Zenith Proo 1200 CRT v Sony Ruby - Page 3  

I wish I knew.
Thanks. One reason I wanted to get your opinion of the 3-dimensionality with the G90 at 1080p vs the Ruby at 1080p is that Dave claimed the following about his Zenith 1200 that he runs at 1080i vs the Ruby:
Some of us compared a well setup G70 (the owner sets projectors up for other people and has his tweaked in well, IMO) at 1080i and 720p (it was too soft at 1080p) to the Ruby at 1080p with that same Gladiator source you have and I believe everybody in the room felt that there were images with the Ruby in there that were more 3D than with the G70 and that group included two G70 owners. I mentioned this and that the G70 still had the 3-dimensionality advantage in the darkest scenes to my friend with that G70 last night and he not only agreed, he said that he thought the Ruby had the 3D advantage more of the time than the G70 had the 3D advantage. When we compared some stuff from the show "Enterprise" a different time the 3-dimensionality difference between the two was especially striking after we watched with the G70 and then switched to the Ruby. The extra 3-dimensionality with the Ruby is the first thing I think we both noticed on there as soon as the images from the Ruby came up. But in the darkest scenes the G70 still had the advantage there, as I mentioned.

Dave,

Where did you see the Ruby and with what material?

--Darin

I can get slight posterization and EE and other digital artefacts on my Sony 1292Q 9" CRT (ABL off) also, but only when running a not-so-good combination of filters and timings settings on my Lumagen HDP scaler that feeds it.
However, if I use the optimal settings for each input, for example 1080i via DVI from a HD-player (AvelLink), then I get a slightly softer but much less "digitized" feel to the PQ.

1080x1920 pixels aren't really that high resolution when we supersize the image to 100-200 inches. And the MPEG HD-material that is available (and will be available) is faaaar from perfect; it has vertical filtering, macroblocking, EE and other unpleasant stuff that really degrades the PQ quite a lot.

I believe that all the reports coming in about the Ruby displaying extreme detail to the point that it almost is sharper than real-life is either just exaggerations or maybe they are due to the fact that people using Ruby:s hasn't yet realized that they're actually mistaking digital "garbage" for "detail".

I have asked over at the Lumagen forum if one can suppose that a clean, digital, pixel-perfect 1080p signal from a Lumagen scaler isn't processed in any way inside the Ruby, and the short answer from the Gordon of Convergent AV is:

"I think it would be impossble to say no processing is done in the display. All you can do is hope to minimise whatever processes may be detrimental to the image.

I'm sure that some displays will add sharpening, noise reduction, perhaps conrast enhancement (gamma changes) to the signal, even when 1:1 mapping."

None of the engineers at Lumagens has since opposed him on this.

In my moderately gifted brain, there is no way that a digital signal can reach the panels of a digital display with no processing at all.
And we all know what bad stuff can come from digital processing, don't we? ;)

Forgot to mention; The optimal settings in the Lumagen that I mention above is correct inverse 3:2 pulldown performed without frame rate conversion on 1080i source film material. The Lumagen scaler is one of only a few products that can do this.
I'm not sure that the Sony does this correctly? Does anyone know?

Well, sort of. The Zenith is the Cine 8 chassis which improves the port 5 input quite a bit. Has less video noise, and has P16 tubes which are capable of slightly sharper focus.

See my post #26. I'm not the only one that thinks this. According the the TPV reviewer the 8" CRT beat the Ruby in 3D look, dynamic range, and blacks. Also, he never says what his 8" CRT is, so we don't know how old the chassis is or anything.

BTW, exactly where did you see a Zenith Pro 1200 X or Barco Cine 8 Onyx so that you know for sure it is identical in performance to the G70? The Zenith/Barco use a newer design than the G70 and has newer components than the G70. Can you please tell me what research you have done to determine their performance is identical?

To my knowledge, you have never seen both of the PJs the OP is asking about, so why are you giving an uniformed and misleading opinion? Oh, I know why, because he asked about a digital and since it is digital it has to be better, right? :rolleyes:

Even if you think it is equal to a G70, are you going to tell the OP that it is worth almost $7000 to upgrade to the Ruby, the picture is 3 times better than the G70 you saw?

Heck, I want him to get the Ruby and sell the Zenith to me!

Dave

Dave,
Please do not call it a Zenith. It is a BARCO..

Offends my sensibilities.

Next you will be reffering to it as an Ampro-like-PJ. :eek:

I have to laugh about the G70. It seems to be in a freefall from its once lofty perch as the so called best of the 8 inches. Hell, they may start comparing it to 7" ES machines.:)

Ericglo

So you think that the extra detail Darin and other saw was NOT more detail at all? :confused:

Yeah, I'm still trying to figure out how to get a Cine 8 Onyx nameplate so I can replace the "Zenith HD Projection System" nameplate. :)

Interesting side note on these--since you like Barco trivia, the silver sticker on the back says Zenith and has a Zenith serial number, but in the corner with no label is the actual Barco Art. Number of the PJ. The number that actually matches all the boards in the PJ.

Dave

Hey Spanky,

I'm not saying it is bad. I'm only pointing out differences to demonstrate that there is no logical basis to assume performance is identical between a Cine 8 Onyx and a G70.

Oh, I forgot, the lenses are different also.

Dave

Well, if you ever have your HT meet Dave, we can come over and see for ourselves how your PJ compares to a G70. ;)

Eric is right though. G70 owners have done a admirable job of keeping up the charade, but eventually the truth was bound to get out. G70s suck! I'm ashamed to admit I own one.

nin>> Well, check this thread out:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...=fade+to+black
It's Alan Gouger, who has compared his old 720p DLP to his new Ruby and found that the 720p DLP actually seems to produce more true detail than the Ruby.
I suspect that there is some kind of scaling "injustice" going on in that place, but my point isn't that the Ruby isn't able to produce fine detail...
My point here is that most people seem to be using 1080i as a source for their Rubys when watching HD-material, and that means that a lot of processing must be done to the source, processing that might result in a lot of "extra info" in the picture.

OK, I knew I would get the razzing. It may very well be that the G70 is better than a Cine 8 Onyx (not ;) ), but my point was, I see no way in which the hypothesis that a comparison between a G70 and a Ruby is identical to a comparisson between a Cine 8 Onyx and a Ruby.

Oh, and BTW, I attribute your simply stunning picture to the fact that you have an unusually good G70 specimen (and that RP nonsense may have something to do with it--did you read the FP/RP study?). ;) But in all honesty, your PQ could be the poster child of what is possible with a G70. :)

Dave

How are people setting the focus for their CRTs before starting to watch HD-material?
I find that any standard tip for setting CRT focus (either from manuals or Guy Kuo) is far inferior to setting it using a true HD, fine detail pattern.
I use a Lumagen HDP scaler for my Sony 1292 and when setting focus using it's "Every other line" test pattern and using 1080p out, I get much, much better over all focus than using any other method.
I believe that there are a lot of CRT setups that are not focus optimized and that HD suffers a lot from it.
I would never start using any of the old methods again after using the test pattern from the Lumagen. It's much easier and much more accurate. :)

Digitals have to apply gamma to the signal, your CRT requires a D-to-A conversion be done somewhere (like in the Lumagen) with the vast majority of sources, and the professional CRT monitors used for mastering modify the gamma to about 2.2 from what the phosphor has inherently. Each is doing something from these sources, but there are inherent differences in what they do and so can have different effects though.

--Darin

Oh, yes, and the analog displays have a multitude of problems also, I'm not in denial of that. Added image noise due to cable lengths, ringing, haloing, streaking etc. :)

I'm just confused about this rather new phenomena where people seem to believe that digital signals input to a digital display somehow are "pure". If a 1:1 signal is input, then of course problems should be minimised, but if deinterlacing, scaling etc needs to be done to the signal, then the problems can multiply - even if there is a digital connection.

I never said that they were identical, you made it up and people can see that from my post your referenced:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...&&#post7297853

I would paraphrase that post for people as, "Terry, I would like to know how you think the 3-Dimensionality compares between the G90 and the Ruby because of what Dave said about the 3-Dimensionality of his Zenith compared to the Ruby and what some of us saw comparing a G70 to a Ruby where the Ruby held much of the 3-Dimensionality advantage."

I think people here can figure out that this post didn't say that the G70 and G90 are identical any more than it said that the Zenith and the G70 are "identical". You can repeat it as many times as you want, but it is still you coming up with that and not something from me. You like to think you are smart, so why do you feel the need to make things like this up? Is it that you can't comprehend my posts or do you not feel like you have enough ammo to attack me without making things up?

And have you seen the Ruby or haven't you? If you have, what were the conditions and the material?

As far as dynamic range, there are many people who assume that the projector with the higher dynamic range (or on/off CR) will always look more 3-Dimensional. That just isn't true.

And as far as my advice to smf, I gave it here:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...&&#post7284460
Now if you want to go on one of your fits and complain that I was wrong when I said, "... Sony G70 which is about in the same class as the Zenith ..." then go ahead.

--Darin

I agree, they shouldn't think they are "pure". If they are input 1:1 and no scaling of spatial resolution is done then they can be "pure" in that way, but some processing has to go on like was mentioned. And there are definitely problems that can occur like you said. The Ruby has 12 bit internal processing to try to reduce errors compared to lower resolution processing. As far as deinterlacing, there are different types. With 1080p film material packaged in a 1080i signal (like with the first HD-DVD players and sources), getting the original means deinterlacing. That doesn't have to mean any artifacts or errors because it is film and the 1080i signal is meant to be recombined to progressive (since the original is progressive). Video is a different story where the 2 halves are from different points in time and so displaying progressively (either with a digital or a CRT) doesn't match the original.

--Darin

You made statements and assumptions based upon a G70/Ruby comparison (without even the important consideration of price I may add)--statements that interestingly contradict professionals in the field. When a laymen is contradicting the professionals, I only think it appropriate that you really lay out the case.

But Darin, since you do not own, use, and acutally hate CRT projectors, it makes perfect sense that you know own the CRT forum and yours is the only opinion that counts.

I just don't understand why under the new moderation rules you have not been clamped down on. If someone kept posting in a BMW forum, "Mercedes are better, mercedes are better" a moderator (especially if monitored the way this forum is now) would boot them. I truly wonder why you get special treatment and your desire to "bicker" is acceptable.

EDIT: Oh, and BTW, do you think the OP is too stupid to find the digital forum? If he wanted to hear from a bunch of people with your digital bias, wouldn't he have posted over there? Maybe he posted here because he wants to have an opinion from people who have actually seen both or people that are used to CRT and would critically analyse the faults of the Ruby and let him know what he was sacrificing. I'm quite sure this never crossed you mind before jumping in.

I was just kidding with you Dave. My main point was to remind you of your HT meet, something you've repeatedly promised since Jay's HT meet LAST SUMMER! It's your turn bud...

Dave, you are just too kind! Thank you!

I really think my HTPC plays a BIG role in my PQ, and I'll be glad to lug it over to your HT meet so we can see what does for your PJ, that is if you ever actually have it. ;)

PS: I wasn't aware of a FP/RP study. Please point me in that direction.

Yes, I want to see that. Sorry, I'm guilty of the "let me finish one more thing before everyone comes over" syndrom.

I saw a reference to it somewhere, I'll have to find it. I was done by a graduate student and it compared FP to RP and had the observers rate the images produced. I don't know the exact parameters of the study, but most preferred RP to FP.

Dave

I guess that means that CRT members can't post in the Digital forums anymore? Please.
Many do, and the debates continue over there as well. I've also shut down some threads here when the "bickering" gets to be too much.

Prove Darin wrong with facts and stop letting it get personal! I'm sure that in the CRT forum you'll get plenty of people to back you up. If you can prove your point the OP will see that.
This forum is about opinions and unless they get ugly, repetitive or personal, they are usually allowed to stay.

Nothing new from you. You make something up that you attribute to me and when it is pointed out that you made it up you then go on as if what you claimed wasn't false.
And if a professional thinks that a higher dynamic range (or on/off CR) will always look more 3-Dimensional, then they are wrong. Just like the professionals who wrote that on/off CR didn't matter and all that mattered was ANSI CR were wrong. Or do you now agree with anybody who got paid to write that because it was published? The physics are the physics. If you think that a higher dynamic range projector will always look more 3-Dimensional, then please show everybody here how smart you are and explain why. If you don't think the higher dynamic range projector will always look more 3-Dimensional, then feel free to state that too.
Now that is funny. It is amusing to see how you attack me when I post true things and then claim that I am the one who just likes to argue. Here is a good example where both you and Dion^Swamp posted things that weren't true to attack me:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...&&#post7265316

Somebody might be. I already linked to where he asked on that forum too. And I know you and some of your buddies want to make sure that nothing that is misleading here gets addressed if it favors your projectors. And please don't pull out the hypocritical, "digitals shouldn't be discussed here" kind of thing when you like to discuss them and have even asked me on this very forum if I could modify an LCOS projector for higher on/off CR, since you were interested in that.

--Darin

And Dave, have you seen the Ruby or haven't you? If you have, what were the conditions and the material? Is there are reason you won't answer that?

As far as the bickering, people can see in this thread that in response to what Dave claimed about the Ruby vs his CRT I asked Terry to provide some information on the 3-Dimensionality of the G90 vs the Ruby with one of the sources we had tested with and let people know what we found when comparing the G70 to the Ruby in this area. And I included what the G70 owner said. Then Dave made some stuff up to attack me. Not surprising that after that he would accuse me of bickering though as I am used to it.

--Darin

Well I wish you'd get finnished. I enjoy the meets, and have been waiting for the announcement of yours.

I do hope that the G70 that was compared to a Ruby had ABL/AKB deactivated. I understand that it is somewhat improved in the G70 over the 1292Q, but it is anywhere close to what it is in the 1292Q then a G70 should only be run with AKB deactivated, period!
Why? Because AKB is the biggest PQ detrimental thing I've ever seen in a projector, it causes the black point to jump between scenes and it washes out the picture sometimes so that one wonders if it is a CRT or a cheap LCD one is watching.
Deactivate the AKB, and voila! 3D, contrast, fleshy colors... Everything just falls into place.

So, does anyone know if AKB was activated at this comparison that was done?

I'm 99% sure the AKB was not activated. As I understand, the guy are installing and calibrating CRT for a living (correct me if I'm wrong).

Ok, but does anyone know? After all, the people at Sony obviously thought that AKB was a good idea, so a prof. installer might as well I guess... :)

So, those of us who have a G70 with ABL/AKB activated, including all the newer G70 with firmware 1.1, which does not allow deactivation, have a PQ like a cheap LCD?

IMO you have just told the forum that you are clueless!

Not much more to say...

HoyaFan>> If the PQ of the 1.1 G70 is anywhere near that of the 1292 when AKB is activated, then yes, the PQ is far from optimal CRT performance. I must admit that I'm not very familiar with the G70, and I do want to emphasize what I have written several times now:
Turn of AKB if it's as bad as it is on the 1292.
You are misquoting me and maybe even misreading me, please read what I'm writing. For some reason you've decided to start reading after "...a G70..." as above, which gives my text an entirely different meaning than otherwise. Please start from the beginning of every post when you read them, things tend to get very hard to understand otherwise.

I really hate being misquoted. :(