DREAM Projector: LED plus 4K ... when do you think we will see it - Page 2 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 97 Old 03-24-2014, 04:48 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,451
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
Liked: 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post

Read the thread again. It will not be 1600:1 since it will have a DI, so if it is a good implementation, then it meets his requirements. Also have you seen some of these 2K DCI projectors with 1600:1 or 2,000:1 contrast? They look better than you think they will.

This is something I'd really like to understand. I know contrast isn't everything, but my Planar 8150 is about 3000:1 native with a DI for about 10000-15000:1, and the contrast in dark scenes/movies is really the only thing that lets down the picture.

I have a hard time imagining how a DCI projector could look better to be an overall improvement with less contrast. Especially if things were kept even source wise, and we weren't using DCI source.

It seems to me the biggest reason DCI machines look "good" at the theater is that there's so much ambient light to distract you from the mediocre contrast.

But like I said, it's something I'd really like to learn, it seems like there's still a good bit to the whole contrast thing that we don't really understand.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 97 Old 03-24-2014, 08:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
blee0120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Merillville, IN 46410
Posts: 3,705
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 108 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

This is something I'd really like to understand. I know contrast isn't everything, but my Planar 8150 is about 3000:1 native with a DI for about 10000-15000:1, and the contrast in dark scenes/movies is really the only thing that lets down the picture.

I have a hard time imagining how a DCI projector could look better to be an overall improvement with less contrast. Especially if things were kept even source wise, and we weren't using DCI source.

It seems to me the biggest reason DCI machines look "good" at the theater is that there's so much ambient light to distract you from the mediocre contrast.

But like I said, it's something I'd really like to learn, it seems like there's still a good bit to the whole contrast thing that we don't really understand.

To me, contrast is not everything. I like having a good DLP and a LCOS. I preferred my DPI and Mit HC8000 over my RS15 for the majority of the movies. I sold my RS15 and Mit HC8000 in the same week and got a RS49/X500. I need to calibrate my new JVC before I see which projector I actually like better, the DPI or JVC that gives me 35,000 - 40,000:1 native, then with the DI enabled about 300,000:1. I was surprised to see that the JVC might look a little sharper, and it also might look better with eshift not engaged. I didn't really care for eshift 1 or 2 anyways.
blee0120 is online now  
post #33 of 97 Old 03-24-2014, 09:09 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my home theater ( when I'm not rock climbing, cycling or kayaking ) - Sacramento CA area
Posts: 5,193
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 255 Post(s)
Liked: 290
Quote:
To me, contrast is not everything. I like having a good DLP and a LCOS. I preferred my DPI and Mit HC8000 over my RS15 for the majority of the movies. I sold my RS15 and Mit HC8000 in the same week and got a RS49/X500. I need to calibrate my new JVC before I see which projector I actually like better, the DPI or JVC that gives me 35,000 - 40,000:1 native, then with the DI enabled about 300,000:1. I was surprised to see that the JVC might look a little sharper, and it also might look better with eshift not engaged. I didn't really care for eshift 1 or 2 anyways.

I too prefer DLP. That said, I was impressed with how sharp the RS49 was too. Personally I liked the picture with the new eshift on. Zero pixel structure and sharp !

Craig Peer, AV Science Sales. Call me on my direct line - 585-671-2972, 8:30am - 4:30pm PST, Monday - Friday
Email me at craig@avscience.com http://shop.avscience.com/
Yes, we sell Home Theater gear right here at AVS !!
JVC, Sony, Epson, DPI, SIM2, SV Sound, Martin Logan, RBH, and many more!
Craig Peer is offline  
post #34 of 97 Old 03-24-2014, 09:10 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,431
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 177 Post(s)
Liked: 431
A little bit off-topic, but regarding the JVCs, how does the eshift from 2013 differ from the 2014 models? I have a RS4810 and while I don't have my screen yet, I sense I might prefer the shift turned on as you cannot even see a hint of pixel structure and I will be sitting pretty close to the screen (9.5 feet from 108" wide).

DavidHir is offline  
post #35 of 97 Old 03-24-2014, 11:29 AM
Member
 
TheSony4KRises's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 76
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by blee0120 View Post

I have owned a Panasonic 900, 3000, and 4000. Including 20 other projectors. Panasonic isn't close to a JVC. I haven't had a JVC for 1.5 years until 5 days ago. Also, my former Mit HC8000 is definitely a better projector, as well as my DPI LED. Just because you like to still watch your AE2000 with low qquality content, does not mean its a good enough projector to live with. If it was, you would not have the 1000ES as your primary movie projector. So, don't get so emotional, no one is paying your to give your loving opinions of a company that does not make HT projectors anymore. Not too many would choose any Panasonic projector on the $3000+ forum and they would consider a 4k from a Sony, JVC, or Epson.

It really is about how a projector "interprets" the source material .

But forget "catalogue " titles for a moment.

Take a recent title such as "Olympus Has Fallen".

It looks bloody awful on the Sony.
(To be fair Lionsgate Blu rays have a nasty habit of colour banding---it is just the way they are encoded----Now You See Me and Splice are other flicks which come to mind)

Just throwing more sharpness or resolution at these nasty encodes does not help----it makes it worse.

The Panasonic with it's detail clarity processor and smoothscreen tech irons out these discrepancies better.

Also the colour gradations(16 bit digital processing) on the Panny are amazing....it has the beating of the Sony in this department.

And in a head to head demo I prefered the colour reproduction of the ae2000 to the JVC HD1 5 years back
which swayed me to buy the Panny in the 1st place.

I bought the Sony4K with the intention of it becoming my primary movie projector.

Not because i was ever dissatisfied with the panny but rather because I was curiouse to see/own a next gen high end product.

What do you define as low quality content?

Classics such as The Godfather?......Taxi Driver?

Both of these 2 projects were mastered at 4K yet both films have an inherent grain density/structure to their image.

The Sony4K is brutally sharp even on it's lowest settings(as newer owners like Zombie have discovered)

Titles like the Godfather can exhibit high grain densities in certain shots
this can be amplified in low lit scenes.

It becomes a distraction.

And this is where the Panny excels without any noticable loss in detail.

It provides a very smooth image.

This can even be applied to demo worthy material like Oblivion.

This looks amazing on the Sony.

It also looks fantastic on the panny.

I have never seen the Mits 8000 in action.----by all accounts a fine projector.

Art Feirman said it provides ever so slightly better blacks and more natural skin tones than the panny 8000....but the Panny has it beat in terms of brightness.

Panasonic are good--deal with it.
TheSony4KRises is offline  
post #36 of 97 Old 03-24-2014, 12:25 PM
Member
 
TheSony4KRises's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 76
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by ultra 150 pilot View Post

Wow that doesn't say a lot for sony!

It is the opposite.

It says a lot for Panasonic that they can produce projectors(or a projector) that can(in some instances) rival or exceed a projector that costs 10 times as much.
TheSony4KRises is offline  
post #37 of 97 Old 03-24-2014, 01:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
blee0120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Merillville, IN 46410
Posts: 3,705
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 108 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSony4KRises View Post

It really is about how a projector "interprets" the source material .

But forget "catalogue " titles for a moment.

Take a recent title such as "Olympus Has Fallen".

It looks bloody awful on the Sony.
(To be fair Lionsgate Blu rays have a nasty habit of colour banding---it is just the way they are encoded----Now You See Me and Splice are other flicks which come to mind)

Just throwing more sharpness or resolution at these nasty encodes does not help----it makes it worse.

The Panasonic with it's detail clarity processor and smoothscreen tech irons out these discrepancies better.

Also the colour gradations(16 bit digital processing) on the Panny are amazing....it has the beating of the Sony in this department.

And in a head to head demo I prefered the colour reproduction of the ae2000 to the JVC HD1 5 years back
which swayed me to buy the Panny in the 1st place.

I bought the Sony4K with the intention of it becoming my primary movie projector.

Not because i was ever dissatisfied with the panny but rather because I was curiouse to see/own a next gen high end product.

What do you define as low quality content?

Classics such as The Godfather?......Taxi Driver?

Both of these 2 projects were mastered at 4K yet both films have an inherent grain density/structure to their image.

The Sony4K is brutally sharp even on it's lowest settings(as newer owners like Zombie have discovered)

Titles like the Godfather can exhibit high grain densities in certain shots
this can be amplified in low lit scenes.

It becomes a distraction.

And this is where the Panny excels without any noticable loss in detail.

It provides a very smooth image.

This can even be applied to demo worthy material like Oblivion.

This looks amazing on the Sony.

It also looks fantastic on the panny.

I have never seen the Mits 8000 in action.----by all accounts a fine projector.

Art Feirman said it provides ever so slightly better blacks and more natural skin tones than the panny 8000....but the Panny has it beat in terms of brightness.

Panasonic are good--deal with it.

The Panny is a good projector, but they haven't made anything to use as a primary projector. They just haven't kept up
blee0120 is online now  
post #38 of 97 Old 03-24-2014, 02:42 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
noah katz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Mountain View, CA USA
Posts: 20,616
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 290 Post(s)
Liked: 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post

Read the thread again. It will not be 1600:1 since it will have a DI, so if it is a good implementation, then it meets his requirements. Also have you seen some of these 2K DCI projectors with 1600:1 or 2,000:1 contrast? They look better than you think they will.

OK let's say 10k:1 with DI; that hardly qualifies as super dark black levels or high native contrast.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post

Also have you seen some of these 2K DCI projectors with 1600:1 or 2,000:1 contrast? They look better than you think they will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post

Yeah, I agree. It amazes me at how good some of these DCI projectors look in theaters considering how little contrast they have in comparison to home theater projectors.

Besides what stanger says below, I have to believe it's the exceeding of low expectations in light of the poor CR spec's.

Sure they look fantastic in bright, medium, and even medium low APL scenes, but if are you guys saying that in low APL scenes the *blacks* are impressive on an absolute scale, I'm not buying it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

It seems to me the biggest reason DCI machines look "good" at the theater is that there's so much ambient light to distract you from the mediocre contrast.

Noah
noah katz is offline  
post #39 of 97 Old 03-24-2014, 03:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Schenectady, New York
Posts: 4,228
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 400 Post(s)
Liked: 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSony4KRises View Post

It is the opposite.

It says a lot for Panasonic that they can produce projectors(or a projector) that can(in some instances) rival or exceed a projector that costs 10 times as much.

This is purely opinion of course but I always found that the better projectors showed source material in their truest form. I have often read reviews and owners opinions of various projectors proclaiming that poor quality source content looks better on one projector over another. Which means that for some reason this projector isn't capable of rendering the image in a way that it should. It isn't showing the true flaws that the source material has. I supposed this can be good. But what does that mean for films like Oblivion? Wouldn't that mean you wouldn't be able to get them to look as they're supposed to? Higher quality video processing, which often means less processing of the image, higher quality lenses, higher native contrast, better motion handling, ect is needed to show us the content in a way that it should look. Wouldn't this make the Panasonic kind of a bad display? For people who can't afford two projectors, one to show of the highest quality material and one to show off poorer source quality, are getting a less than accurate representation on most content. That isn't to say that the Panasonic is a bad projector, I just wouldn't call them "good" like you've so labeled them. They're simply a tier below the rest of the competition.
Seegs108 is offline  
post #40 of 97 Old 03-24-2014, 03:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Schenectady, New York
Posts: 4,228
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 400 Post(s)
Liked: 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post

OK let's say 10k:1 with DI; that hardly qualifies as super dark black levels or high native contrast.



Besides what stanger says below, I have to believe it's the exceeding of low expectations in light of the poor CR spec's.

Sure they look fantastic in bright, medium, and even medium low APL scenes, but if are you guys saying that in low APL scenes the *blacks* are impressive on an absolute scale, I'm not buying it.

I think a lot of it has to do with the far higher quality source material these DCI machines get. I'm not saying they're amazing with low APL scenes, I've just rarely thought they looked bad with those types of scenes.
Seegs108 is offline  
post #41 of 97 Old 03-25-2014, 10:01 AM
Member
 
TheSony4KRises's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 76
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by blee0120 View Post

The Panny is a good projector, but they haven't made anything to use as a primary projector. They just haven't kept up

These Hollywood pros would beg to differ(and I would take them far more seriously than anyone in this forum) :

David Bernstein
Colorist

Films include Bramstokers Dracula((1992),Titanic((1997),X-Men(2000) and Moulin Rouge(2001)

Ithink its great that Panasonic cares enough about the AE series that they have taken the initiative to involve people like myself in order to make sure that the image coming out of the projector matches the intended look of the film and really reproduces as accurately as possible all the work that the filmmakers and myself have put into creating video masters.

Steven Poster
(cinematographer)

Films include Rocky V(1990) and Donnie Darko(2001)

"The AE series projector has become neccessary tool to make my movies"

Steven Charles Jaffe
(cinematographer)

Films include Ghost(1990) and StarTrek VI(1991)

"The AE7000 lifts the bar in the world of projection"



You could dismiss this as commercial/company propaganda but the fact is that these guys know what they are talking about.

And seeing the mighty Sony4k side by side with the AE2000 on a daily basis.......I know they are right.
TheSony4KRises is offline  
post #42 of 97 Old 03-25-2014, 10:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
blee0120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Merillville, IN 46410
Posts: 3,705
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 108 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSony4KRises View Post

These Hollywood pros would beg to differ(and I would take them far more seriously than anyone in this forum) :

David Bernstein
Colorist

Films include Bramstokers Dracula((1992),Titanic((1997),X-Men(2000) and Moulin Rouge(2001)

Ithink its great that Panasonic cares enough about the AE series that they have taken the initiative to involve people like myself in order to make sure that the image coming out of the projector matches the intended look of the film and really reproduces as accurately as possible all the work that the filmmakers and myself have put into creating video masters.

Steven Poster
(cinematographer)

Films include Rocky V(1990) and Donnie Darko(2001)

"The AE series projector has become neccessary tool to make my movies"

Steven Charles Jaffe
(cinematographer)

Films include Ghost(1990) and StarTrek VI(1991)

"The AE7000 lifts the bar in the world of projection"



You could dismiss this as commercial/company propaganda but the fact is that these guys know what they are talking about.

And seeing the mighty Sony4k side by side with the AE2000 on a daily basis.......I know they are right.

I don't think you understand how many people who one your 1000ES constantly says how much better this projector is than everyone projector made known to man. Now you say a Panasonic AE2000 can best it on certain 1080p content. I have to admit, its hilarious. People can pick up a AE2000 for $500 and its better than your 1000ES half the time. I don't know if I should take you seriously or laugh. But you are there looking at both everyday. I think you know what you are talking about. Others who own the 1000/1100ES might disagree. Matter fact, everyone 500/600/1000/1100ES owner will disagree with you. I don't think you are that off. Some blu rays might look better on the Panny, I am not able to do a comparison like you can. Its funny to me because the 1000/1100 is the ultimate projector to some.
blee0120 is online now  
post #43 of 97 Old 03-25-2014, 10:50 AM
Member
 
TheSony4KRises's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 76
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post

This is purely opinion of course but I always found that the better projectors showed source material in their truest form. I have often read reviews and owners opinions of various projectors proclaiming that poor quality source content looks better on one projector over another. Which means that for some reason this projector isn't capable of rendering the image in a way that it should. It isn't showing the true flaws that the source material has. I supposed this can be good. But what does that mean for films like Oblivion? Wouldn't that mean you wouldn't be able to get them to look as they're supposed to? Higher quality video processing, which often means less processing of the image, higher quality lenses, higher native contrast, better motion handling, ect is needed to show us the content in a way that it should look. Wouldn't this make the Panasonic kind of a bad display? For people who can't afford two projectors, one to show of the highest quality material and one to show off poorer source quality, are getting a less than accurate representation on most content. That isn't to say that the Panasonic is a bad projector, I just wouldn't call them "good" like you've so labeled them. They're simply a tier below the rest of the competition.




You raise an interesting point in terms of what is the intended look of the film.

Oblivion and The Godfather are actually very good examples.

Oblivion----shot in digital 4K but mastered in 2K(to incorporate the VFX) and released in 2K DCPs(most cinemas are still running on 2K digital projection at least here in the UK---I might be wrong on this not sure what the stats are in the US ) and uprezzed on 4K commercial projectors(Barco 4K,Sony4K ect ect----for those cinemas that have them)

The Godfather---shot on 35mm and released theatrically(in 1971) on 35mm.
Back in 71' ----if you saw the Godfather in a cinema house.......you were watching a 4th generation photochemical 35 mm release print(4 times removed from the original camera negative)
This meant that you would not be seeing accurate colours----and there would have been a significant loss of detail in the image(relative to the original negative) .

And here comes the tricky part some filmakers at the time----who knew that there would be a degradation in the duplication analogue process actually shot their films(in terms of cinematography) to make an allowance for this---knowing that any anomalies in the master negative image would be obscured in the degraded release print that went out to cinemas.

Now fast forward to the late 2000's as 4K mastering of catalogue titles (using original camera negatives) such as the Godfather were becoming more prevalent.
All of a sudden these same anomalies that had been hidden from view in previous interations of 35mm release prints or home video(VHS and DVD)were being revealed on Hig def Blu Ray.
The film maker never intended for these anamolies to be revealed but beasts like the Sony 4K are unrelenting in their sharpness----and these discrepancies are accentuated by the Sony.

The panasonic behaves like 35mm projection(obscuring these same disrepencies in the image)

It is not for nothing that it gets a reputation for displaying a very "film like" image.
TheSony4KRises is offline  
post #44 of 97 Old 03-25-2014, 10:57 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
AV Science Sales 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: A beautiful view of a lake
Posts: 7,959
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 460 Post(s)
Liked: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

This is something I'd really like to understand. I know contrast isn't everything, but my Planar 8150 is about 3000:1 native with a DI for about 10000-15000:1, and the contrast in dark scenes/movies is really the only thing that lets down the picture.

I have a hard time imagining how a DCI projector could look better to be an overall improvement with less contrast. Especially if things were kept even source wise, and we weren't using DCI source.

It seems to me the biggest reason DCI machines look "good" at the theater is that there's so much ambient light to distract you from the mediocre contrast.

But like I said, it's something I'd really like to learn, it seems like there's still a good bit to the whole contrast thing that we don't really understand.

The DCI projector I saw was in a person's home. It was in a light controlled dedicated room. The image looked great. It was in Alan Gouger's home. Alan has owned more projectors than anyone I have known. He could put what ever he wanted in his room and he uses the DCI machines. There was nothing to complain about of the image. The contrast looked good. Blacks looked black and the image had a nice pop to it. If you ever get a chance to see one of these machines in a good environment, take it. Well worth seeing.

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 #45 of 97 Old 03-25-2014, 11:08 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
AV Science Sales 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: A beautiful view of a lake
Posts: 7,959
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 460 Post(s)
Liked: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post

I think a lot of it has to do with the far higher quality source material these DCI machines get. I'm not saying they're amazing with low APL scenes, I've just rarely thought they looked bad with those types of scenes.

Probably so because the images I saw were very good. It is interesting to see the different contrast specs from the various DLP companies, especially when you see that they are using the same engine.

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 #46 of 97 Old 03-25-2014, 11:08 AM
Member
 
TheSony4KRises's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 76
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by blee0120 View Post

I don't think you understand how many people who one your 1000ES constantly says how much better this projector is than everyone projector made known to man. Now you say a Panasonic AE2000 can best it on certain 1080p content. I have to admit, its hilarious. People can pick up a AE2000 for $500 and its better than your 1000ES half the time. I don't know if I should take you seriously or laugh. But you are there looking at both everyday. I think you know what you are talking about. Others who own the 1000/1100ES might disagree. Matter fact, everyone 500/600/1000/1100ES owner will disagree with you. I don't think you are that off. Some blu rays might look better on the Panny, I am not able to do a comparison like you can. Its funny to me because the 1000/1100 is the ultimate projector to some.

I think you misunderstand.

I am not saying the Panny is better than the Sony.

The Sony is superior.

But the panny is still a fine projector.

that is all.
TheSony4KRises is offline  
post #47 of 97 Old 03-25-2014, 11:16 AM
AVS Special Member
 
blee0120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Merillville, IN 46410
Posts: 3,705
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 108 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSony4KRises View Post

I think you misunderstand.

I am not saying the Panny is better than the Sony.

The Sony is superior.

But the panny is still a fine projector.

that is all.

I know you are not saying it better, but you said you prefer it to certain content
blee0120 is online now  
post #48 of 97 Old 03-25-2014, 11:42 AM
Member
 
TheSony4KRises's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 76
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by blee0120 View Post

I know you are not saying it better, but you said you prefer it to certain content

Yes.

But you have to be aware of the filmmaking process to understand the point i am trying to make.

When it comes to older films(that were shot on 35mm negative) and that used optical composites for lead in titles or fades or transitions there was/is a drop in resolution.
This was due to the 35mm duplication process----it is intrinsic to this process and cannot be avoided.
All films made before the invention of the digital intermediate will have this problem(which is pretty much everything until a few years ago)

This drop in resolution quality is obscured by the panny because it's detail clarity processor filters out/ softens those parts of the image which were never meant to be sharp in the first place.

These same transitions are really noticable on the Sony(it is not the fault of the projector----it is merely scrutinizing what is there).

I recently bought the 2010:A Space Odyssey Blu ray.

Released in 2009/10 Warners did not attempt to make a transfer from the original camera negative(which would have provided the most resolution) but instead used what i am assuming was a 35mm 1st generation interpositive which is grainy(especially in certain VFX shots ----particularly those that featured optical composites)

The Sony just amplifies the grain that is already present.

The Panny smooths over(without eliminating it) making it more palatible to watch.

I will try and get some screen shots at some point.
TheSony4KRises is offline  
post #49 of 97 Old 03-25-2014, 11:43 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Schenectady, New York
Posts: 4,228
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 400 Post(s)
Liked: 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSony4KRises View Post

You raise an interesting point in terms of what is the intended look of the film.

Oblivion and The Godfather are actually very good examples.

Oblivion----shot in digital 4K but mastered in 2K(to incorporate the VFX) and released in 2K DCPs(most cinemas are still running on 2K digital projection at least here in the UK---I might be wrong on this not sure what the stats are in the US ) and uprezzed on 4K commercial projectors(Barco 4K,Sony4K ect ect----for those cinemas that have them)

The Godfather---shot on 35mm and released theatrically(in 1971) on 35mm.
Back in 71' ----if you saw the Godfather in a cinema house.......you were watching a 4th generation photochemical 35 mm release print(4 times removed from the original camera negative)
This meant that you would not be seeing accurate colours----and there would have been a significant loss of detail in the image(relative to the original negative) .

And here comes the tricky part some filmakers at the time----who knew that there would be a degradation in the duplication analogue process actually shot their films(in terms of cinematography) to make an allowance for this---knowing that any anomalies in the master negative image would be obscured in the degraded release print that went out to cinemas.

Now fast forward to the late 2000's as 4K mastering of catalogue titles (using original camera negatives) such as the Godfather were becoming more prevalent.
All of a sudden these same anomalies that had been hidden from view in previous interations of 35mm release prints or home video(VHS and DVD)were being revealed on Hig def Blu Ray.
The film maker never intended for these anamolies to be revealed but beasts like the Sony 4K are unrelenting in their sharpness----and these discrepancies are accentuated by the Sony.

The panasonic behaves like 35mm projection(obscuring these same disrepencies in the image)

It is not for nothing that it gets a reputation for displaying a very "film like" image.

I'm not really talking about "director's intent", but merely showing off top tier blu-ray video content in it's truest form, ie the best possible quality. I'm not saying any projector can do this, but there have a been a handful of projectors that I've owned out of many that have a clear advantage over the others. I think the Panasonics are simply a tier lower. They're still good projectors but as I pointed out, there's a reason they look better with poorer source quality 1080p blu-rays and a reason that the Sony looks far better with clean, higher quality looking 1080p blu-rays. Even at the current Panasonics price point I think it's performance is a tier below something like the JVC DLA-RS46. Panasonic hasn't kept with the curve and there are now products at or close enough to the AE8000's price point where it makes little sense to go with their product over another's. I like Panasonic as a company and want them to stick around for 4K. I hope they get their act together and bring us something spectacular for 4K. In the projector world we need as much competition as possible.
Seegs108 is offline  
post #50 of 97 Old 03-25-2014, 11:49 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,451
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
Liked: 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSony4KRises View Post

This drop in resolution quality is obscured by the panny because it's detail clarity processor filters out/ softens those parts of the image which were never meant to be sharp in the first place.

Sounds to me like you're saying that since the Panny makes everything soft you can't tell which things are "supposed" to be soft from those that aren't.
Quote:
The Panny smooths over(without eliminating it) making it more palatible to watch.

I will try and get some screen shots at some point.

If you really want the soft look, couldn't you just turn up noise reduction on a better machine?

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is online now  
post #51 of 97 Old 03-26-2014, 02:39 AM
Advanced Member
 
Andreas21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 890
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSony4KRises View Post

These Hollywood pros would beg to differ(and I would take them far more seriously than anyone in this forum) :

David Bernstein
Colorist

Films include Bramstokers Dracula((1992),Titanic((1997),X-Men(2000) and Moulin Rouge(2001)

Ithink its great that Panasonic cares enough about the AE series that they have taken the initiative to involve people like myself in order to make sure that the image coming out of the projector matches the intended look of the film and really reproduces as accurately as possible all the work that the filmmakers and myself have put into creating video masters.

Steven Poster
(cinematographer)

Films include Rocky V(1990) and Donnie Darko(2001)

"The AE series projector has become neccessary tool to make my movies"

Steven Charles Jaffe
(cinematographer)

Films include Ghost(1990) and StarTrek VI(1991)

"The AE7000 lifts the bar in the world of projection"



You could dismiss this as commercial/company propaganda but the fact is that these guys know what they are talking about.

And seeing the mighty Sony4k side by side with the AE2000 on a daily basis.......I know they are right.

Do you really think these guys use Panasonic projectors in their work??smile.gif

Regards
Andreas

My Homecinema

Andreas21 is online now  
post #52 of 97 Old 03-26-2014, 03:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Schenectady, New York
Posts: 4,228
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 400 Post(s)
Liked: 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

Sounds to me like you're saying that since the Panny makes everything soft you can't tell which things are "supposed" to be soft from those that aren't.
If you really want the soft look, couldn't you just turn up noise reduction on a better machine?

Or slightly defocus the image.
Seegs108 is offline  
post #53 of 97 Old 03-26-2014, 06:56 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
AV Science Sales 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: A beautiful view of a lake
Posts: 7,959
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 460 Post(s)
Liked: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andreas21 View Post

Do you really think these guys use Panasonic projectors in their work??smile.gif

I would love to know what they use in their own home theaters, bet it is not a Panny. 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, 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 #54 of 97 Old 03-26-2014, 09:31 AM
Member
 
TheSony4KRises's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 76
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andreas21 View Post

Do you really think these guys use Panasonic projectors in their work??smile.gif

Yeah ......I do.

This is Vilomos Zsigmond who was the cinematographer for Close Encounters Of The Third Kind----for which he won an Oscar.




Vilomos Zsigmond was at first skeptical about the digital projector, but quickly changed his mind after viewing dailies with Panasonic's AE Series projectors. He says, "Those images were sharp, the color was right, and they were lifelike, they were film-like."



http://panasonic.net/avc/projector/casestudies/017.html
TheSony4KRises is offline  
post #55 of 97 Old 03-26-2014, 09:42 AM
Member
 
TheSony4KRises's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 76
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post

I would love to know what they use in their own home theaters, bet it is not a Panny. smile.gif

Who cares what they use at home?

If the JVC was so hot I am sure they could afford to use one in their post production facilities
it's not like the JVCs are that expensive for these hollywood big wigs.


They went with Panasonic instead because:
"When we go from film to digital and then back to film, our goal is to remain transparent through that process. Before we recommended the Panasonic projector, we did our testing and our evaluation and measurements and made sure we had confidence in its stability and characteristics. Our initial customers have been very happy with the quality of those pictures. They say that they look very much like film."
VP/GM of Feature Film Services, Laser Pacific Glenn Kennel
TheSony4KRises is offline  
post #56 of 97 Old 03-26-2014, 09:44 AM
Member
 
TheSony4KRises's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 76
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

Sounds to me like you're saying that since the Panny makes everything soft you can't tell which things are "supposed" to be soft from those that aren't.
If you really want the soft look, couldn't you just turn up noise reduction on a better machine?

I have found the Noise reduction options on the Sony to be not very subtle at best.

The Panasonic produces a much more organically smoothed image.
TheSony4KRises is offline  
post #57 of 97 Old 03-26-2014, 09:48 AM
AVS Special Member
 
blee0120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Merillville, IN 46410
Posts: 3,705
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 108 Post(s)
Liked: 74
I don't think you will convince anyone here that the Panasonic can look better with certain content compared to the 1000ES. Andreas21 is going to have to get one to compare smile.gif
blee0120 is online now  
post #58 of 97 Old 03-26-2014, 09:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,807
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 104
I can just say that to try to back up an argument based on someone working in the movie industry (handsomely payed by the brand to promote) uses a particular projector for watching dailies is a moot argument. You can watch dailies on about almost anything - dailies are only for the Director and DP to see what they shot that day and such ungraded footage usually look awful.

For critical color correction and quality control - nobody in their right mind in the movie industry would use a LCD based projector - it hides too much possible technical issues in the footage - the choice would always be DLP.

As for the thread title which it seems like many has forgotten; "DREAM Projector: LED plus 4K ... when do you think we will see it ?"

Not likely that LED will have any future in quality projectors because Laser will be the logical choice.

Both Barco an Christie are demoing their new laser projectors at CinemaCon 2014 at the moment - which has a laser light engine consisting of 6-primary color lasers.
http://www.avsforum.com/f/185/d-cinema-equipment-and-theaters

This technology will by and by trickle down to consumer projectors.
coolscan is offline  
post #59 of 97 Old 03-26-2014, 10:32 AM
Member
 
TheSony4KRises's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 76
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post

I'm not really talking about "director's intent", but merely showing off top tier blu-ray video content in it's truest form, ie the best possible quality. I'm not saying any projector can do this, but there have a been a handful of projectors that I've owned out of many that have a clear advantage over the others. I think the Panasonics are simply a tier lower. They're still good projectors but as I pointed out, there's a reason they look better with poorer source quality 1080p blu-rays and a reason that the Sony looks far better with clean, higher quality looking 1080p blu-rays. Even at the current Panasonics price point I think it's performance is a tier below something like the JVC DLA-RS46. Panasonic hasn't kept with the curve and there are now products at or close enough to the AE8000's price point where it makes little sense to go with their product over another's. I like Panasonic as a company and want them to stick around for 4K. I hope they get their act together and bring us something spectacular for 4K. In the projector world we need as much competition as possible.



For a lower tier product----Panasonic seems to be winning quite a few hearts and minds:

Highlights and bright areas are more eye-catching than even Epson’s latest candidate, the EH-TW9200W. It’s never unnaturally punchy, however – skin tones are convincing and there’s a good sense of realism.

Verdict

It’s not hard to see why this Panasonic has won two Awards and a permanent spot in our testing rooms.

Despite newer models, it holds its own in 2D and 3D, and walks away with its five stars intact.


http://www.whathifi.com/review/panasonic-pt-at6000e

What Hi-Fi? Sound and Vision is the world's leading independent guide to buying and owning home entertainment products. Our comprehensive tests help you buy the very best for your money, with our advice sections giving you step-by-step information on how to get even more from your music and movies
TheSony4KRises is offline  
post #60 of 97 Old 03-26-2014, 10:45 AM
Member
 
TheSony4KRises's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 76
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

I can just say that to try to back up an argument based on someone working in the movie industry (handsomely payed by the brand to promote) uses a particular projector for watching dailies is a moot argument. You can watch dailies on about almost anything - dailies are only for the Director and DP to see what they shot that day and such ungraded footage usually look awful.

For critical color correction and quality control - nobody in their right mind in the movie industry would use a LCD based projector - it hides too much possible technical issues in the footage - the choice would always be DLP.

As for the thread title which it seems like many has forgotten; "DREAM Projector: LED plus 4K ... when do you think we will see it ?"

Not likely that LED will have any future in quality projectors because Laser will be the logical choice.

Both Barco an Christie are demoing their new laser projectors at CinemaCon 2014 at the moment - which has a laser light engine consisting of 6-primary color lasers.
http://www.avsforum.com/f/185/d-cinema-equipment-and-theaters

This technology will by and by trickle down to consumer projectors.

Really?

Vilimos Zsigmond was not just going to watch dailies:

“I’m going to invite a lot of people to show movies on this one(Pansonic AE2000).
ftp://ftp.panasonic.com/pub/panasonic/drivers/PBTS/pr/PR_LaserPacific_case_study.pdf
TheSony4KRises is offline  
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

User Tag List

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


Forum Jump: 

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

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