or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › RED 4K 3D laser projector = $10K
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

RED 4K 3D laser projector = $10K - Page 22

post #631 of 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post

I fully concur with your above remarks, Mark.   I would just like to see a Sony1000 with the high native CR of the JVC, or a JVC that is true 4K and with the brightness of the Sony.    And I'm guessing the the JVC product would be at a more modest price than the Sony.
Bill, the Sony has native contrast at just under 10,000:1. Not good enough?
post #632 of 768
Surely the gamma curve defines the required contrast ratio (if we ignore infinity at black). From peak white, eg 100Y, it's possible to calculate the required light at any stimulus level. For a 2.2 power curve, it's something like 70K:1 to display 1 IRE at the correct light value... Without this level of contrast available you have to compensate for the higher black floor.
post #633 of 768
Before the contrast discussion based on peoples knowledge of lamp based projectors get out of hand. Maybe it's time to re-read how Laser based projector will differ from lamp based projectors.
How laser projectors can use lenses with higher F-stop number (smaller aperture) that will increase the contrast (think non-dynamic iris). This also decrease the manufacture cost of the lens, and lens focus is not necessary in most cases because of the increased DOF and infinite focus at smaller aperture.
This is made possible because of the different Ètendue of Lasers compared to Lamp based projectors.
I might have posted it before in this thread, but this PDF shed some light on the current discussion even if it from back in 2009; Future prospects of high-end laser projectors
post #634 of 768
Correct, we would expect much better on/off CR with laser based projectors and that is why these initial low on/off numbers are so disapointing.

I can speak from direct experience that on/off CR in the 2000:1 ratio is unacceptable for me. If you double that on/off or even say increase it to 3200:1 on/off
the difference between 2000:1 and 3300:1 is very large. The benefit goes down as the CR increases, but small increases at the low end are very significant.I returned a Christie HD6K-M for this reason. It had the best optics I ever saw, and the best Ansi CR, however the on/off was only 2000:1 native.The dynamic iris was not usefull for home theater and introduced artifacts that made it unwatchable.
post #635 of 768
Is Sundance film festival the next major showing of a RED projector now at 4K and not 2k as it was at NAB.

With this said how far off could Sony be with a VW1000 with a laser light engine?. We know that Sony has the necessary laser diodes ready.
A JVC was modded with a laser light source many years ago at CES I think. With 4k panel the size of Sony´s JVC too could build a great laser projector.
How great would it be not to have to worry about buld aging or lamps die prematurely..
post #636 of 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomHuffman View Post

Bill, the Sony has native contrast at just under 10,000:1. Not good enough?


It's certainly better than 2000:1.    (At min throw distance, where I am, I doubt I'm getting 10K:1.)

post #637 of 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohlson View Post

Is Sundance film festival the next major showing of a RED projector now at 4K and not 2k as it was at NAB.
With this said how far off could Sony be with a VW1000 with a laser light engine?. We know that Sony has the necessary laser diodes ready.
A JVC was modded with a laser light source many years ago at CES I think. With 4k panel the size of Sony´s JVC too could build a great laser projector.
How great would it be not to have to worry about buld aging or lamps die prematurely..

God, yes. That's one of the main attractions of this projector for me. And while we're throwing around rumors, I've read one that says there will be no need for calibration of the Red projector (self calibrating). A lot of pros are expected to use it (the home version) for color grading, so the color has to be right.

Please, everyone, do not quote me. This is from poor recollection of materials I've read over the past several weeks. And for the record, we don't know what the contrast of this projector will be. All this is just speculation. As someone in the Red Forum said, this kind of speculation gets picked up and repeated as fact, when it's not. Speculation can become misinformation very quickly. When I mentioned such rumors in the Red thread, several members chimed in with how great the Red laser looks. One Red regular said he's read just about everything on the projector, and he's never heard a single bad comment about the contrast. I love reading those kinds of impressions from people who've actually seen it, but, when push comes to shove, only my own lookin' balls will prove it to me. biggrin.gif
post #638 of 768
Joe thanks for the lookin before the balls. smile.gif

To Tom, Lon, Cool and of course William, thanks for all the informative posts. you guys are the best.

Getting 70,000 to one out of any bright projector I suspect will not be feasible. even under ideal set ups for maximizing contrast. Commercial projector under current gamma recommendations use a non linear gamma curve designed to lower the gamma level at low Ys so as to not crush the blacks. Custom gamma curves require some skill to input but can rather easily be done. I see no big deal in using one but I currently just use a flat 2.2 on my Sony. if I used a custom curve via the Sony software or from my Lumagen I might drop the gamma to about 2.1 at 5Y amd raise it up at the high end to 2.4. I am just not that much of a tweaker, I'd rather just watch.
Edited by mark haflich - 12/10/12 at 7:01am
post #639 of 768
ITU BT1886 is the newer gamma curve. It accounts for the black level and creates a (2.4 approx?) curve using the available contrast ratio. Software like CalMan can do this for you. Of course, you have to be able to measure black levels accurately, which is much easier when contrast ratio is low smile.gif
post #640 of 768
Mark. As I understand it, the standard you refer to is for digital flat panel displays used in studeo production. The recommended standard which I assume is the same one that was adopted is available for free download and I read it. i am not really impressed as it doesn't specify such things as viewing environment. but in any event I do not think it is applicable to large screen Front Projectors where its attainment would not be possible with present large screen on/off levels. Somewhere I believe there is a recommended gamma curve for such projectors and it is one that has smaller gamma numbers at the low end than at the high end.
Edited by mark haflich - 12/10/12 at 7:01am
post #641 of 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

Not that I've ever heard about. I think it's passive only. If so, it would mean I'd have to give up my HP screen, which I am loathe to do. It'll stay in my basement, though, since they don't make the HP 2.8 gain anymore. There's no way I'd sell it.

As long as the left and right eye images are produced by the projector in sequence in an even cadence at a frame-rate consistent with active 3D eyewear, it would seem that active-3D compatibility would be possible merely by the addition of the transmitter to sync the glasses. Ideally, a well thought projector design could be all-things 3D... active passive or whatever. If the architecture had sequential left/right cadence, then even if it was polarizing for passive, it would seem you could "turn off" the polarizing feature and "turn on" the sync signal and swap out passive for active eyewear.

This way folks could tailor their 3D experience based on their own comfort or screen material etc.
post #642 of 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet View Post

As long as the left and right eye images are produced by the projector in sequence in an even cadence at a frame-rate consistent with active 3D eyewear, it would seem that active-3D compatibility would be possible merely by the addition of the transmitter to sync the glasses. Ideally, a well thought projector design could be all-things 3D... active passive or whatever. If the architecture had sequential left/right cadence, then even if it was polarizing for passive, it would seem you could "turn off" the polarizing feature and "turn on" the sync signal and swap out passive for active eyewear.
This way folks could tailor their 3D experience based on their own comfort or screen material etc.

Perhaps, but LCD shutter glasses might not be able to match the refresh speed of the laser. It depends on how the RGB fields are "drawn" on the screen. Regardless, though, there would seem to be little benefit of going active, with lots of downside, including decreased brightness and increased likelihood of flicker. I doubt it would increase contrast, probably the opposite. I like passive 3D much better than active 3D in terms of viewing comfort. It's also great that the glasses require no batteries and are so light.
post #643 of 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

Regardless, though, there would seem to be little benefit of going active, with lots of downside, including decreased brightness and increased likelihood of flicker. I doubt it would increase contrast, probably the opposite. I like passive 3D much better than active 3D in terms of viewing comfort. It's also great that the glasses require no batteries and are so light.

ok, passive 3d could be better but it needs silver screen, doesn't it?
and silver screen is not so good for 2d (most part of movies) for what I know..
post #644 of 768
+1 for having a active shutterglass option. Saves on having two screens (one silver for 3D and regular for 2D).
The new XPAND cinema glasses are HFR ready up to 60fps single flash.
One of the advantages is also that you loose less light compare to passive where the light has to travel through both an active LCD polarizing panel and the glasses.
Christie use active glasses when they demo their laser projector.
post #645 of 768
RED are sure to increase their HT projector sales if they include the active option, I have 2 screens as it is, not giving up either nor adding another!
post #646 of 768
The pro market just doesn't use acive. Its too expensive for their theaters having to supply glasses to each viewer. A laser projector cam instantly change polarization effectively being able to switch so quickly to keep both L and R images on the screen at the same time. Passive glasses are the best option and it should be quite possibnle to come up with a low gain screen that preserves polariztion while being fine for 2D. Silver screens have high gain factors and high gain is necessary for non laser light sources. All that is required is to use subtrate elements and spayed on gain elements that don't destrop polarization and those oin the know, know what they are. i know but am under ND.
post #647 of 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

The pro market just doesn't use acive. Its too expensive for their theaters having to supply glasses to each viewer. A laser projector cam instantly change polarization effectively being able to switch so quickly to keep both L and R images on the screen at the same time. Passive glasses are the best option and it should be quite possibnle to come up with a low gain screen that preserves polariztion while being fine for 2D. Silver screens have high gain factors and high gain is necessary for non laser light sources. All that is required is to use subtrate elements and spayed on gain elements that don't destrop polarization and those oin the know, know what they are. i know but am under ND.
Is my understanding correct, that for effective 4K projection, and also then passive 3D, the screen needs to be as flat-and-plain (texture-wise) as possible?
post #648 of 768
What do you mean by flat? Regardless of the resolution, the best screens are very close to unity gain and completely textureless. For passive 3D, the screen must have a high polarization extinction ratios and to my knowledge the only such screens are silver screens and the Stewart firehawk LS which runs neck and neck with the stewart 5D fabric as far as polarization extinction ratios go and doesnt have the high gain factor which destroys best 2D viewing. a minimum throw of 1.6 is required however to avoid hotspotting.
Edited by mark haflich - 12/18/12 at 8:14pm
post #649 of 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

What do you mean by fla? regardless of the resolution, the best screens are cery close to unity gain and completely textureless. For passive 3D, the screen must have a high pollarization extimction ratios and to my knowledge the only such screens are silver screens and the Stewart firehawk LS which runs necjk and neck with the stewart 5D fabric as far as polarization extinction ratios go and doesnt have the high gain factor which destroys best 2D viewing. a minimum throw of 1.6 is required however to avoid hotspottingt.

Why extinction?.....the screen need to retain polarzation.......yes?
post #650 of 768
Yes. But the way to what extent a screen preserves polarization is measured by tests whose results are called the polarization extinction ratio. The higher that ratio, the more the screen preserves polarization. I have all the numbers but some are proprietary amd I have them under a posting ND. Basically, a true silver screen is the best but the compromise for better 2d, the Stewart 5D fabric and the Firehawk LS, are high enough to allow passive 3D.
Edited by mark haflich - 12/19/12 at 7:35am
post #651 of 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Yes. But the way to what extent a screen preserves polarization is measured by tests whose results are called the polarization extinction ratio. The higher that ratio, the more the screen preserves polarization. I have all the numbers but some are proprietary amd I have them under a posting ND. Basically, a true silver screen is the best but the compromise for better 2d, the Stewart 5D fabric and the Firehawk LS, are high enough to allow passive 3D.

Thanks for that.

Seems like a marketing term, would be clearer if they said 92% polarization retaining etc
post #652 of 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post

Seems like a marketing term, would be clearer if they said 92% polarization retaining etc

OTOH extinction is what makes for good blacks - extinctuating the light, and less ghosting - extinctuating the image for the eye that's not supposed to see the image.
post #653 of 768
How will the projector work with a Black Diamond 1.4 ??
post #654 of 768
what is the estimated release date for this projector for home users?
post #655 of 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

What do you mean by flat? Regardless of the resolution, the best screens are very close to unity gain and completely textureless. For passive 3D, the screen must have a high polarization extinction ratios and to my knowledge the only such screens are silver screens and the Stewart firehawk LS which runs neck and neck with the stewart 5D fabric as far as polarization extinction ratios go and doesnt have the high gain factor which destroys best 2D viewing. a minimum throw of 1.6 is required however to avoid hotspotting.
Sorry Mark, I'm struggling to understand: you say "best screens are...textureless" but go on to say Silve and Fabric are needed for passive 3D. So a "textureless" screen is NOT good for passive 3D? But it is best for high-res 2D?
post #656 of 768
The best screen I have ever seen and the one that i own is the Stewart Snomatt 100.. I use to have a Stewart Studeotec 130. The 100 is quite a bit better. A close second is the Joe Kane (Da-lite) Affinity, either the .9 or the 1.1. These are all unusable for passive 3D. They have extremely low polarization extinction ratios as do almost all scrteen except for silver screens. I have absolutely no experience (hands on) with silver screens but I dio have considerable knowledge (data) on several of them and have viewed them. I can't comment on their texture but silver screens all have high gain,In the 2 to 3 range. This means high throw ratios to avoid hotspotting and even then the 2D image is far from ideal. I have seethe Firehawk LS and to me it is the best screen for passive 3D if you want to have decent 2D performance.Decent,ut not close to the best. livable? I think so but I have gotten used to the 100s performance and I dunno...
post #657 of 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post

Thanks for that.
Seems like a marketing term, would be clearer if they said 92% polarization retaining etc

It is a very scientific term and is normally used by its acro PER.
post #658 of 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by though View Post

How will the projector work with a Black Diamond 1.4 ??

I don't have the PER for Black diamond. Unless the PER is over 200, it won't work for passive 3D with severe artifacting...Ask them and please post back
post #659 of 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanderdvd View Post

what is the estimated release date for this projector for home users?

It won't be released for home use per se. it will not be available for home type dealers.

But of course any HT guy will be able to get one through channels just like some home theater guys can now get the same DCI content that theaters get. I am expecting to release sometime in the 1st Q and then I can hook you up with a source for the projector.
post #660 of 768
Arn't there going to be 2 versions? one HT version with a fixed(non removeable)zoom lens, the other a commercial version without a lens. Both purchased through RED directly?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › RED 4K 3D laser projector = $10K