or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › what happened to native 2.35 projectors?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

what happened to native 2.35 projectors? - Page 4

post #91 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler View Post

The whole discussion feels a bit like one guy argues with complex fluid dynamics and aerial mechanics calculations with references to scientific papers that it is impossible for the bumblebee to fly, whereas his friend repeatedly responds "but look!!!, I can see it hover right in front of me!!!"
That is a reasonable analogy. Another one I think is that this is somewhat like a person claiming that people can't lift more than 20 lbs of bricks at one time and continues to give their own interpretation of what the science says on the subject matter, but won't actually go do a test to see if they or others can ever lift more than 20 lbs of bricks at once.

The human visual system is more complicated than the lifting example, but it doesn't mean that intelligent people can't test a hypothesis that humans cannot see across a range of more than 1000:1 in any single images when looking around different locations with them. This doesn't require an ophthmalogist or even a scientist, but does require some intelligent thought not to make some mistakes that seem common.

If a person measures the levels for an image setup and people can see highlight detail and lowlight detail by looking around, then by definition the relevant white level for their vision must have been at least as high as one step down from the brightest detail they could differentiate and the relevant black level for their vision must have been at least as low as one step up from the darkest detail they could differentiate. If the ratios for those one steps in were more than 1000:1 and people are able to differentiate those levels from one step out, then by definition those people have seen detail that was separated by more than 1000:1 in that image.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trepidati0n View Post

Note: Your hand-puppet example is a red-herring argument. Stare into a flashlight for a minute then do your hand puppet. How long does it take for you to see the "shadow"? By your example it should be instant. Care to wager i'm wrong?
You aren't wrong about the expected result of your test, but I would say you are wrong about how it applies to Drexler's claim. Do you have any idea how much CR range you are talking about for your example? Others have made these arguments years ago and so I have tested and measured some of these things. Your flashlight example can be millions:1. I don't remember the exact numbers I measured for this kind of test, but I'm sure I posted them years ago and they were not very relevant to limits of 100:1 or 1000:1.

I'm guessing you wouldn't use a test of whether somebody could pick up a car to prove that they couldn't pick up 20 lbs. You are right that the disagreement here is about what the levels are, not whether there are limits to human vision in short amounts of time that are much smaller than those when given large amounts of time. I think we all agree on that. The ballpark for the actual limits for single images are relevant to what we experience with projectors and the 1000:1 claim for single images is wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trepidati0n View Post

I've read this whole thread. What makes you qualified?
That is a fair question. You don't have to believe me though. Do a proper test yourself and you should be able to find out whether coderguy's claim about people not being able to see across more than 1000:1 in any single images is true. I will also stand on my record that when I describe tests people have been able to reproduce them themselves and get reasonably similar results.

As I said, people in the past on this very forum have made similar claims about how limited human vision was for single images and some of us have actually done tests. People also made claims about how higher on/off CR (like more than 4000:1) would be impossible to see any difference with to human vision and so I did tests to help show that this was not the case. I think time has been on my side on that one as projectors have improved on/off CR and my positions have generally been validated.

I know I'm not the only person here intelligent enough to come up with reasonable tests of hypothesis like that, even when projectors had difficulty providing some of the ranges to make it easy to test. There are ways to create images that have bigger CR ranges than the projectors themselves can do (I'll describe one below). Now many people have projectors that can do some of the much larger ranges themselves without having to do too many special things to create images with high CR ranges.

For people in Seattle I have shown them some of this stuff in person so that they can see with their own eyes. I know I've had some advantages in having equipment to measure actual light levels fairly accurately, but others can do proper testing themselves with a little bit of help here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

You guys are not saying I'm wrong as much as you're really saying the Wiki is wrong and the scientist that explained it that apparently had a background in this stuff.
No, you are still wrong and blaming it on others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

Because I didn't come up with the number, I just said it seems to make sense.
You didn't come up with the number, but you are the one who is applying it to a situation that it doesn't apply to based on your own logic. Please don't blame the scientists because you applied something for an instant to all single images. Not the same thing with human vision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

That is why the displays need more contrast to do frame to frame stuff, but for intrascene our eye does have limitations in short periods of time.
Of course they do. They just aren't as low as you claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

It got side-tracked, I came up with an experiment if someone wants to try it...

Try this, if any of you have old projector lamps or can just project very dark, set your display to like 2fL to 4 fL super super dim (if you can) and start watching stuff, what is the first thing you notice?
You start missing out all the detail, why is that?
The detail is still there, right?

It's because our eyes have trouble seeing the delineation in darker intrascene ranges, even when the delineation is there...
It is a good experiment for showing certain things (and something I have demonstrated for people and posted about here between a high gain screen and low gain screen), but it doesn't address the point of contention. I think you know that the issue of disagreement is your claim that people can't see across a range of more than 1000:1 from any single images (like a painting), even if they look around. As long as you are testing, why not test that actual thing? You have a JVC, so it shouldn't be that hard.

Here is one test people with projectors can try. I did tests like this years ago. Find a dark scene with a little bit of bright stuff. I can suggest things from more popular movies like The Dark Knight if it would help, but since it is already posted I will use some frames from The Last StarFighter. Consider the 4th and 5th images down at:

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_13_2/feature-article-contrast-ratio-5-2006-part-5.html

They contain a planet on a starfield. Either one could be used for this test. The discussion is an upper limit for the most range the eye can see from one image and easier images are therefore most appropriate. That would make the 4th one a good one, but I'll use the 5th one for now as I think it will work.

Whether you can get more than 1000:1 CR from the screen depends on the projector and screen. A recent JVC shouldn't have a problem with that itself and then it depends on the room, but there are other things that can be done to create more CR range from the image. For instance, go buy some black posterboard and put it up on the left side for this image and/or get some dark gray paper. Those things can be combined for an extra step of luminance.

For the 5th image I would suggest moving the projected image to the right to create some space between the left side of the projected image and the screen border. Maybe a foot or two. This will create an area of luminance even less than the projector can do itself for that scene.

If a projector has a feature to blank some of the image near the edge I would use some of it to make sure some of the image on the left part is as dark as the projector can go. For this test I would also turn the Brightness for the projector down a few notches to make sure it is attempting to do black for the darkest parts of the image.

The contrast control can be turned up to the point that detail in the planet starts to crush. Now a person can test themselves and then test on others to verify that what they believe they see is confirmed by what others see when those other people don't know what has been changed.

Relevant questions are things like can a person tell whether the detail in the planet is crushed or not (this will be controlled by settings in the projector) and whether they can see the step from the projected black, to the reflected black (the part on the screen on the left side between the image and the screen border), and the step from the reflected black to the screen border. If a person picked up some black posterboard or dark gray paper a relevant question is whether a viewer can tell whether it is up on the screen on the left side (I would place it so that the black from the projector is hitting the right half of this dark material).

As an example, if the brightest part of the planet is 40 cd/m2 and higher, the black on the left projected side is .02 cd/m2, the part of the screen the projector is not falling on is about .002 cd/m2 and the screen border is about .0002 cd/2m, then if the person can look and see the detail in the brightest part of the planed their relevant white level by definition is at least 40 cd/m2. If they can then look on the left side of the image and see the step between .002 cd/m2 and .02 cd/m2, then by definition their relevant black level is .02 cd/m2 or darker. In that case seeing this detail in one image would mean that they had seen detail that was separated by a ratio of 2000:1.

The black poster board or dark gray paper would of course create other levels. From memory of doing these kinds of tests myself the black poster board I got was less than .10 gain (maybe ~.05 gain). I could always verify at some point as the gain of the material can be gathered by measuring it with white light to get into an accurate range for a meter.

Pioneer and Panasonic have both demonstrated things related to this subject whether they meant to or not. I wasn't at CES when Pioneer showed a prototype plasma next to a current model, but the situation was described to me by somebody who was there and I saw similar things with a Panasonic (IICR) demonstration at CES 2012.

Pioneer had an image where there was bright stuff in the center of the screen (like a flower) and nothing surrounding it. On the current set the background 16:9 image was pretty clearly visible against the edge of the plasma, while on the prototype set the difference between the background and border was not visible. This was all while the detail in the center of the screen was visible to viewers who chose to look there. I was told that the current set did look like somebody who owned that year's Pioneer experienced at home, so didn't seem like they had made it look like bad black level on purpose. This was a set that could do pretty high intra-image CR for an image like that (definitely higher than 1000:1).

I saw a similar thing with the Panasonic demo and their current plasmas also did not have much trouble doing more than 1000:1 with images with bright stuff near the center of the screen.

I had the Planar 8150 and JVC (probably the RS20 or RS40) at the same time and did many side-by-side comparisons between them both by myself and with other people. I would block half of each image and flip the image for one side digitally so that both projectors showed the same content side-by-side on the same screen. With dark images like I described both projectors could do more than 1000:1 and my theater room is mostly black velvet (including the ceiling and floor).

My memory is that with both projectors setup to the same ft-lambers for white there were scenes where we could see that the Planar was crushing detail near white, while the JVC was not, and at the same time we could see that the JVC was doing darker black than the Planar.

There are multiple reasons that the implementation of the dynamic iris for the Planar would crush whites, but one of them is because normal people can see detail that is separated by more than 1000:1 in many single images (unless I and everybody I have tried things like this with somehow have super vision). Dynamic iris systems would be easier to implement without visible artifacts if people never could see detail that is across more than 1000:1 from single images.

There is a pretty good scene that I believe is in one of Woody Allen's movies where there is a girl sitting under a bright lamp in a dark study. The scene is mostly very dark, but there is detail near her that can be crushed or not. I know I've posted it on this forum before, but don't recall the thread.

I wonder if coderguy is going to claim that a person wouldn't be seeing detail across more than 1000:1 from what is in front of them if for example they could see the crushed whites on the Planar vs the JVC and the darker blacks from the JVC with a side-by-side of the following:

- Planar whites are at 42 cd/m2 with crushing there
- JVC whites are at 42 cd/m2 with visible detail between 40 cd/m2 and 42 cd/m2
- Planar black at about .02 cd/m2
- JVC black at about .004 cd/m2

--Darin
post #92 of 154
DPI has a native 2.35:1 projector, if anyone cares
post #93 of 154
You continue to go on and on and completely miss the entire premise of the conversation, again referring to something that was never said, which is that if someone looks around and lets the eye adjust longer, then the maximum they can see would be 1000:1. I said given the same interval, but I don't wish to repeat this another 1000 times. Even if their eyes were allowed to adjust, it would be assumed in the complex image that some or all parts were either in the FOV or very quickly become part of the FOV, so even that point is not very applicable.

What DarinP is attempting to do, is to apply two completely disparate sets of data that cannot be used as part of a proof on how the eye sees "complex images" or in otherwords, intrascene contrast. The two are completely separate, and that is vetted science. Changing the surrounding illuminance level (the black floor) invalidates the test because the eye has about four separate regions of contrast delineation depending on the surrounding illuminance. So when you attempt to compare it like this, you are in a different range of illuminance and "lightness" variations, so this makes the test a complete failure. He thinks because he can see a difference between two devices surrounding illuminance (black floor) in the intrascene of the image, that this proves the wider contrast range of the eye in an intrascene shot, and that has little to do with it, because he is seeing the difference between two ranges (hence same image on two projectors), not the difference in one single shot (intrascene). Even if his white peak does not change, his surrounding illuminance level did (because he is using a different black floor between two devices to try to determine max intrascene). This is not the proper test.

Everything anyone wanted to know about the way the eye interprets light and contrast is pretty much in this article I posted earlier:
http://www.telescope-optics.net/eye_intensity_response.htm

In my examples, I was always referring to the difference in a short interval between what the intrascene difference the eye can see, not some pure differential from one black background to another in respect to 2 similar peak white levels (which isn't even the correct way to determine the range). I also clearly stated early on that I do not believe 1000:1 is the absolute maximum if the FOV has only a single speckle of white in it, but I said in most images, relatively speaking.
Edited by coderguy - 10/4/13 at 7:43pm
post #94 of 154
Too bad this fight is in a 2.35 chip projector thread where most will never see or read it.
post #95 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

He thinks because he can see a difference between two devices showing a meter reading, that this proves the wider contrast range of the eye in an intrascene shot, and that has little to do with it, because he is seeing the difference between two ranges (hence same image on two projectors), not the difference in one single shot (intrascene).
I wonder if you would do that, but didn't mention it because I thought it was so obvious.

A single image or painting can be made that represents the whole thing being seen with the 2 projectors, so the fact that it is 2 projectors is irrelevant. If you think the eye can see over a bigger range because it is 2 projectors doing it instead of one image then you are just wrong.

You don't actually believe one image couldn't be made that gave the same levels that the 2 projector provided, do you?

If it was one painting with:

- Left side with whites are at 42 cd/m2 with crushing there
- Right side whites are at 42 cd/m2 with visible detail between 40 cd/m2 and 42 cd/m2
- Left side black at about .02 cd/m2
- Right side black at about .004 cd/m2

and a person could see the detail in the whites and the difference between those 2 black levels would you then claim that they hadn't seen across things separated by 2000:1 from a single image?
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

Everything anyone wanted to know about the way the eye interprets light and contrast is pretty much in this article I posted earlier:
http://www.telescope-optics.net/eye_intensity_response.htm
So, where is your 1000:1 for single images in there?
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

In my examples, I was always referring to the difference in a short interval between what the intrascene difference the eye can see, not some pure differential from one black background to another in respect to 2 similar peak white levels (which isn't even the correct way to determine the range). I also clearly stated early on that I do not believe 1000:1 is the absolute maximum if the FOV has only a single source or speckle of white in it, but I said in most images, relatively speaking.
Which doesn't apply to the example I gave with the planet. There is plenty of detail near the peak from the planet without just single speckles or anything like that.

So why not do an actual test with different levels to test your 1000:1 claim? Adding some dark grey material or black poster board to the screen doesn't make it 2 images, so why not actually try something like that if you think you are right? Then you could describe where the limit is or isn't for you and people could run the same test themselves and see if they get the same results.

I believe I've asked you before how short an interval you were using and you didn't say. Do you mean less than a second? Less than a minute?

The sunset example from http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/cameras-vs-human-eye.htm here has been mentioned multiple times. Is that one of the kinds of images where you claim the 1000:1 would apply, or one where it wouldn't apply?

If coderguy won't actually test his claim then maybe somebody else who cares about this stuff will. I don't think they would find it difficult to see across even a 5000:1 range for a single image with material like I described. I didn't actually find an upper limit myself when doing some of this testing, but knew that it wasn't something low like 1000:1 for single images.

--Darin
post #96 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post

A single image or painting can be made that represents the whole thing being seen with the 2 projectors, so the fact that it is 2 projectors is irrelevant. If you think the eye can see over a bigger range because it is 2 projectors doing it instead of one image then you are just wrong.

You changed the painting by changing the background illuminance (the black floor), so no it isn't the same level of adaptation. I also wondered how you think you measured such a tiny white spot in the image and then compared it relative to the eye, which means maintaining the same relative illuminance level. If you want to argue against vetted science, then I give up.

Lightness can be thought of as relative brightness, but it is not formally, since it does not depend on the actual intensities of picture elements alone, rather on their visual appearance relative to each other; elements of identical emission intensities - thus of given constant brightness when projected against neutral background - can have different lightnesses under different surround luminance levels. Brightness ranges from bright to dim, while lightness ranges from light to dark.

Lightness of different areas of a complex image is key element of its perceived contrast, which is in turn key for tone reproduction. As such, eye response function for complex images - i.e. visual tone reproduction - is directly related to contrast transfer. When colors are present, hue and saturation are also important elements of image tone reproduction. As the plots on FIG. 243 indicate, image brightness (lightness) for any given image luminance level increases inversely to surround luminance. However, the increased lightness of its elements due to darkened surrounding results in decreased image contrast, at the rate proportional to the change in the plots' slope. For instance, Bartleson and Breneman found that image reproduced on a transparency (slide) and projected in dark surroundings needs to have inherent contrast higher by 1.5 on log-log coordinates (~32 times) than the original for the optimum tone reproduction; that corresponds to the increase of a power function exponent (i.e. slope) by a factor of 1.5. On the other hand, printed image viewed in illuminated surroundings only need to have identical inherent contrast to the original for the optimum tone (contrast) reproduction.
post #97 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Too bad this fight is in a 2.35 chip projector thread where most will never see or read it.
That is probably a good thing. smile.gif

BTW: In case anybody is wondering, I won't apologize for trying to correct misinformation that somebody is perpetuating just because a thread title doesn't match just right. If somebody wants to remove their misinformation that is another story. The story here seems to have extrapolated from an article that says 1000:1 for a moment in time, to this is for a "short interval" (which hasn't been defined), to 1000:1 isn't actually for all images, etc. If it wasn't for all images then why was it claimed to be the limit for human vision?

Seriously, when somebody starts claiming that because the scene in front of somebody was created with 2 projectors it doesn't apply to any single images, that is pretty good proof that a person does not understand the subject matter. I wonder if anybody besides coderguy thinks those same levels couldn't have been created on a single canvas (and thus be an example of a single painting, like he mentioned before was allowed).

--Darin
post #98 of 154
As the plots on FIG. 243 indicate, image brightness (lightness) for any given image luminance level increases inversely to surround luminance. However, the increased lightness of its elements due to darkened surrounding results in decreased image contrast, at the rate proportional to the change in the plots' slope. For instance, Bartleson and Breneman found that image reproduced on a transparency (slide) and projected in dark surroundings needs to have inherent contrast higher by 1.5 on log-log coordinates (~32 times) than the original for the optimum tone reproduction; that corresponds to the increase of a power function exponent (i.e. slope) by a factor of 1.5. On the other hand, printed image viewed in illuminated surroundings only need to have identical inherent contrast to the original for the optimum tone (contrast) reproduction.
post #99 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

You changed the painting by changing the background illuminance (the black floor), so no it isn't the same level of adaptation.
The whole scene could be recreated on a single canvas. Simple as that. Would you claim that if it was on a single canvas a person seeing the detail counted, but it doesn't if 2 projector are used to create the exam same image?
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

I also wondered how you think you measured such a tiny white spot in the image ...
The planet is large. I was not measuring a tiny white spot, so why are you making this claim?
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

Lightness can be thought of as relative brightness ...
I'm surprised that we have to go over this again. The context of the original quesion was the luminance levels in the images themselves that the eye is looking at. Are you now going to claim that your 1000:1 was for perception and not for the light levels the image itself has?

--Darin
post #100 of 154
The Runco 8150 cannot do anywhere near 1000:1 with low black floors, and the intrascene ramp is not flat. If you are in a low apl shot with very few white peaks, then the test is irrelevant and it's because of the fixed white peak that the JVC kills it. Actually the Runco does quite well in starfields compared to most DLP's, but not as good as the JVC.

The native on/off of the Runco is only 3000:1 and the intrascene in low apl shots is far far less, and when you add white light it in an intrascene shot, the difference between the white peak of a planet and the surrounding illuminance level is nowhere near 1000 times greater than the black floor, it drops way below that.

I suggest to buy a new meter.
post #101 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

As the plots on FIG. 243 indicate, image brightness (lightness) for any given image luminance level increases inversely to surround luminance. However, the increased lightness of its elements due to darkened surrounding results in decreased image contrast, at the rate proportional to the change in the plots' slope. For instance, Bartleson and Breneman found that image reproduced on a transparency (slide) and projected in dark surroundings needs to have inherent contrast higher by 1.5 on log-log coordinates (~32 times) than the original for the optimum tone reproduction; that corresponds to the increase of a power function exponent (i.e. slope) by a factor of 1.5. On the other hand, printed image viewed in illuminated surroundings only need to have identical inherent contrast to the original for the optimum tone (contrast) reproduction.
If you are going to quote somebody you should attribute the words to them. There was somebody else here who used to quote from articles as if the word was his own. He claimed we couldn't get more than 219:1 with video (or 256:1 later).

Are you him?

There are some similarities between you and him, like neither of you would do an actual test and report the results, just keep quoting articles and claiming that the writers agreed with them and anybody who said the poster was wrong was really claiming that the scientists were wrong.

You are looking like somebody who would claim that humans can't lift more than 20 lbs, but won't actually test their claim.

Seriously, why not test and report your results? You have a JVC, so how hard could it be to report how much maximum range you could see across in single images in say a few seconds of looking at the images?

--Darin
post #102 of 154
Because as I stated before, the test is too complicated to conduct and requires a scientific test and measurement approach. I do not have the time to set this up, nor the reference level equipment with the proper accuracy and precision, so any test I come up with would have even more holes in it. It would require multiple participants somewhat randomized, as well as noting that different people have different levels of contrast sensitivity.

It was obvious I was quoting the article since I just posted the entire article, and since the quote referred to the figure.
E=MC2, that is not a quote, I just invented it.
post #103 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

The Runco 8150 cannot do anywhere near 1000:1 with low black floors, and the intrascene ramp is not flat. If you are in a low apl shot with very few white peaks, then the test is irrelevant and it's because of the fixed white peak that the JVC kills it. Actually the Runco does quite well in starfields compared to most DLP's, but not as good as the JVC.

The native on/off of the Runco is only 3000:1 and the intrascene in low apl shots if far far less, and when you add white light it in an intrascene shot, the difference between the white peak of a planet and the surrounding illuminance level is nowhere near 1000 times greater than the black floor, it drops way below that.

I suggest to buy a new meter.
The Runco could do over 2000:1 with some scenes with a relatively small amount of near white and I already explained for the planet scene raising the contrast so that part of the planet was at white.

Why would you think it couldn't do an intrascene CR of greater than 1000:1 for an image like I described for the test? The thing could do around 500:1 for ANSI CR IIRC, which has way more light washing out the black levels than the image I used.

I suggest you learn more about video and the math before thinking the Planar couldn't do 1000:1 intrascene for the test I described.

--Darin
post #104 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

Because as I stated before, the test is too complicated to conduct and requires a scientific test and measurement approach. I do not have the time to set this up, nor the reference level equipment with the proper accuracy and precision, so any test I come up with would have even more holes in it. It would require multiple participants somewhat randomized, as well as noting that different people have different levels of contrast sensitivity.
Since you won't test, to be clear, what is your answer to the following I asked above:

If it was one painting with:

- Left side with whites are at 42 cd/m2 with crushing there
- Right side whites are at 42 cd/m2 with visible detail between 40 cd/m2 and 42 cd/m2
- Left side black at about .02 cd/m2
- Right side black at about .004 cd/m2

and a person could see the detail in the whites and the difference between those 2 black levels would you then claim that they hadn't seen across things separated by 2000:1 from a single image?

--Darin
post #105 of 154
I'd say the illuminance of the room level itself was raising the eye's interpretation of the contrast too much and that the test need to be conducted at lower luminance levels. Since the darker black floor lowers the illuminance of the room as well, not just the surrounding parts of the image. This would make the meter reading invalid because you are comparing what a uni-directional spot reading says vs. the amount of light variation that illuminates the entire room with the raised black floor inherent to when there is a white object in the black area that is causing even further illumination.

The lower surrounding black floor on the JVC illuminates the room and screen less and is therefore another reason why you cannot just read the meter and assume that is the amount of contrast you see because one image appears to have greater contrast than the other in one scenario.
post #106 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

I'd say the illuminance of the room level itself was raising the eye's interpretation of the contrast too much and that the test need to be conducted at lower luminance levels. Since the darker black floor lowers the illuminance of the room as well, not just the surrounding parts of the image.
I already told you my room is mostly black velvet. I estimate that my room could do about 400:1 off the screen with a projector with about 500:1. This did take some effort and intelligence, like using a light pipe and other things.

A claim that a test needs to be conducted at different levels is ridiculous to back up a claim about the maximum the eye could ever see across for a single image. It seems that the test doesn't suit you and you are looking to change your position so it is now that the 1000:1 limit only applies to situations where the limit is 1000:1, but not to tests where the limit is higher than 1000:1. If the claim is 1000:1 then it should hold up no matter what test I use, otherwise the upper limit isn't actually 1000:1.

If people test like I described I think they will find that their limit there isn't even close to 1000:1, but much higher.

When I asked you why you won't test to see what your limit is and describe the test for people here to repeat themselves one of your claims was that you would need to test multiple people. I asked you for your eyes. So, why the excuse not to actually test a case for your eyes and describe it here?

You made a claim. Now that I gave you actual levels with:
Quote:
If it was one painting with:

- Left side with whites are at 42 cd/m2 with crushing there
- Right side whites are at 42 cd/m2 with visible detail between 40 cd/m2 and 42 cd/m2
- Left side black at about .02 cd/m2
- Right side black at about .004 cd/m2

and a person could see the detail in the whites and the difference between those 2 black levels would you then claim that they hadn't seen across things separated by 2000:1 from a single image?
it seems that you want to avoid actually saying whether your claim applies there.

If you still believe the claim you made pages ago then you should answer whether it would apply to that case. It seems like you are just trying to stall to keep from answering whether that would go against your original claim.

--Darin
post #107 of 154
ok... I don't have a good enough room to do the test ATM.

Here is my other issue, I doubt that semi-large white planet is producing 2000:1 visible intrascene on a projector that can only do 3000:1 on full white to black fields with the DI off.
Edited by coderguy - 10/4/13 at 9:02pm
post #108 of 154
BTW: As far as this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

The lower surrounding black floor on the JVC illuminates the room and screen less ...
I think you would understand this better if you just think of things as a single painting that has the exact same levels as I created in other ways. The fact that I used other things (like 2 projectors) to create those levels is irrelevant. I could have created the same levels in a single image, although with a lot of work, like painting a canvas and back lighting it with a single projector. The rules for whether people could see it or not wouldn't be different in this respect whether the light came from a single canvas with one light source or a single canvas with 2 light sources.

--Darin
post #109 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by blee0120 View Post

DPI has a native 2.35:1 projector, if anyone cares

How dare you sir, trying to bring back this thread back on topic!!! wink.gif

BTW, I want one of those DPIs so badly.
post #110 of 154
The thread is already ruined by us, so no point in trying to get it back on track. I suggest posting a new thread about 2.35.
post #111 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

ok... I don't have a good enough room to do the test ATM.
Would it be too difficult to go buy some black posterboard, like I suggested? With maybe .05 gain I could make an image at the front wall with well over 1000:1 even in my off-white living room.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

Here is my other issue, I doubt that semi-large white planet is producing 2000:1 visible intrascene on a projector that can only do 3000:1 on full white to black fields.
What do you mean by "2000:1 visible intrascene"? Is that different than 2000:1 intrascene in luminance (say cd/m2)?

Even for image 5 the planet only takes up less than 10% of the image area by my estimate. If the projector can do 500:1 ANSI CR with 50% of the image area as white and 3000:1 full white to full black, then well over 1000:1 with 10% white on the right half of the image to black far away on the left half of the image should not be difficult at all. At least for the projector. The room is another story, but I mentioned getting dark material (like black posterboard) too.

Just for the sake of argument let's say the Planar couldn't do it for image 5 at:

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_13_2/feature-article-contrast-ratio-5-2006-part-5.html

Image 4 wouldn't be a problem once the Contrast setting is raised appropriately, since the planet is much smaller. Maybe 1% of the image area or less. So, far from the 500:1 or so with 50% white and closer to the 3000:1 native on/off CR.

Do you doubt that 2000:1 from the projector for image 4 would be possible with the planet raised up to near white and the Brightness turned down (as I suggested earlier) to make sure the projector is at least attempting its version of black for the darkest pixels?

--Darin
post #112 of 154
Visible intrascene means the ratio of white to black visibly in the sense that that the eye is not crushing the next possible visible level logarithmically just above black or the level just below white. Hence, the eye can still see the delineations, not the delineation between the ABS black floor and the next level above (16-17), but any dilineation that the eye should be able to see logarithmically.

Because if the eye cannot see another dilineation above that as expected to what the somewhat logarithmic response would be, then the eye is crushing one of the levels anyhow, and there is another variable that can invalidate the test.

The runco also has some type of lamp dimming tech unless I am wrong, which makes the test even more invalid because the white peak is going to change some even with the DI disabled. Some other problems with the test are the gamma response in the mid-highlights, needs to be matched up perfectly, and we all know what a pain gamma is to get right on the JVC.
post #113 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

Visible intrascene means the ratio of white to black visibly in the sense that that the eye is not crushing the next possible visible level logarithmically just above black or the level just below white.
How would you apply that to this question:
Quote:
If it was one painting with:

- Left side with whites are at 42 cd/m2 with crushing there
- Right side whites are at 42 cd/m2 with visible detail between 40 cd/m2 and 42 cd/m2
- Left side black at about .02 cd/m2
- Right side black at about .004 cd/m2

and a person could see the detail in the whites and the difference between those 2 black levels would you then claim that they hadn't seen across things separated by 2000:1 from a single image?
Is the 40/.02 a value of 2000:1 there, or are you going to apply a logarimic scale and call 40 cd/m2 for visible white and .02 cd/m2 for visible black something besides 2000:1?

Just trying to be clear about what your 1000:1 claim is.

--Darin
post #114 of 154
Would it be rude to ask if this conversation could be continued via PM?
post #115 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post

Would it be rude to ask if this conversation could be continued via PM?
I don't think it is rude at all, but if I get this much stonewalling to a simple question about whether his claim would apply to actual numbers I have provided, I can just imagine how much stonewalling I would get when people can't see that he is avoiding the very simple and straightforward question about whether his claim applies to that case or not.

If people realize that his claim is not true and if they did the testing themselves they would see that his claim is not true, then I am good here. Although I would prefer he see why his original interpretation of the literature was not correct. I don't believe in letting readers being misled though. At least not purposely.

As I did for years, if somebody really wants to see this for themselves and they are near Seattle I could show them. Once somebody has seen something with their own eyes I think they are less likely to read something, take a position that completely contradicts what actually seeing it themselves shows, and then sticking to that position no matter how illogical it becomes. Kind of like a claim that people can't lift more than 20 lbs based on somebody's interpretation of the science. Once somebody has lifted more than 20 lbs it is unlikely they would then go off claiming the literature said that, even if that had been their first impression of what the literature meant.

--Darin
post #116 of 154
There were rumors that Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson was one of my ancestors, but until someone proves it with a DNA test, I doubt it smile.gif
If a DNA test lab can produce bad results (they can occasionally), then I won't even go into a homemade test lab.
post #117 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

There were rumors that Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson was one of my ancestors, but until someone proves it with a DNA test, I doubt it smile.gif
Good response. And I mean that.

--Darin
post #118 of 154
Isn't it pretty obvious that the eye can perceive greater than 1000:1 in intrascene CR?

The ANSI CR test is 50% 100 IRE white and we can readily create conditions that approach 1000:1 with a good DLP. Lower APL images will easily exceed 1000:1 on units that have ~ 1000:1 ANSI CR, and yet our eyes perceive improvements well beyond this, do they not? If not, why would anyone need anything more than a Sharp z12000 or Marantz 12S4?

Maybe a flat panel display is a better example, because no one can make arguments about how the room can only do 500:1. Is anyone happy with their non-Kuro plasma from 2007? We've been well over 1000:1 for some while, and yet visible improvements continue to the extent that the new OLED units (with basically immeasurable black floors) are visibly better in intrascene CR than the best plasmas.

We can measure all of this and then determine the acuity of our eyes relative to the measurements, so there's really no point in arguing about what the reality is. Reality can be determined.
post #119 of 154
Repeat Again:

Displays have a fixed white peak level without a DI that is SET no matter what the background black floor drops to, so the reason the huge range is needed is to drop the illuminance level (the surrounding black) of the scene when near absolute black level conditions exist on the background, because it cannot drop the peak white as it is fixed (other than dynamic techs). This limitation between the background illuminance level and the white peak is highly limiting / polluting to intrascene contrast, that is why displays have trouble showing RICH dark scenes when they have HIGH ANSI but low On/Off.

I know this is a difficult concept, but... That fixed white peak affects the range of how well the projector's black floor can drop because of limitations in design and technology. The native on/off contrast is showing how far the illuminance level can be dropped with NO white peaks on the image. When you add even a few white peaks (even one single pixel), it automatically limits the intrascene contrast by many magnitudes, but it especially changes our eyes dynamic adaptivity due to the white light pollution in the image. When we see a fade-to-black scene, we get a more pure effect on being able to see the contrast because all intrascene white areas in the image are gone.

If you had an image that needed ONLY 20:1 intrascene contrast, but the black floor needed to be VERY low, a display with a poor Native On/Off would not be able to drop the black floor low enough regardless of how high the ANSI is. The illuminance range was majorly altered (I agree by several thousand contrast), but the actual intrascene contrast does not have to be higher. If dark scenes with bright pixels really needed super high intrascene contrast well over 1000:1 on video devices, then a starfield would be affected by a more balanced mix of ANSI and on/off than what it really is. When is the last time we worried about ANSI contrast for those starfield scenes? (exactly)

If native on/off really gave us high intrascene contrast other than mainly affecting the illumination level, then projectors with super high native on/off would not need HIGH ANSI contrast in order to produce the best bright scenes (think about it). Hence higher on/off would automatically give a projector higher ANSI, but it doesn't.

Display the ANSI pattern on a device that is near 1000:1 ANSI and on a device that is well over 4000:1 ANSI, good luck seeing a difference other than the illumination level of the background, well this will cause a fake perceived difference, which is one reason the tests are so fallible. There are a few scenes with some speckles of white where you probably can see well over 1000:1, but it doesn't take very much white wash to cause partial black floor blindness sensitivity.
Edited by coderguy - 10/5/13 at 6:57am
post #120 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by coderguy View Post

Display the ANSI pattern on a device that is near 1000:1 ANSI and on a device that is well over 4000:1 ANSI, good luck seeing a difference other than the illumination level of the background, well this will cause a fake perceived difference, which is one reason the tests are so fallible. There are a few scenes with some speckles of white where you probably can see well over 1000:1, but it doesn't take very much white wash to cause partial black floor blindness sensitivity. That large difference will be seen in the intrascene ramp between the difference in the illumination levels of the black floor and the gamma points, but other than illumination, it will be hard to see.

Flat panel TV's and other similar devices do have different properties and I don't doubt in this case you can see a bit more contrast, part of that is because the light comes from behind the panel and preserves ANSI better. A projector is also limited by the fact the light is spraying from the front, which is a source of light pollution no matter how perfect your room is.
I think you're confusing the limitations of front projection and the limitations of the human eye. Just because there may be a point of diminishing returns on intrascene CR (even as projectors themselves improve in CR) when you start measuring real projectors in a real room doesn't mean that the eye would not perceive an improvement if it could be achieved.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › what happened to native 2.35 projectors?