RED 4K 3D laser projector = $10K - Page 14

Do smaller theaters hand out active glasses? I've never heard of this and could see it being a big problem if any of them were low on battery

Lets assume everything you are saying is correct. What does it matter? All i do is read about how everyone on the forums beleaves their home unit is better then what they see in the theater. Small independent theaters can't afford to make the shift to 4k. This allows them to carry suit and remain competitive. It doesn't really mater if the quality isn't as good.

The average theater goer puts up with poor quality already. Making sure the screen has the proper lumens will probably do more for theaters then a resolution increase.......

If Red will be sucessfull or not still remains to be seen but the fact that they are releasing this projector at low price point seems pretty disruptive to the industy to me which can only mean good things in the future.

The main feature I like with laser is the brightness could be set per input and mode (correct me if I'm wrong). Or manually from the remote.
So turn it down for 2D then crank the laser power for 3D.
Laser DLP projectors could be used with existing screens and even DLP link glasses. The rainbow effect would be reduced greatly too.
Reliability would improve since the color wheel is eliminated.
Local dimming is possible because laser can switch on/off in the nanosecond range.

Simplicity has its beauty.

Not sure I understand; seems like we won't know until we see if RED reaches their production targets.

Thanks for your other info.

Yes, ive seen Xpand 3D glaaes used in smaller theaters, they are supposed to charge them between shows.

Can there be any reason why a company like JVC with their LCoS panels, with their superior CR and hopefully faster than current, in the next gen, cannot do something similar?

I dont see why not, they certainly have the tecnical knowhow. I actually think LED's, the new high power ones, could do better than lasers. the power levels are there and they have a more natuaral feeling output than line lasers.

I agree. This is the good point. Because of this, Sony and JVC must react on the LcoS+laser side at the same targeted price. Sony is probably ready for this because a show of a laser source with Sony 4K was planned at NAD 2012 on the pro side:

http://www.pacificmediaassociates.co...cinema-at-nab/

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...screens-311009

http://www.laserfocusworld.com/news/...echnology.html

There was also a nice demo of HFR in 3D (made by Cameron himself). Pro market is also very concerned by HFR (more than 4K ?):
http://www.hometheater.com/content/n...e-rate-3d-demo

But RED price target is also very close to 2K mono-dlp price on the pro market. After laser will become common on such dlp products, RED will have to convince pro end-users that its product is more appropriate for them. Even if there will be a market for 4K in the futur, it remains very small at the present time.

The futur policy of TI concerning 4K dlp is also totally unknown... They take their time. No mass market, no hurry for a consumer chip.

i have both in my cinema.

the 4k home cinema pr. the sony vw 1000 and the barco b32 a 4k dlp with 32.000 lumen.

as i have content that contains real the 4k and even more i can test it
and i have test it how the picture was when i compare 4k native with the sony 4k home cinema pr. and the barco b 32.

in theory you are right but in practical not.

the barco show may "a bit" more resolution the sony have the far better
cr. and the much better smooth motion.
of course i bring the lumen from the barco down to the same level the
sony have to make a fair compare.
than on top of this you have to look about the price and the action how do drive a 32.000 lumen dlp cinema pr.
but that's not a circumstance I take into as I just rate the picture quality.

after this test i deside to use the 2 barcos only for 3d (4k native 3d from my still pictures and 3d bd)and the sony for all
what is 2d (2d bd and tv).

it will take some time for all laser pr. and also some time before they can have good cr. with a lcos based laser pr.

laser will hit some day but I am sure not this year.

Wolfgang, since the lasers in these LCos units are pure light source, why do you feel the CR will lag behind existing units.

If the likes of JVC were to switch to a laser light source and implement the wiregrid polarizes as they currently do, should not the current CR be maintained at the same lumen output. If they get rid of the Lens aperture adjustment and make the laser user dimmerble even ANSI CR may increase?

With total laser shut down we may have perfect fade to black as well.

If panels alignment is correct, the MTF of the Sony1000ES with a max frequency pattern is not very good (massive loss of CR):



So 4K details until Shannon/Nyquist mid frequency will be severely attenuated (software sharpen will be necessary to boost the ansi CR on small details).

Tests made on a pro 4K pj (christie) by another people I know are better even if not perfect (projecting 4K with an optic is still a challendge (MTF)). But the ansi CR is far more better on the Christie.

On 2 pixels test patterns (which corresponds to a 2K resolution), the result on the Sony is much much better (rather correct CR) than with the previous pattern. So this pj corresponds to a good improvement compared to others 2K LCoS Sony pj. It is able to correctly project 2K contents until 2K Nyquist frequency. It is perhaps the first consumer LCoS pj that can do it (dlp do it much more easily with 0.95" or 0.98" chips). This is really a good point and viewing BR on the 4K Sony will give good results (even if the Sony upsampling 2K->4K algorithm is another story...).

Unfortunately panels alignment is sometimes a pb for this Sony (a reseller I know well was very desapointed on this point and need to send back to Sony the units he received because it was not possible to reach the alignment quality he wanted...).

A long test of the 1000ES (in french unfortunately) :
http://hdfever.fr/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=82

Regards
Emmanuel

I disagree with you. I can easily see the advantage of 4K resolution on a 3-4m wide screen. For upscaled 1080p/2K sources as well, not just 4K.

Can we assume that you can post the MTF curves of the VW1000ES and of a Barco or Christie 4k to substantiate your claims that the Sony is a "false" 4k projector?

Judging by your last post the Sony can indeed resolve 4k although with reduced amplitude and you say it is "able to correctly project 2K contents" - seems like you are contradicting yourself there...

Massive and complexe tests are necessary for a correct discussion on this point :

A/B 2K/4K projection necessary
MTF identical on the common 2K resolution range of both pj (else the 4K pj will be favored with regard to the 2K)
Same brightness, same gamma and if possible same black floor.
frequency contents of the 2K/4K source clearly identified (2 dimensions fft necessary) to see how the HR of 4K details content will spread beyong 2K Nyquist frequency to 4K Nyquist frequency)
software sharpen completely off on both pj
etc.

Pro opinions on this point is that a top-value 2K pj is really hard to beat on small screen like 3-4 meters. But obviously middle range 4K pj (like the 1000ES) can do at least the same or better than middle value 2K pj. That' a very good point.

No I can't because the MTF on screen for the total frequency range from 0 to 0.5 cycle/pixel was not evaluated like for instance on this url for a camera :
http://www.maxmax.com/nikon_d700hr.htm

So we just "evaluate" the MTF at 2 frequencies : 0.25 and 0.5 cycle/pixel by visually comparing black and white value on the pattern to black and white ref on large pattern located elsewhere on the picture. At 0.25 the result seems quite correct (ie "correct" black and white). That means that 2-pixel details will be correctly rendered with the Sony (2-pixels details correspond to that you can have with a 2K source like a BR). After 0.25 cycle/pixel, the frequency range between 0.25 to 0.5 corresponds to post-2K details. The decreasing of the MTF curve on this range is unknown until 0.5 but we "qualitatively" evaluate the MTF at 0.5 with the 1 pixel chess board pattern on the above post (where black and white corresponds to 2 different grey values because of the CR loss).

So how good the Sony performs between 0.25 and 0.5 cycle/pixel (ie the flatness of the MTF curve above 2K resolution) is unknown to me.

and to complete this, I would be very happy if the pj manufacturers could provide it
But they never will...

I am aware that the picture you posted is taken at 0.5 cycles and pixels are still resolved to some degree so it seems what we have here is not a "false" 4k projector. I have a feeling you have yourself not compared both a 2k and a 4k DLP and the Sony VW1000ES with actual 4k content at suitable viewing distances or you would not claim that screens of 3/4m do not profit from 4k which is not correct as it is easy to see the advantages.

Maybe it is just me but it seems to be "hip" to bash the Sony VW1000ES just because.

Th Sony does not have to have a flat MTF curve to be a 'real' 4K projector. If the MTF goes down with rising frquency (as it goes sooner or later for all projectors) it depends a lot on how early and how much. As long as the Sony visibly resolves 2K line pairs horizontally it's a 4K projector. Not as sharp and with less contrast than 4K DLP does it, but not a fake 4K either. It behaves more like film than DLP does.

There is much more to a good image than (flat) MTF. The main advantage of upsampled 1080p or 2K via a 4K projector compared to a 2K DLP or LCOS is the lack of visibility of pixels (and for DLP hard pixel edges) together with no or minimal loss of sharpness or even perceptually improved sharpness (due to clever upsampling tricks). The image looks more analogue and free of the sampling grid I always see on 2K projectors with sharp material from where I usually sit (1-1.5 screen widths away). This does not depend on screen size and is true for a large range of sizes.

highjinx
i not feel this and i not saw the red laser demo but i know beside all what you can found in the net about people that post there impressions
and on top i know some very very knowing people that report to me direct how the picture look.

also the company that red buy show some demos and there as well people report about low cr.
if i remember right it was in the 1000:1 range but not sure.
so if i count all together i think as so many people report it its may right but to be honest i have no idea why lcos with laser have this low cr.

it is strange as laser with dlp show much more cr. compare to a xenon lamp based pr.!!!
i hear factor 4 or 5 times more so lets say a cinem dlp have in
the 2000-2500:1 range laser will push it to 10.000:1 may above!

epiad
i did at least this 4k to 4k pr. comparison side by side with the same source material and yes this is much work to do it.
the result i post already in post number 399 here.

I expected you noticed the quotes around the word false
but ok I understand the term I used can be mis-interpreted. Sorry for that.

Most people here know that optical components have MTF. Also imaging devices. Thus pj have MTF that is a part of the equation. Others parts are lum, CR ansi, black floor, global gamma progression and gamma progression in very fisrt IRE, room... Most of us are not new in this world...


habbits and preferences concerning digital picture aspect are clearly very different from people to people. It is very subjective. Some prefer the crisp rendering of monoDLP and will never buy a LCoS. Other prefer soft rendering with adequate sharpening and are very happy with LCoS. But sometimes they also complain against a lack of sharpness. Most of the time, HT addict is never happy .

One of the problems associated to digital image is that the distorsion in high frequencies raises rapidly around the Nyquist frequency (sharp edge of pixel rendering) if we compare the rendering at this frequency (staircase function) with a pure sinusoïdal function. The nature of this distorsion depends on the tech used and the optics and can be very different. There is no exact solution to this problem, but some tricks work rather well like for instance :

- attenuate the sharp edge of individual pixel. Hardly decreasing MTF around Nyquist frequency is a way to do it. A pro also said to me that the panels in 3xdlp 2K cinema machine are shifted by 1/6 of their width in factory to obtain this effect.

- make the pixels so small that you can't see them. This is typically the case with 23" 2K LCD flat display seen at 1 meter... For pj, a good way to do it is to go to higher resolution and use upsampling.

- combination of both...


You don't know me but when I wrote " But obviously middle range 4K pj (like the 1000ES) can do at least the same or better than middle value 2K pj. That' a very good point." this is a huge compliment, believe me.


I didn't personally but we have the chance on a french forum to have a pro who did. This 30 years-experienced guy has access to virtually all pro cinema 2K and 4K dci-compliant machines (Nec, Christie, Sony. I am not sure for Barco) and also to high-end "consumer" machines (the 1000ES, the SIMs, the JVCs etc.). It also has pro devices and sensors to test them that you couldn't ever buy because of their prices... Discussions are sometimes "hot", especially when resellers are not agree with him, you can easily imagine... Nevertheless the discussions with him are really interesting because he says what he thinks and always test before speaking. He also always fight against vaporwave or over-evaluated pj. I learn a lot thanks to him in 10 years.

Damned, what a long post. I expect my english is not too rough...

Regards,
Emmanuel

I read the same value.

It is the same CR on/off than with an LCoS Canon XEED WUX4000 for instance (6900 € in France, taxes included) which will have more or less the same brightness after calibration (but no 4K, no 3D and no long life light source).

i also hear that the sony 4k cinema pr. was so dim in 3d at the cinemas from
a lot of people sale dlps.

reason they told me that sony 4k lcos cinema pr. using half the panel each for left and right.
so this is true.
they all forgeth as both left right are at the same time on the screen opposite to a single dlp 3d setup that this double the visible lumen!

so i was shock when i saw first time this 4k lcos cinema pr. in 3d how bright it was as i expect a dim picture.
so all the talk about it was simply wrong and marketing.

when ever i can i test things out in my cinema myself.
to many times i found that some statements are wrong and as some dlp manfacturer say that 2k dlp is as good as a 4k pr. is the same story.

true is that both display devices have pro and con.
some issues is in a cinema a point in home cinema not and opposite.

Actually one quarter of the chip, Wolfgang. Upper left and bottom right from what i remember from the Sony brochure.

From what I have read here, it seems this is two lcos panels each sequentially showing RGB. I also read that it alternates 360 times per second. I can't find a link now that states that, although I thought I read that yesterday somewhere. It may just have been someone in this thread.

Anyway, showing alternating RGB 360 times/sec. is sort of the equivalent of a 6x colour wheel in dlp. So is colour separation, or rainbows, a possible problem here? I haven't seen any reports complaining about it. In 2d using 2 chips this could be 2/3 of the time showing each colour. Maybe that is enough of a difference from the 1/3 of the time for single chip dlp that it won't show up, but I'd be interested to find out. I have a dlp with a 6x colour wheel, and I can see rainbows. The rainbows are marginally annoying and I wish they weren't there, but there are other issues I'd rather fix first.

no depends on the format it can be more.




you can believe me that the 16 meter screen with the sony and avatar show more light than a cinema with a dlp and reald that i saw just one day before.
it was also a 16 meter screen.

the most lumen i saw was one may the best cinema in germany
cinecitta in nuremberg.
they show avatar with a doublestäck dlp each with 24.000 lumen in passive
3d with polarizer.
just saw there titanic 3d last week and again it looks also fantastic.

but may the xenon was a new one at the sony and the dlp hade a old one inside but may be also opposite

I believe one of the linked articles said that each LCOS panel shows continuous images, each one of the two different polarizations that are recreated in the pj, as the lasers' intrinsic polarization is lost in the fiber optic

So 6 lcos panels? If 2 lcos panels, 1 for each eye, how would you show all 3 of RGB in each lcos panel at the same time?

I thought one of the "breakthroughs" of the HDI tech was the fast switching lcos panel. I freely admit it is possible that 360 number I mentioned was from an old review and has nothing to do with what Red is putting in the projector now.

lcos+lasers and contrast
Both sxrd and especially d-ila has great native contrast. This will only improve with the use of lasers instead of lamps. The increase might not be as high as that for dlp but dlps starts at a lower native contrast. The reason RED´s lcos+laser might not excel at contrast will not be that lasers are not good with lcos. It will be since high speed lcos gives up contrast for higher frame rates.
RED: 360fps rather low contrast
Sony: sxrd might do 120 real frames per second at best with good contrast
JVC: d-ila 96? fps with great contrast

RED
It should be easier to converge 2-panels than three as with 3-chip DLP
That should give RED good resolution properties. If you are prepared to sacrifice light output I guess you could run it in "mono 2D" mode to get even better resolution.
With respect to color separation RED might run RGB in different order in the left and right channel to reduce color separation. Left: RBG , Right: BGR or some other order.

sstephen
The believed implementation is two lcos panels one for each channel.
Both panels are believed to color cycle at 360Hz, thus at any given moment each of your eyes will only see a single color.

As for the contrast; This was posted on the forum today;


I also saw someone else that mentioned how the quality had increased on Tuesday or Wednesday just by the color expert at Red doing some on site tweaking of the projector.
Most of the written reports from NAB posted earlier in the thread was based on viewing the projector on Monday.
I guess the quality will improve significantly by the time this projector is shipped. And Red's philosophy is based on continues quality improvements with frequent software updates on shipped equipment (Obsolescence Obsolete) .