Projectors at CEDIA Expo 2012 - Page 10

Originally Posted by Holiday121 

Do you have b stock rs45 in right now? 3k pretty high for the Sony. What will be the b stocks price on it

Originally Posted by RonF 

See this explanation below for "NSH" lamps which are DC rather than AC:
Larry J
offline
669 Posts. Joined 2/2001
Location: Charlotte, NC, USA
Well, mostly going from memory NSH (Ushio) is just another version of UHP and its been around quite awhile. The biggest difference I'm aware of is NSH lamps are DC and UHP are AC. I'm thinking that most lamps are AC and only remember Toshiba using SHP(Phoenix) in rear projection which is also a DC lamp. P-VIP (Osram) is AC, or most of the lamps they make are anyway.
I believe Sharp and Infocus has used NSH lamps in the past in some models. I've read that DC lamps can have special electrode geometry for reduced wear, depending on the design I imagine. So, unless JVC requested Ushio to make a special AC lamp, most likely its DC. Which of course makes it totally incompatible with the other JVC lamps.

Originally Posted by RonF 

See this explanation below for "NSH" lamps which are DC rather than AC:
Larry J
offline
669 Posts. Joined 2/2001
Location: Charlotte, NC, USA
Well, mostly going from memory NSH (Ushio) is just another version of UHP and its been around quite awhile. The biggest difference I'm aware of is NSH lamps are DC and UHP are AC. I'm thinking that most lamps are AC and only remember Toshiba using SHP(Phoenix) in rear projection which is also a DC lamp. P-VIP (Osram) is AC, or most of the lamps they make are anyway.
I believe Sharp and Infocus has used NSH lamps in the past in some models. I've read that DC lamps can have special electrode geometry for reduced wear, depending on the design I imagine. So, unless JVC requested Ushio to make a special AC lamp, most likely its DC. Which of course makes it totally incompatible with the other JVC lamps.

Originally Posted by Holiday121 

So u do have b stock Rs45s in stock

Originally Posted by Owen 

I tried the internal scaling in the JVC projector and the 4k or 6k upscaling-sharpening system I normally use on my HTPC which is significantly sharper than normal unscaled video. The scaling system was used with and without the A-lens, the only difference was the cropping and aspect ratio change required for scope when scaling back to 2k for output to the projector.
I did not notice any significant softening due to the A-lens when viewed at the same 43 degree viewing angle used for 16:9 but when scope was viewed 30% wider it was definitely too soft for my taste, with or without the lens. I was hoping the A-lens would allow a wider viewing angle but found that the maximum viewing angle before the image became unacceptably soft to be about the same with and without the lens. I should add that I draw the line on quality long before pixel structure becomes intrusive with an LCoS projector so the finer pixel structure provided by the A-lens solution is not useful to me. If visible pixel structure was an issue I would go 4k or sudo 4k rather than use a lens.
I wonder how much of the advantage people see with an A-lens, other than finer pixel structure and a slight change in brightness, is due to the scaling required rather than the lens its self. We dont need to use a lens to get the advantages of scaling, people typically think 1:1 mapping is best but thats definitely not the case for video.

Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 

No B-stock Sony's yet. Hopefully we will be able to sell the JVC B-stocks for the same price or lower, than we had before. We will also have some RS40 B-stock and a few HD250 B-stock. Not many RS40's or HD250's. The last two surprised me. I did not expect any of those.

Originally Posted by Owen 

Yes, I understood that. When most people evaluate an A-lens they are going to compare an unscaled (1:1) zoomed scope image without an A- lens with a cropped and scaled (stretched) image via an A-lens, this introduces two variables, the lens and the digital scaling (stretching) system when the A-lens is in use.
Obviously the scaling system is going to have an effect on the outcome just as the lens will so what we see on screen is due to the combination of both, better scaling = better picture.
What I did differently is pass the video though a similar scaling path for both the A-lens test and the zoomed comparison test thus pretty much eliminating the scaling variable. I've probably got people confused by now so I'll explain, the process is as follows:
For the zoom test I take 1920x1080 scope format Bluray source and upscale it 200% to 3840x2160 with sharpening applied during the upscaling, then downscale to 1920x1080 and output to projector for display.
For the A-lens test I take the same 1920x1080 video, crop the black bars off leaving about 1920x810, then upscale that 200% with sharpening to 3840x1620, then downscale to 1920x1080 for output to the projector. The vertical stretch has now been performed so the projector does not touch the video and simple displays what it is given using all its pixels.
Both test images where displayed the same size on screen and since both the zoomed image and the A-lens image have undergone similar digital processing (double scaling) the comparison is a fair as it can reasonably be.
Double scaling the video as above significantly improved image quality and sharpness but we don't need an A-lens or a 4k projector to get this advantage (something the 4k projector vendors don't want people to know about). I normally use a 300% upscale these days (6k) for all Bluray content.
The lens I evaluated was very good as it had a negligible effect on image sharpness, but I could not see an advantage in using it as I don't use a large enough viewing angle for pixel structure to be an issue. By the time the image is large enough to see the pixels its too soft for my liking, data density is way too low. Using a 4k or sudo 4k projector will not help as no extra data is available from the source.