or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Unofficial Sony VPL-VW1100ES Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Unofficial Sony VPL-VW1100ES Thread - Page 6

post #151 of 182
You got me (obliviously) curious...what don't you like about high power screens?
post #152 of 182
Thread Starter 
Get a sample and a sample of say Snomatt 100 and one you get past the brightness difference start examining the picture. Does the screen material disappear on the HP. How about the bleed between black and white. Look at the color shifting. I am not going on and on. Many people love it because to them the brightness trumps all and the other things are oblivious to them or just don't matter. Its all good.
post #153 of 182
Thread Starter 
Both the 1000ES and the 1100ES have female RJ45 ports. One of those ports on each is for an external 3D sync emitter. It doesn't matter whether its an external IR or IF emitter. Use of the port will disable the internal IR emitter. The US specs on the store Sony site show optional use of a specific Sony emitter. To use the Sony emitter, you must procure it and then you will need a cable of an appropriate length, cat 5 or 6 will work, with male RJ45 connectors on both ends. Not even a short test cable is supplied with the optional emitters.
Edited by mark haflich - 11/13/13 at 6:24pm
post #154 of 182
Thread Starter 
Today my wife tells me my Lumagen 2041 arrived at home. I am on the road doing a major install. Today the truck showed up with a floor lift for the 1100ES (if Sony ever releases it for order). And two motorized ceiling flip down mounts for two XBR-84X900 panels. Sim2 Super Lumis shoud be on site bythe end of next week (that drops from ceiling via an RJR custom lift). Installed the second Stewart today as well. Any how over the weekend will compare the Sony 4K scaler to the Lumagen 4K. Hope to do a full review of the 2041 soon.


Anyone hear any news on the 1000ES upgrad to the 1100ES? Sony was to start doing them around now.
post #155 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Today my wife tells me my Lumagen 2041 arrived at home. I am on the road doing a major install. Today the truck showed up with a floor lift for the 1100ES (if Sony ever releases it for order). And two motorized ceiling flip down mounts for two XBR-84X900 panels. Sim2 Super Lumis shoud be on site bythe end of next week (that drops from ceiling via an RJR custom lift). Installed the second Stewart today as well. Any how over the weekend will compare the Sony 4K scaler to the Lumagen 4K. Hope to do a full review of the 2041 soon.


Anyone hear any news on the 1000ES upgrad to the 1100ES? Sony was to start doing them around now.

Wow,that's lots of hardware, Mark. Should be great fun setting it all up.
post #156 of 182
are you sure that the Sony 1100 has the same upgraded electronic (with the exeption of autocalibration)
of the 500? I mean a new version of reality creation ....
anyone has tried it yet?
post #157 of 182
Thread Starter 
The 1100ES isn't available yet. Can't even order it yet when I last checked.
post #158 of 182
thanks anyway Marc:)
post #159 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

The 1100ES isn't available yet. Can't even order it yet when I last checked.

 

Sony is accepting pre-orders now with an expected ship date of 12-03-2013.

 

http://store.sony.com/sony-4k-home-theater-es-projector-zid27-VPLVW1100ES/cat-27-catid-All-Home-Theater-Projectors?_t=pfm%3Dcategory

post #160 of 182
For those who aren't active in the Sony VW1000 thread, I received my VW1100 yesterday and swapped out my 1000. Rather than re-posting, here are the links to my initial pics and thoughts. My thoughts also, due to the identical nature of the 1100 hardware-wise to an upgraded 1000, is to suggest that there be no new 'VW1100 Owner's" thread started. I think creating one would only serve to splinter the conversation about essentially the same unit into 2 threads, which will be more of a hindrance to owners of either model. No probs with this thread as way for people to track availability of 1100's as they start to land.



Initial thoughts in first hour of setup and few pics:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1359018/sony-vpl-vw1000/7020#post_24001870

Some early observations on the revised RC mode :

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1359018/sony-vpl-vw1000/7020#post_24001984

I'll def post more comments later tonight in VW1000 thread as I do some further testing of RC with different material, i.e. ref Blurays, 4K video and still images.
Edited by OzHDHT - 11/27/13 at 8:30pm
post #161 of 182
thanks a lot OzHDHT:)
post #162 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcohen View Post

When you go to a DCI color space mode, you can hear a filter move in front of the light path, and the image gets MUCH dimmer. Content aside, it doesn't seem very practical to use it. No wonder they dropped it for the vw5/600.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Rcohen. At least they gave us the option of using the P3(DCI) color space. If you look at the primary points on your Sony at rec 709 and look at the color chart to see the difference between rec 709 and P3 or DCI, you can see the yellows are much more saturated in DCI. The Red green side of the triangle in REC 709 is no where near the line required for DCI. You would have to move the green primary to a point it just could never reach in the Sony and the red primary a little bit to reach a higher sat. So what to do, you pull the line in the middle by using a yellow filter. When you filter to improve saturation or for any other reason, you lose the light filtered out. You could filter the green big time and the red a little bit to get DCI but you would really lose light big time. But that's part of the cost of going to wider color gamuts, maintain high light outputs at much more saturated greens and somewhat more saturated reds. Blue is hardly touched from where it is now at rec 709. Why no yellow filter in the 500/600? To say money and the fact that there simply are no DCI sources available to the normal consumer, Of course if one buys a commercial DCI machine including the needed sever, one can get DCI feeds through several means. But for peons who can only afford the 500/600 or 1000, there are no DCI sources available so why raise costs and put a DCI filter (yellow) in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

When the 1000ES came out I think Sony assumed consumer 4K would be 4096 x 2160 as in the film industry or let's call it for commercial theaters. Film shooting wise there are other 4K resolutions but let's keep it simple. For digital films the color space is P3 (DCI). and not rec 709 . Sony provided for replication of DCI but not its other aspects such as longer bit lengths etc, Sony also recognize that initially much content displayed on the 1000ES would be upscaled 1080p with an aspect of1.77777. Because scaling is much easier, cleaner and sharper in whole multiplier aspects because a doubling of 1920 x 1080 exactly fits to 2160 vertical, Sony provided as the normal display aspect in the 1000ES 3840 x 2160 choosing to blank out the sides of 128 pixels each side of the 4096 pixel wide chip. One can take a full frame 1080p image (a source aspect of 1.7777) and fill all 4096 pixels with it, by multiplying up and down vertically by 2.07 or whatever. But this is not as clean scale and results in the top and bottom of the image being cut by about 3.5%. When you have a aspect above 1.89 on the 1.78 frame, you can set the aspect on the Sony to 2.35 and fill the entire 4096 chip width and not spill any image above or below the chip, all that happens is the black bars on the top and the bottom get a little smaller. But once again, the image will be a little less sharp because of the non whole number scale. Now the Sony can display a true 4K frame, 4096 x 2160 on its chip without any scaling. I have never done it and I don't off hand know what to set on the 1000ES. Now if one had a Redray player you could actually feed the Sony true 4096 x 2160. Now time has evolved but not necessarily mankind and the industry collectively has decided consumer 4K will be 3840 x 2160. A 1.777 aspect screen rather than a 1.89 aspect screen which consumers just aren't ready to accept. Also 1080p frames can be easily scaled by a 2 multiplier to 3840 x 2160 and will fill a UHD screen which of course has the same aspect as a 1080p screen. A lot about 4K for consumers has yet to be decided. The initial color space, bit lengths, chroma subsampling, but it looks like because of HDMI 2.0, we will get 3840 x2160, 4:2:0 and 8 bits. Because of the power of Sony, the new color space will be xvYcc which is somewhat undefined. Obviously, there is a 4K standard, BT 1020, but that is an ultimate standard which will probably never be met completely. As HDMI bandwidth expands, we could get 4:2:2 10 or 12 bits and a color space of say DCI or larger but maybe not all the way to 2020. There are even spaces wider than that. But for now and for several years, your soon to be upgraded 1000ES will be able to show expected UHD and 4K sources if any such are generated by a computer or played through one or from a Redray. If Sony were to start production on a 4K chip today because it didn't have one, but it does, it likely would be UHD and not 4K. Next year's JVC 4K machine chip will be UHD and not 4K just as Sony's recently release smaller 4K panels are really UHD panels (3840 x 2160) in aspects of 1.777 and not (4096 x 2160) 1.88888.

All good information to know!

That would explain why DCI is dimmer than BT709. Since there's no need to use DCI without any source, I'll stick to using BT709 Reference. Time will tell what happens if/when optical UHD discs are sold.

As for 4K vs. UHD, it's nice to have both regardless of what the Sony 4K player puts out. The 1000ES (with upgrade)/1100ES will play it back at 3840 x 2160 UHD rez and play upscaled and native 4K material sent to it from my HTPC at 4096 x 2160. It's nice to know that these Sony projectors may be the only 4K projectors produced vs. UHD projectors.

There is no option for selecting the chip size to use with material over 1080p. It displays 4K signals using that resolution size at whatever frequency the HDMI input can handle. For UHD, that would be @ 7% less of the chips. Currently, the Sony handles 4K@24 or UHD@30 over HDMI 1.4. The upgrade will provide for higher frequencies, just not more than 4:2:0 8 bits.

I think I have that right, but feel free to correct any errors on my part.
post #163 of 182
After switching from using XBMC to JRiver MadVR decoding, I no longer see a loss of detail when using the 1.85 and 2.35 aspect modes. I'm not sure why. Maybe something about the MadVR decoding makes it easier for the RC scaler to find detail.

So, assuming you're not using an a-lens, the 1.90 chip aspect becomes a nice brightness boost over 1.78 chips for movie content, without much downside.
post #164 of 182
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

When the 1000ES came out I think Sony assumed consumer 4K would be 4096 x 2160 as in the film industry or let's call it for commercial; theaters. Film shooting wise there are other 4K resolutions but let's keep it simple. For digital films the color space is P3 (DCI). and not rec 709 . Sony provided for replication of DCI but not its other aspects such as longer bit lengths etc, Sony also recognize that initially much content displayed on the 1000ES would be upscaled 1080p with an aspect of1.77777. Because scaling is much easier,. cleaner and sharper in whole multiplier aspects because a doubling of 1920 x 1080 exactly fits to 2160 vertical, Sony provided as the normal display aspect in the 1000ES 3840 x 2160 choosing to blank out the sides of 128 pixels each side of the 4096 pixel wide chip. One can take a full frame 1080p image (a source aspect of 1.7777 and fill all 4096 pixels with it, by multiplying up and down vertically by 2.07 or whatever. But this is not as clean scale and results in the top and bottom of the image being cut by about 3.5%. When you have a aspect above 1.89 on the 1.78 frame, you can set the aspect on the Sony to 2.35 and fill the entire 4096 chip width and not spill any image above or below the chip, all that happens is the black bars on the top and the bottom get a little smaller. But once again, the image will be a little less sharp because of the non whole number scale. Now the Sony can display a true 4K frame, 4096 x 2160 on its chip without any scaling. I have never done it and I don't off hand know what to set on the 1000ES. Now one if one had a Redray player actually feed the Sony true 4096 x 2160. now time has evolved and the industry collectively has decided consumer 4K will be 3840 x 2160. A 1.777 aspect screen rather than a 1.89 aspect screen which consumers just aren't ready to accept. also 1080p frames can be easily scaled by a 2 multiplier to 3840 x 2160 and will fill a UHD screen which of course has the same aspect as a 1080p screen. A lot about 4K for consumers has yet to be decided. The initial color space, bit lengths, chroma subsampling, but it looks like because of HDMI 2.0, we will get 3840 x2160, 4:2:0 and 8 bits. Because of the power of Sony, the new color space will be xvYcc which is somewhat undefined. Obviously, there is a 4K standard, BT 1020, but that is an ultimate standard which will probably never be met completely. As HDMI bandwidth expands, we could get 4:2:2 10 or 12 bits and a color space of say DCI or large but maybe not all the way to 2020. There are even spaces wider than that. But for now and for several years, your soon to be upgraded 1000ES will be able to show expected UHD and 4K sources if any such as generated by a computer or played through one or from a Redray. If Sere to start production on a 4K chip today because it didn't have one, but it does it would be UHD and not 4K. Next years JVC 4K machine chip will be UHD and not 4K just as Sony's recently release smaller 4K panels are really UHD panels in aspects of 1.777 and not 1.88888.[/quote]




The chip in the VW500ES and the VW600ES is native aspect ratio of 1.89 and is probably the same chip.

I didn't say they aren't 1.89 chips (4096 x 2160) or the same. I am saying that if Sony didn't already have a consumer 4K chip, they would undoubtedly make a consumer UHD chip instead just as their newer panels are 3840 x 2160 (panels don't use SXRD chips.
post #165 of 182
I'm eager to see Zombie's recent findings on feeding the Sony 4K via Lumagen etc.

(Hint, hint...)
post #166 of 182
Thread Starter 
There will be very little difference in the features and functionality of the 4K out Lumagen over Zombie's Lumagen mini other than the ability to do a 729 CMS, the addition of a Darbee for each input, and the ability to output UHD or $K into the Sony and thus bypass the Sony's internal scaling which rings and cause adverse interactions with the effect RC has on the picture. Eliminating the Darbee impact since Jason has a Darbee he could apply after any source 1080p 60 and below, and the differences in color accuracy using a 729 CMS over say a 6 point or 125 point, if the mini could do that, I don't remember, the whole test boils down to which scaling combined with RC (necessarily which we will be of different values) throws a better image. With the RC off, the ringing of the Sony scalar will cause through the artifact of a light colored halo surrounding large contrast transitions with look sharper (a dark line against a whitish hallow will appear to the eye as being sharper but it will not be and the white halo will mask high frequency detail. Put on RC and because of its interaction with the ringing, will be a crap shoot to adjust, there is simply no way to figure out where it will look best and conclusions as to whether and how it will improve the image will vary.

Feeding the Sony UHD or 4K from the Lumagen will eliminate ringing for the equation. Because the highlighting caused by the ringing (halos) the image will appear less sharp but high frequency detail will not be lost through the masking of the halos. Adding the Sony's RC will have the RC only act on the pixel lines and make it much easier to adjust to a positive point without adding artifacts on its own. Preliminarily RC 1,4 looks best to me. That is my review of the Lumagen's 4K scaling into the Sony vs feeding the Sony 1080p and below,


Zombie. You are up. And it really is OK to say one prefers the appearance of the extra sharpness caused by the ringing. Many scalars have ringing designed in exactly to cause this effect. the trade off normally is the loss of some high frequency detail which most casual or recreational viewers will hardly notice under most conditions. However, to me the balance tips largely in favor of the Lumagen once RC enter into the equation. Removing the ringing allows the RC to work much better and clearly improve the image.

It should be noted that these comments are based on the 1000ES and not the 1100ES which could change things, and I emphasize the COULD.
Edited by mark haflich - 12/2/13 at 6:20pm
post #167 of 182
Intriguing Mark.

I'm curious if the situation will be similar when I try the 2041 4K out upscaled to the new JVC RS57. Perhaps it too will be a better, smoother scaled image from which to start dialing up JVC's version of Reality Creation - the MPC sharpness/contrast filters.
post #168 of 182
Thread Starter 
It all depend on the JVC upscalar for content input at less than UHD. The performance of that upscalar itself can not really be assessed because e-shift processes the upscaled frame and then extracts it for sequential flashing and e-shifting as 2 1080p frames.
post #169 of 182
These are just some early impressions, I need more time to look at this closer and with more content.

Lumagen 2041 + Mini 3D

2041.jpg

Shuttle 4K capable HTPC -How can you put the case on with a video card that looks this good? cool.gif

shuttle1.jpg

For this test, I had 3 scenarios I wanted to look at:


1. media/bd player -> Projector + RC scaling

2. Media/bd player -> Lumagen (UHD scaling + Darbeee) -> Sony @ 3840x2160

3. Shuttle HTPC -> Sony @ 3840x2160

Source material was Oblivion - There are a number of scenes that are just remarkable for 1080P BD content. I would love to see raw footage from the F65 on the Sony 4K projectors.

Starting with the first setup, I tried using the Mede8ter, a Samsung 3D BD player and a Pioneer BDP-05FD (gold trimmed bling edition) - All look very similar in overall PQ on my favorite 1080P projectors (JVC-RS55 and Planar 8130).

I have some mixed thoughts about the current implementation of RC on the 1000. I can see the appeal it has since at first glance, it has a lot of 'pop' with the image. This is fine with Sports and regular TV /Animations. With a number of my BD titles, I think it's a bit too much on the minimum setting and I'm seeing the processing artifacts. Maybe it's because I sit close to the 142" which is a fair sized screen. This has been discussed before, but it would be nice if they would enable the scaling without the image processing. or provide fine controls over the RC settings with a start value much lower than the default.

--

So now I move on to the Lumagen, set the output to 3840x2160 and look at the same scenes again. I think the scaling looks very good overall (more natural appearing vs. RC) and adding a bit of the Darbee is all that's needed for a great looking image. I find myself using less of the Darbee in this setup, usually 25-30 HD mode. I haven't changed any of the sharpness settings yet on the 2041 so I may experiment with those setting to see how it looks.

I had the Lumagen on HDMI1 and the HTPC on HDMI 2. This way I had a chance to A/B relatively quickly. It was a bit of a pain to sync the 2 sources but I got it and was able to flip back and forth. I have to say I am also impressed with the HTPC / JRiver / MadVR setup. When comparing to the 2041, they both have a bit of a unique look, it's difficult to describe and would be impossible to photograph. I had to flip back and forth many different times to pick up on the details I was seeing. If I was forced to pick 1 or the other, I might say the HTPC has a slight advantage over the 2041 with the Darbee off, but then a reversal once we add a bit of the Darbee. Both are relatively close and would be glad to have either vs. the current version of RC.

Both devices also have unique strengths. Managing multiple inputs and calibration capabilities are great on the 2041. This processor makes sense for most AV enthusiasts who want to 'set it and forget it' (remember the Ronco commercials?). HTPC users are a dedicated bunch of folks who love to tinker. it doesn't mean you can't set it up like an appliance but it could be a bit daunting for the non PC enthusiasts.

I think the 2041 is a nice upgrade to the mini 3D especially for the 4K scaling + built in Darbee. I'm glad they took the 'no harm' approach to the scaling and there is definitely no ringing to be seen. In the same context, +1 props to Madshi for his PC scaling process, it also looks great on the VW1000.

FYI - I leave the RC off with either the 2041 or HTPC @ 3840, I don't see any obvious changes with it on/off. I'm hoping OzHDHT can let us know if this has changed with the motherboard upgrade.
post #170 of 182
Thread Starter 
Zombie. Why a choice of outside scaling or RC? RC is not the Sony scaling process. The choice is external scaling with RC on at some RC settings or off vs the internal Sony scaling with RC set to some RC settings or off. RC is something one can add to the Sony scaling or shut off. And RC can be applied to external scaling or turned off. The primary comparison should be between the Sony internal and Lumagen external. Those would be the choices for most rather than computer external which has does appeal to several here is of relatively limited appeal.
Edited by mark haflich - 12/3/13 at 7:19am
post #171 of 182
Mark, I'm not sure I'm following, i thought there was a previous discussion on this. When feeding a 3840 signal to the Sony (Lumagen or HTPC) I don't really see any changes with the RC setting turned on. If I'm running native UHD test patterns, I can see some changes if I crank the setting all the way up, but not really seeing an effect with regular video content.
post #172 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

I had the Lumagen on HDMI1 and the HTPC on HDMI 2. This way I had a chance to A/B relatively quickly. It was a bit of a pain to sync the 2 sources but I got it and was able to flip back and forth. I have to say I am also impressed with the HTPC / JRiver / MadVR setup. When comparing to the 2041, they both have a bit of a unique look, it's difficult to describe and would be impossible to photograph. I had to flip back and forth many different times to pick up on the details I was seeing. If I was forced to pick 1 or the other, I might say the HTPC has a slight advantage over the 2041 with the Darbee off, but then a reversal once we add a bit of the Darbee. Both are relatively close and would be glad to have either vs. the current version of RC.

Both devices also have unique strengths. Managing multiple inputs and calibration capabilities are great on the 2041. This processor makes sense for most AV enthusiasts who want to 'set it and forget it' (remember the Ronco commercials?). HTPC users are a dedicated bunch of folks who love to tinker. it doesn't mean you can't set it up like an appliance but it could be a bit daunting for the non PC enthusiasts.

I think the 2041 is a nice upgrade to the mini 3D especially for the 4K scaling + built in Darbee. I'm glad they took the 'no harm' approach to the scaling and there is definitely no ringing to be seen. In the same context, +1 props to Madshi for his PC scaling process, it also looks great on the VW1000.

Thanks for your report, this is interesting to hear. Did you test with madVR's Jinc3 AR scaling algorithm? Or did you use default settings?

FWIW, currently when using HTPC upscaling with madVR, there's no sharpening / detail enhancement available yet. This is something on my to do list, but it will take a while before I get to that.
post #173 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Zombie. Why a choice of outside scaling or RC? RC is not the Sony scaling process. The choice is external scaling with RC on at some RC settings or off vs the internal Sony scaling with RC set to some RC settings or off. RC is something one can add to the Sony scaling or shut off. And RC can be applied to external scaling or turned off. The primary comparison should be between the Sony internal and Lumagen external. Those would be the choices for most rather than computer external which has does appeal to several here is of relatively limited appeal.

I think your assumption is a little off about the use of a PC to scale compared to a lumagen. The fact that it can do a better job or on par with the lumagen at a significantly cheaper price sounds far more appealing to me. The lumagen does have the advantage to scale all source content, but for strict bluray scaling a PC can be your source component and scaler for less than $700. That seems very attractive.
post #174 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post

Thanks for your report, this is interesting to hear. Did you test with madVR's Jinc3 AR scaling algorithm? Or did you use default settings?

FWIW, currently when using HTPC upscaling with madVR, there's no sharpening / detail enhancement available yet. This is something on my to do list, but it will take a while before I get to that.

Hi, I'm using the Jinc3 AR setting. When I first looked at this, I mentioned it could use a bit of sharpening or darbee processing, but now that I went and took a 2nd look during this comparison, I think it looks very good just the way it is. I wouldn't mind trying a bit of sharpening if you had it available in a future release.

Both the PC scaling and 2041 scaling technically look less 'sharp' than the built in RC scaling, but users have to take a closer look at what the RC is actually doing. At the minimum setting, many scenes in Oblivion look too over-processed for my preferences. Something like turning the Darbee higher than it should be. PC and 2041 both look more natural to me.

This scaling conversation could lead to an interesting discussion to put some perspective on this topic. For 2 years I heard 'Best 2D PQ Ever'. If we're just referring to what was observed using the built in RC, I'm not sure I would entirely agree with that statement. There are other projectors I have like the JVC RS55 which has a less 'heavy handed' approach to improving the PQ and the Planar 8130 which appears very natural and clean with top quality 2D content like Oblivion.

Now with 2 methods of improved scaling, I don't feel like I'm missing out on the 2D PQ that this projector is capable of. Feed this projector real UHD content and now we can see where it really stands out compared to the highly regarded 1080P models I mentioned.

Where did OZ go? I have a ton of questions... !!
post #175 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

Hi, I'm using the Jinc3 AR setting. When I first looked at this, I mentioned it could use a bit of sharpening or darbee processing, but now that I went and took a 2nd look during this comparison, I think it looks very good just the way it is. I wouldn't mind trying a bit of sharpening if you had it available in a future release.

Both the PC scaling and 2041 scaling technically look less 'sharp' than the built in RC scaling, but users have to take a closer look at what the RC is actually doing. At the minimum setting, many scenes in Oblivion look too over-processed for my preferences. Something like turning the Darbee higher than it should be. PC and 2041 both look more natural to me.

This scaling conversation could lead to an interesting discussion to put some perspective on this topic. For 2 years I heard 'Best 2D PQ Ever'. If we're just referring to what was observed using the built in RC, I'm not sure I would entirely agree with that statement. There are other projectors I have like the JVC RS55 which has a less 'heavy handed' approach to improving the PQ and the Planar 8130 which appears very natural and clean with top quality 2D content like Oblivion.

Now with 2 methods of improved scaling, I don't feel like I'm missing out on the 2D PQ that this projector is capable of. Feed this projector real UHD content and now we can see where it really stands out compared to the highly regarded 1080P models I mentioned.

Where did OZ go? I have a ton of questions... !!

Are you getting your hands on enough UHD material? Have you seen any 4K movie trailers yet?
post #176 of 182
The issue is that a lot of the freely available UHD material out there, trailers especially, are bit rate starved and poorly encoded, at least from I've seen. There are some clips that look great but the majority of what's out there often will look better properly upscaled from an appropriately encoded 1080p source.

We really need a UHD standard, but the issue still remains that content sourced from the internet does not follow any rules or standards. This is also an issue with the majority of 1080p material that you can download online. There is no standard of quality when it comes to internet sourced video. Most 1080p material online is bit rate starved and poorly encoded too. This saves on costs. This is why I'm fearful and highly skeptical of a movie download service. If we can't get bluray quality 1080p from anywhere online, what makes people think UHD content will be any better? Judging by the huge increase in file size even larger cuts in encoding quality will be made to save on costs. Data rates aren't expensive but companies are out to make as much profit as possible. With discs there is an inherent amount of total space available so there's no reason not use all of it or at least encode the material to the best of their ability to give the best results possible even if it won't take up all 50GB (or whatever the next generation disc will hold). Newer clean material is far easier to encode with lower bit rates and usually have smaller file sizes, most of which don't take up the full 50GB of space on the disc, but that's okay because what we're getting is still about as good as we can get from the standards Blu-ray has set. The disc distribution system promotes high quality encodes because there's no increase in costs to take up all the inherent space provided on the disc whereas a movie download service promotes cutting corners to produce a transfer as small as possible but still it needs to have "acceptable" quality to sell the product. This will enable them to deliver the product to the customer as cheap as possible.
Edited by Seegs108 - 12/3/13 at 1:52pm
post #177 of 182
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

Mark, I'm not sure I'm following, i thought there was a previous discussion on this. When feeding a 3840 signal to the Sony (Lumagen or HTPC) I don't really see any changes with the RC setting turned on. If I'm running native UHD test patterns, I can see some changes if I crank the setting all the way up, but not really seeing an effect with regular video content.

That is the issue. RC effect on UHD or 4K is minimal but there. On uoscaled to UHD or 4K by the Sony scalar, RC is aggressive, too aggressive, and interacts with the ringing. Without the ringing, RC can be adjusted very finely and most users on this situation are finding a slight improvement by setting R if you will to, min, which is 1, and C or noise filtering to 4.The change is modest and may require, I don't know, a smoother screen than you are using.
post #178 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seegs108 View Post

The issue is that a lot of the freely available UHD material out there, trailers especially, are bit rate starved and poorly encoded, at least from I've seen. There are some clips that look great but the majority of what's out there often will look better properly upscaled from an appropriately encoded 1080p source.

We really need a UHD standard, but the issue still remains that content sourced from the internet does not follow any rules or standards. This is also an issue with the majority of 1080p material that you can download online. There is no standard of quality when it comes to internet sourced video. Most 1080p material online is bit rate starved and poorly encoded too. This saves on costs. This is why I'm fearful and highly skeptical of a movie download service. If we can't get bluray quality 1080p from anywhere online, what makes people think UHD content will be any better? Judging by the huge increase in file size even larger cuts in encoding quality will be made to save on costs. Data rates aren't expensive but companies are out to make as much profit as possible. With discs there is an inherent amount of total space available so there's no reason not use all of it or at least encode the material to the best of their ability to give the best results possible even if it won't take up all 50GB (or whatever the next generation disc will hold). Newer clean material is far easier to encode with lower bit rates and usually have smaller file sizes, most of which don't take up the full 50GB of space on the disc, but that's okay because what we're getting is still about as good as we can get from the standards Blu-ray has set. The disc distribution system promotes high quality encodes because there's no increase in costs to take up all the inherent space provided on the disc whereas a movie download service promotes cutting corners to produce a transfer as small as possible but still it needs to have "acceptable" quality to sell the product. This will enable them to deliver the product to the customer as cheap as possible.

I completely AGREE with this and couldn't have said it better. I find a lot of .mp4 downloads of "what's called" 4K basically SUCK. Way too much macro-blocking and such. I watch them once and delete. I only keep the eye candy. Upscaled 1080p looks better than some of the crap out there.

JRiver/MadVR software (with JINC3+AR) on my HTPC over HDMI2 connection to the Sony produces a fantastic picture, 1080p or quality native UHD/4K shorts. The longest I have is Santel anime, which is nice, but again, not the best source for judging 4K. It doesn't look much if any better than Resident Evil Damnation anime (44Gb 1080p). I'm still looking for someone to provide the 4K short Loom by Luke Scott shot on Red. I'm sure that would look impressive. The best so far are the quality demos from LG, Sony and a few others.

Where's the upgrade from Sony so I can watch 4K from their player. Hopefully, it's not compressed and no better than "mastered in 4K" BDs. These Sony projectors need real 4K source to truly shine!
post #179 of 182
What is the main differences between this VW1100 and the older VW1000 ?
Improvements from VW1000 ?

Are those $3,000 worth, more expensive ?
post #180 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by iwanrs View Post

What is the main differences between this VW1100 and the older VW1000 ?
Improvements from VW1000 ?

Are those $3,000 worth, more expensive ?

I sent you a PM. Talk to Mike G. at AVS sales.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP › Unofficial Sony VPL-VW1100ES Thread