096 x 2160 (divide and you get 1.8888888 etc) vs the UHD count of 3840 x 2160 (divide and you get 1.77777 etc). As I explained above if you feed an aspect below the chip aspect you will get black bars on the side regardless of the image aspect on the source frame. Just like when you feed a 4 x 3 NTSC image onto a 1.777777 chip.




The Sony gives you zoom aspect options. You can elect to use the normal or default which will in essence blank out the side differences between 1.89 and 1.78. This really has nothing to do with the image aspect on the source signal. For our purposes, this setting makes the chip behave as if it were a UHD chip with 3840 x 2160 pixels. remember are source frames regardless of the image aspect on those frames is 1.77777777. For Bluray etc 1920 x 1080. An easy simple scale by two to get to 3840 x 2160 and it keeps the same screen aspect as HD. Joe six pack doesn't get confused. The screens look the same aspect except he gets the extra pixels that gives him the 4 times the clarity and the curved screen being crammed down his throat by Samsung because they can't profitably make it without curving it. Makes a lot of sense to imply a smallish screen is somehow better rather than worse because it is curved. Curves are good on women if in the right places and in the right directions with the right radii and on large screens such as those used by FP theater owners.


Sony however made its chips true 4K before UHD was decided. Remember true 4K is 4096 pixels wide vs 3840 for UHD. So Sony joined the party gives one the option of continually blanking the extra horizontal pixels. Set the aspect to normal (1.78), the default anyway. Of course you don't have to. You can choose to set the aspect to 1.85 (still smaller than 1.888888) and will then continually blank the horizontal pixels between 1.8888 and 1.85 and then you can set it for 2.35 9which really could be called 1.8888 or 1.89), because it won't blank anything horizontally. In that case you will always fill the screen horizontally with the image, nothing will be lost horizontally, BUT you will lose completely, gone forever, any active smaller than 1.88888. Yes Charlotte if you have a full active 1.78 image you will have the difference between 1.89 and 1.78 not displayed. Doesn't matter re your screen size or how you zoom.image height If you feed it an image aspect greater than 1.8888 you will loose nothing and will get black bars smaller on the top and bottom than you would get with the aspect on the Sony set to normal. But once again, the scaling instead of a simple 2 in both directions now become 2.07 horizontally (because the source frame is 1920 and instead of scaling to 3840 it has to become 4096, some think this isn't as sharp or as clean.


Anyhow now we get to setting the zooming. By zooming I mean how wide you want to make the image. At the same time you can move the lens shift and focus. Then you can tell the projector to memorize the setting. This can include the aspect used on the chip. But you can't expect the projector to choose between various settings you chose automatically.


You have to tell it where to go . That's where the zoom memories come in. Those will memorize up to I think 5 combinations of setting. But you have to select the one you want dependent on the aspect of what you want to watch.


This will also depend on your screen size and various masking aspects if you them on your screen.


There is no free lunch. You can't stretch only in one direction by zooming. IF you zoom larger, the image will get larger horizontally and vertically. It will stay the same size and aspect on the chip, the lens will just make everything larger. You can stretch the image vertically for 1080p and less inputs (does not stretch for UHD or 4K because of processing power limitations} but then you need to add a special lens to stretch optically in the other direction.


That's about it. No free lunch. Your screen is just a white rectangle or rectangles is you have masking. It will show what is on the white portion, nothing more or less. Black bars will still be projected, just off the screen depending.m

Mark Haflich
markhaflich@yahoo.com
call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
post #3176 of 3967 Old 06-16-2014, 08:15 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 20,222
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 611 Post(s)
Liked: 583
Now that basketball, hockey and the male US open are over, I will abandon my HT until the brittish Open or more properly called just the Open. Movies can wait.

Mark Haflich
markhaflich@yahoo.com
call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
post #3177 of 3967 Old 06-16-2014, 09:00 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
joerod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: MIDWEST (just outside Chicago)
Posts: 22,128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Liked: 117
I like 1.85 with our newer screen.

For my latest Reviews and Stuff google -> Joe Rod Home Theater .Com
Check out my Dolby Atmos/Surround first take:
http://hstrial-jrodriguez996.homeste...=1409517748063
joerod is offline  
post #3178 of 3967 Old 06-16-2014, 09:33 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 20,222
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 611 Post(s)
Liked: 583
For those math challenged, setting the Sony aspect to 1.85, gives you a width of 1.85 x 2160 horizontal pixels or 3996 of the maximum available of 4086. this means you will have only a total of 100 lost or 50 on each side. This will not cause a loss of active image, rather you will just not be using a small amount of the chip thus compromising a tiny bit of maximum light out. Many movies are actually 1.85 aspect anyway and this is a good fit for a 1.85 aspect screen. If you feed a native 1.78 (HD) aspect and zoom to fill your screen you will only lose a very small amount of image above and below. really it won't be noticeable.

Tthere are lots of choices and small compromises regardless of what one does. The probable best solution involves getting a screen with variable side masking.

Mark Haflich
markhaflich@yahoo.com
call me at: 240 876 2536

Last edited by mark haflich; 06-16-2014 at 01:36 PM.
mark haflich is offline  
post #3179 of 3967 Old 06-16-2014, 10:18 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
millerwill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 11,442
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post
.... The probable best solution involves getting a screen with variable side masking.
Agreed; get one as wide as your room (or you) can take, and then doing all the arithmetic is fun: 16x9 (UHD), 17x9 (4K), and 21x9 ('2.35').
millerwill is offline  
post #3180 of 3967 Old 06-16-2014, 10:58 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 20,222
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 611 Post(s)
Liked: 583
Yep. The math is simple. You don't need calculus or differential equations or even probability theory. Just simple multiplication and division. Fun? To each his/her own.


Why is 2.35 17/9? 17/9 is 2.33333 etc. Most widescreen stuff is actually not even 2.35 but 2.38 or 2.39. For sony discussion your choices are really 1.78. 1.85, and 1.89 for chip illumination. Those choices on the Sony are labeled normal, 1.85, and 2.35 (go figure), that should be 1.89.

Mark Haflich
markhaflich@yahoo.com
call me at: 240 876 2536

Last edited by mark haflich; 06-16-2014 at 11:13 AM.
mark haflich is offline  
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

Tags
Sony Vpl Vw500es , Sony Vpl Vw1000es Projector , Sony Fmp X1 4k Ultra Hd Media Player
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