or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sony VPL-vw1000 - Page 41

post #1201 of 9725
I like it so I have it on defaults. I pump it up some for sports!
post #1202 of 9725
Quote:
Originally Posted by joerod View Post

It's obvious though the majority of new owners like RC on. It reminds me of when Sony released the VW200 with Motionflow and film projection. Sorta. I only (as well as many others) only liked it for sports. At the time it was the only game in town (for Sony projectors at least). Just like now the RC in their projector line has been non existent. Now here it is! I expect it to trickle into most of their future models. Anyway, not using RC is like dating Megan Fox and never... It's addictive once you do experience it and you want it all the time. Talking about RC not MF. Even at minimal settings its enhancement is still noticeable. And if you aren't going to use it you should stick to the 95ES. And or the girl you met at the bar... Not that there's anything wrong with either.

I am sitting her reading and finding JoeRod to be using a posting style thast I have used in the past on occasion by explaining something by a sexual analogy. So I am transcended by JoeRod's post and though I really have no image for Ms. Fox, I can substitute some other hottie star or woman from my younger days. Now I understand what JoeRod is saying and I agree with it. Then I see the words RC not MF and my brain thanks to JoeRod is somewhere else, RC is clear because that's what triggered JoeRod's allusion but what is MF? Muff factor?

Then reality steps in and I reread his post, Motion Flow. Duh.
post #1203 of 9725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawguy View Post

Isn't it really about tradeoffs?

It is. As long as people are aware of the trade off, i.e. the downside of 4K and Reality Creation, all is well .

Quote:


Two of the issues that you identify can only be detected in comparison to a reference (contrast enhancement and color loss). The other two (edge enhancement and compression artifacts) were made apparent by you in making the image darker.

Not really. I had no trouble seeing them in the original image. I did that transformation because I thought it might be hard for people to know what I am referring to with words. Look at the unmodified images and tell me if you don't see the issue. This is a kind of artifact that once you learn about it, you can't not see it. I apologize now for showing it .

Quote:


On balance, someone can think that the pic with RC on is an improvement over it with RC off. I don't have a problem with that at all. These seem like subtle tweaks, not extreme changes. If it gets out of hand, just turn it off.

The problem is that the artifacts could be worse as noted by what it does to noise, DirecTV, etc. The image that was shot was not representative of worse case situation which could occur as soon as the scene changes in a movie. But sure, I don't have a problem with a preference either. My issue is when it is positioned as the more real image as folks keep saying (i.e. closer to film). There is this intuitive drive to think you are getting something for nothing which as you say, it isn't there here.

Quote:


I think that I would not use this feature for the reasons that you mention but I have a no problem if someone like it.

We are in agreement then .

Quote:


The video standards ultimately should be followed by people in the chain of production. They do what they and make sure that the product is as it should be. But when the product is sold to the consumer, all bets are off. Those engineers are in no position to say how someone should enjoy that movie in someone's home.

That is a truism. But what those engineers can also do, is explain where the problem is. For a long time we had upscaling DVD players which incorrectly used color space of SD Video, 601, rather than HD video, 709. The TV on the other hand, saw the "HD video" and assumed 709 and we had wrong colors displayed as a result. The experts told us that was wrong and after a while, enough people talked about it that equipment makers realized they didn't know what they should about video and fixed the problem and we are all better for it.

Then there is the issue that sliders have existed forever to manipulate the image, including on 1080p projectors. Yet, there seems to be a notion all of a sudden that in this projector distorting the image is fine, whereas it wasn't with other displays. There are long threads in this forum with people complaining bitterly about edge enhancement and noise reduction in BD movies. Yet folks are here defending the same practice in a projector. Why can't we make up our mind?
post #1204 of 9725
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

I am sitting her reading and finding JoeRod to be using a posting style thast I have used in the past on occasion by explaining something by a sexual analogy. So I am transcended by JoeRod's post and though I really have no image for Ms. Fox, I can substitute some other hottie star or woman from my younger days. Now I understand what JoeRod is saying and I agree with it. Then I see the words RC not MF and my brain thanks to JoeRod is somewhere else, RC is clear because that's what triggered JoeRod's allusion but what is MF? Muff factor?

Then reality steps in and I reread his post, Motion Flow. Duh.

I admit I struggled coming up with a hottie actress these days. I'm sure there's a few out there besides Megan Fox.
post #1205 of 9725
Don't know the size of the screen, but would guess around 120". You can really see the difference between the native 4K pic below and the upconverted star wars stuff at the end.



post #1206 of 9725
Quote:
Originally Posted by joerod View Post

Like fine detail and edge enhancement? Still I have to give it to Sony for adding this terrific VP in their projector. It's the first time I truly don't need any external processing. Sure the extra features like test Patterns are appreciated but as far as the image goes it doesn't get much better than this!

Once again speaking not as a sales person but as a private poster, I do not agree. I need my Lumagen with this projector. I need it with all projectors and I am quite sure that in the future there will be better scalers and processors than the present Lumagen and what's presently in the Sony. That's the nature of our sport and not a criticism of anything or anybody. That said I am buying a 1000ES as a multiyear projector. I will keep if for at least 4 years and I will not feel compelled to upgrade it before then. But I am buying it with the knowledge that I will be using it with my Lumagenand that there will be a 4K Lumagen in the future.

Let's get simplistic. The Sony does not have a CMS. The Lumagen does. Tweaking to the nth degree, one needs CMS. Grayscale. Two points or 21 points. I could go on.

Salespeople tend to say this is the one. We have arrived. The manufacturer has nailed it with this one. He can fire the design team. There is nothing left for them to do except make trivial improvements. That what my friend JoeRod tends to say year after year.

We needed them to do this or that and now we have it. We needed 62,796 on/off and 463 ANSI CR and now we have it. Perfection or close enough. Time to buy me one and be happy for the rest of my life.

Perfection can sometimes be obtained but it depends on a scoring system. No hits, no runs, no errors. A bowling game with 12 strikes.

But not with a home theater or commercial projector or for that matter a video reproduction chain.

Yea but the improvement is trivial, not worth it, they put a CMS in this year, sell my processor. It no longer can make anything better, I ain't no idiot.

Yea. But without beng disrespectful you probably are because you have bothered to learn or use other stuff lying within the bowels of your processor.

I will be first in line to buy a Lumagen 4K processor when it first comes out and I fully expect it will elevate the performance of the 1000ES to another level and I expect that elevatation will continue over the years as Lumagen makes the processor better with free upgrades. That will keep me happy ewith my purchase for a longer period of time than without an external processor.

I will also be buying a Darbeevision Dublet when it comes out in a few weeks. I have seen the Darbeevision process in action and I will use it when I think it improves the reality of an image to my eyes and I will shut it off when it makes things less realistic to my eyes.

I think that things can always be made better. Fortunately signals can be altered before they hit a display device. That is what an external video processor does. What's in a projector depens on the price point to which it is built and its limited by the expertise of the designers.
post #1207 of 9725
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

There is this intuitive drive to think you are getting something for nothing which as you say, it isn't there here.

Something for nothing? I thought you'd had to splash out 25K for it!

I agree that there can't be any new detail that is introduced. However, the notion that you get rid of, or reduce, jagged edges would be a big plus for me. I can easily see jaggies from my seating position and would love to get rid of them. Alas, this PJ is way out of my current pay grade - or at least what would be sensible for me to spend on rapidly deprecating technology...

However, I'm hoping it will trickle down to next years vw95:s. Add that to less 3D ghosting and a higher CR and I think that would be a PJ I could live with for a while.
post #1208 of 9725
Amir,
Your biggest "issue" is the fact you have X-ray vision type eyes. You see instantly what 98.5% of the public wouldn't. Most see the image and like/love it without question. You are like a magician showing the secrets to the trick. Not that there is anything wrong with that of course. The world needs superheroes and your wealth of knowledge in this field is most appreciated. I just like seeing the best image (to my taste) possible. Right or wrong it doesn't matter.
post #1209 of 9725
How will VW1000 evolve?
1 Is a CMS likeley and if so when, in three months or six months?
2 4K 60P input board
3 Will we see a big brother to VW1000, someone mentioned an upcoming Cinealta product based upon the 0.74 inch 4K panel. Why would they otherwise go with 4096x2160 and not with 3840x2160?
post #1210 of 9725
Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech View Post

Don't know the size of the screen, but would guess around 120". You can really see the difference between the native 4K pic below and the upconverted star wars stuff at the end.

Did the (long) forum post explain how they fed that 4K image to the projector? There are not many ways to do that, and I did not notice a HTPC in the photos.
post #1211 of 9725
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Once again speaking not as a sales person but as a private poster, I do not agree. I need my Lumagen with this projector. I need it with all projectors and I am quite sure that in the future there will be better scalers and processors than the present Lumagen and what's presently in the Sony. That's the nature of our sport and not a criticism of anything or anybody.

Say what? You mean for $25K we did not get a good scalar? Even when one is mandatory to go from 1080p to 4K with its odd multiple?

Quote:


Let's get simplistic. The Sony does not have a CMS.

Say what? For $25K we didn't get CMS either? You mean we can't properly calibrate the set?

Quote:


The Lumagen does. Tweaking to the nth degree, one needs CMS. Grayscale. Two points or 21 points. I could go on.

Why? Folks are saying it is the best picture they have seen as is. Are you saying they are wrong?

Quote:


Perfection can sometimes be obtained but it depends on a scoring system. No hits, no runs, no errors. A bowling game with 12 strikes.

Perfection Mark? I thought it was all about the perceived illusion?

Quote:


I will be first in line to buy a Lumagen 4K processor when it first comes out and I fully expect it will elevate the performance of the 1000ES to another level and I expect that elevatation will continue over the years as Lumagen makes the processor better with free upgrades.

Why? What is broken now that needs fixing with the Lumagen?

Quote:


I think that things can always be made better. Fortunately signals can be altered before they hit a display device. That is what an external video processor does. What's in a projector is built to a price point and its limited to the expertise of the designers.

Boy, the bloom is really off the rose . Now it has all of these issues that need fixing with an outboard processor? And the Sony has built its video processing "to a price point?"

I am teasing you of course. It is funny to see you sit in my chair trying to convince folks to do things better . I could swear you were consistent in your views of having the correct video image despite your posts in this thread. So I went back and did a quick search and saw these:

Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

I would profer that no scaling is better than any scaling given the right screen size and viewing distance. NR displays require scaling for most sports video sources and deinterlacing for some. For optimization of PQ at least presently in all areas except on off CR, using a dedicated high quality 720p projector will result in a better picture for 720p video sources than a 1080p NR machine that requires scaling.

Why was it better to show a 720p image on a 720p native resolution projector than upscale it to 1080p?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

If you start with 1080i HD and have a choice of projecting 720p or 1080p, the picture will undoubtedly look better at 1080p. No scaling, just a deinterlace. If you start with a 720p HD, then ending with a 720p will look best (no processing) assuming you are far enough back to not see lines etc. If you have 1080p sources (Blu ray), then 1080p is definately the way to go.

So again we see you advocating staying with the native resolution of the source and advocating purity in approach.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

All the chip scalers built into displys (I am taking scaling, not deinterlacing) suck. THEY ALL RING. The best scaling is by Lumagen, it doesn't ring.

Yet you have no issue with all the ringing Reality Creation, well, creates?

Anyway, you don't need to answer. It feels good to see at least the old Mark agreeing with me .
post #1212 of 9725
Quote:
Originally Posted by joerod View Post

Amir,
Your biggest "issue" is the fact you have X-ray vision type eyes. You see instantly what 98.5% of the public wouldn't. Most see the image and like/love it without question. You are like a magician showing the secrets to the trick. Not that there is anything wrong with that of course. The world needs superheroes and your wealth of knowledge in this field is most appreciated. I just like seeing the best image (to my taste) possible. Right or wrong it doesn't matter.

No disagreement whatsoever . I have always said this is a very good projector and produces very nice images. So it is not surprising at all to see such superlative feedback. The only surprise is all of a sudden reading posts from others who also know what is correct and what is not, advocating a different point of view.
post #1213 of 9725
Mark I hate to say this put 98% of the general population do not even know what CMS stands for. And I am willing to bet 98% of the 1000ES owners will not care about one. If they were that important I am sure jvc would have figured out a way to release one with their projectors that work. Seriously though for the rest of the industry Video Processors are nearly extinct. I used to be a big fan and I loved my Crystalio II back in the day. VPs are important maybe to some here at avs but not so much anywhere else. I'm sorry to break the news...
post #1214 of 9725
Quote:
Originally Posted by joerod View Post

seriously though for the rest of the industry video processors are nearly extinct
vps are important maybe to some here at avs but not so much anywhere else. I'm sorry to break the news...

+ +
post #1215 of 9725
Just a thought..perhaps sony is doing naughty things to the image that are obvious and unacceptable in 2k but maybe because its 4k they don't look bad and actually help the perception?
post #1216 of 9725
Well, I'm in Mark's camp on this: I too will trade in my RadianceMini for one that upconverts inputs to output them at 4K to the 1000, if and when it becomes available.
post #1217 of 9725
I hear these noises high above my head, are there people shooting at me? Bring it on.

Everybody or almost everybody who has purchased a 1000ES from us knows what a CMS is.

And I love Amirm acting like he is a politician in a debate with other politicians.

Repeat after me Amirm, something that you well know but chose to omit. Every projector and everything in the video chain could be better.

Things are built to price points and on time lines. Things are built as to the knowledge of the designers. Trade offs are made but the process of the trade offs, what shall be and what shall not be are not made by some all mighty being. Sim2 knows what's best. Sony knows what's best. They make decisions based on a variety of factors some of which we might agree with and others we would say WTF?


Fortunately as consumers we can make things better perform. A better set of tires on a car. A better set of brake pads. What? They didn't put the best of everything on my $100K car? Or something better came along after it was built. What was that? Better tires. Will they fit? You betcha. What will they do. Hydroplane less, corner better, get you better looking ____, naw not really. Tires won't help you there.

You say something distorts the actual source. A pink this, a blotch that. True. But I think what most people want is a net improvement. The net being a positive sum of better this less worse that. And that some is judged by what the person sees. Is the net more like reality.

I was thinking about the term Reality Creation. When I first saw it years ago on other Sony sets, I thought what a bad name. Its not reality, its processed. The engineer in me, the purist.

But I see it differently now entering the world of small screen 4K. The Sony just presents to me a so much realer, life like image. Its not to me an examination at the pixel level. Its watching at 1 1/2 screen width or so and being closer to reality. Does the RC priocessor get you closer. To my eyes it results in a net improvement. To yours, if it has any negative, that's it. Turn it off. See the negatives. Shut it off.

I say see the positives. Others, me included, see a net positive, an imasge closer to the reality of breing there.

You argue in jest that for $25K MSRP something should be perfect and make fun that it isn't when you well know that it can't be. I point to the future and say it can be better and it will be without having to junk it because the afternarket has expertise, is not subject to the budget limitations and time limitations or even knowledge limitations of the projector manufacturer.

JoeRod says its good enough. Amirm points out the cons but never the pros. Implicitly heoints to another brand that doesn't have the same cons.

I say I like it. I am going to buy it. It has pros and like everything else it has cons. Fortunately, a con, there being no CMS I can immediately address even though the presets are almost spot on CMS wise, like anything else they can be made better.

The 4K scaling. What do I have to judge its quality by. Its the first true 4K scaling I have seen. But as the first I fully suspect better can indeed be and will be developed and I will be able to obtain it without having to buy a new projector.

Joerod. Says its so good now, any improvement would be trivial. I remember the first 480i deinterlacer and the first scaler that took 480p to 960p. MSRP was $15K. Couldn't get any better than that. Well I mean it could and it will be cheaper but it couln't get much better. Right?

The only way you can tell better is to see it. And if it doesn't exist yet, one can make make no statement as to how close something is to the future's best.
post #1218 of 9725
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

There are long threads in this forum with people complaining bitterly about edge enhancement and noise reduction in BD movies. Yet folks are here defending the same practice in a projector. Why can't we make up our mind?

What this does in the image shouldn't be used in the same sentence with the severe egregious us of NR and EE in BD that folks complain about.

This is a very nicely implemented technique in comparison to the stuff used on BD transfers at times otherwise I believe you'd be hearing little or no complaints. Additionally, the reality creation is a choice, it isn't a baked in take or leave it scenario we see in BDs.

Art
post #1219 of 9725
I could use a processor that supports 4K and 3D switching otherwise I'll stick with my D2 until one is available.
post #1220 of 9725
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

Well, I'm in Mark's camp on this: I too will trade in my RadianceMini for one that upconverts inputs to output them at 4K to the 1000, if and when it becomes available.

And you are part of the 2%. mark has no choice he has to be!
I get about 20 messages every day from my site and here as well as the other place. Maybe 1 out of 100 is about a VP.
The gentleman I spoke to yesterday just purchased a 1000 and his first order of business was to sell his Radience. The best scaling I have seen lately has been by the HQV Vida 1900 chip in my Integra 80.3 and Onkyo 3009. Having those send 1080p into the 1000 has yielded excellent results. I also get excellent results sending in 1080i or a native resolution into the 1000 and letting it do all the work to 4K. I seriously question whether a company like lumagen will exist long enough to make an independent scaler to up convert to 4K. Times are a changing real fast...
post #1221 of 9725
Oh and of course we remember 480i and those crazy composite days. That's why things are so much better with more resolution and 4K. Back then we needed hope. Video Processors were it!
post #1222 of 9725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randall Morton View Post

I could use a processor that supports 4K and 3D switching otherwise I'll stick with my D2 until one is available.

Any hdmi 1.4 compliant processor should pass through 3D and 4k. I have no issues with my Classe. I haven't tested any native 4k material of course but I don't suspect I should have any issues. 3D switching works fine.
post #1223 of 9725
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonStatt View Post


By the way Super 8 is a really bad movie to evaluate with. It has a wobbly black floor that you can see pulsating on dark scenes all the way through the film.

I have noticed that, actually, but I have a pretty good feel for where this happens during that chapter (the train crash chapter), so I just use it as part of my evaluation. I've seen the scene many times, so the benefits to testing with a really familiar scene outweigh the deficits in the content for me. Definitely a good point, though!
post #1224 of 9725
Quote:
Originally Posted by adidino View Post

Any hdmi 1.4 compliant processor should pass through 3D and 4k. I have no issues with my Classe. I haven't tested any native 4k material of course but I don't suspect I should have any issues. 3D switching works fine.

And that's another point. Using a Blu ray player with dual HDMI outs gives me the absolute best image possible heading to the HDMI input 2 on my 1000. Another job taken away for a VP.

I will point out that I do plan to at least check out a mini 3D and I will be 100% fair. I have had a couple of their products in the past so this will be interesting.
post #1225 of 9725
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Seems like we are back to video alchemy argument again . Let's put your theory to test. Here is a close up of the two images Randall post. On top you see the two zooms as he had taken with my indicators overlaid on them. I have only cropped them and nothing else. On the bottom are the same two images except that I have adjusted the image as to make it easier to see the artifacts (same adjustment is made to both images):

So what do we see?

1. There is no extra detail. The Reality Creation version is a bit brighter due to contrast enhancement but no more detail exist. If the original film had more resolution, we have not restored it.

2. There is a noticeable loss of color. The pink hue on the building behind the figure has been subdued due to accuracy errors in their filter or contrast enhancement. Doubt that we have gotten closer to the original film by introducing this.

3. We have the dreaded halos (ie. "Edge Enhancement") distortions now wherever there is a sharp transition. This is much easier to see in the darkened version. Confident that was not in the film.

4. Compression artifacts are exaggerated. Look at the blocking artifacts around the circle now.

You were saying?

Did I say something about the ability or viability of Sony's Reality Creation ?

Answer me this: my wife bought me a boxed DVD set of a favorite TV show. The last couple of years of the show were broadcast in HD. I have the option of watching these later episodes using an Oppo blu-ray player feeding a really good flat panel, using the Oppo's deinterlacing and scaling, or using a Panasonic DVD player feeding component into a standard def tube TV that was state of the art several years ago. Which would you watch? Which would look more like the HD broadcasts I remember? Which would you watch if it was the earlier episodes that were never shown in HD? What is the scientifically correct answer to these questions?
post #1226 of 9725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Goff View Post

Did I say something about the ability or viability of Sony's Reality Creation ?

You quoted me while I was discussing such. Trust we are in agreement that Reality Creating took us farther away from the film, not closer. Yes?
post #1227 of 9725
So back onto the main topic of this thread: 1000ES... I have a couple friends heading in today to finish the rest of the Lin/Knicks game and then to check out a few movies. I also plan to throw some 3D action at them.
post #1228 of 9725
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

You quoted me while I was discussing such. Trust we are in agreement that Reality Creating took us farther away from the film, not closer. Yes?

I've not experienced Reality Creation, but it appears to introduce artifacts greater than necessary to the task. Please see my amended post above for another query.
post #1229 of 9725
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

There are long threads in this forum with people complaining bitterly about edge enhancement and noise reduction in BD movies. Yet folks are here defending the same practice in a projector. Why can't we make up our mind?

Hey. We should get to add our own EE and NR. Once it is there, you can't take it away.
post #1230 of 9725
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by joerod View Post

mark has no choice he has to be!

Why does Mark have no choice?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home