Screenshot War!!!!!!!! - Page 100

Front pj CRT only has hot spots when too high a gain screen material is used. This actually applies to any pic from any front pj, be it CRT or digital. Fixed pixel RPTVs have a glittery speckling effect that is really distracting, and which is nonexistent in CRT triple-gun RPTV tech.

Cliff, for example, uses a CLOTH screen, with no mirror-reflectivity at all. Unlike beaded or silver-coated screens, which if they are very high gain and thus very reflective, can have huge hotspots that can wander around the screen, following you as you change your position in front of the screen.

A low enough gain screen will not have any hotspotting at any position you place yourself in the audience, and will still generate plenty of light level, as the triple stack shots show, in spades.


b

So back to my origional question my green is to a natural THX standard in the pic posted earlier so whats yours, what you think looks right? What is your reference based on?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaspianM
That is not true. Digital pj's have uniformity issues too but it varies.
Did I mention mis-convergence!



It CAN be.

CRT triple gun convergence can be dialed in like nobody's business. Triple chip fixed pixel, which started with LCD, has to be very carefully converged at the factory and then fixed in stone, and is not always done right. As the owner, you cannot change that. It has to be done by a tech, who has to go in and mechanically realign them.

I saw some Runco DLP pjs at CES that were very badly converged, much more so than I would ever allow in my CRT calibrations. Most fixed pixel QC allows for the triple chip images to be one pixel off. These were 2-3 pixels off, and were really noticeable when you were not all that far back from the screen. To not see them you had to be a lot farther back than you want to be, on that fine an image. But when I mentioned it, they just shrugged it off and said they were all like that. Not quite what I had expected Runco to say...

The early single chip DLPs had massive convergence error, but it was only out at the edges. The inside areas were fine, but the refraction of the inferior optics on those early designs caused what LOOKED like convergence error the farther away you were from center. And they were not owner/alignable, like the crosshairs are on CRT triple gun tech.

And this was on single-chip tech, with color wheel! No triple chip alignment challenges, and yet there still had error that looked like convergence error.

The triple chip monsters of that time period could be aligned right and had superior optics, but again that was not doable by the consumer.

In later years the refraction error in those early DLPs was markedly remedied by using multiple mirrors and thus lengthening the throw distance on the fixed pixel RPTVs. And using better lenses.


b

Hats off to ya, Cliff! Truly great thread!


b

You picked the easiest color (green foliage) to support your argument.

Since it's near Summer, there should be plenty of green foliage near or around you. Check it out against what you see in your image. that was the point that Zues made (natural).

And be mindful that Zues is also from the pixel camp..

Check out the watermelon in this shot, the camera is zoomed right in on it:

OK everyone chuck the standards out the window adjust to whatever looks natural...come on you know thats BS...

Keep in mind that crispness can be a big issue with CRT vs. fixed pixel digital. When someone touting fixed pixel digital comes in praising the crispness of his FIXED PIXEL picture, he does not have any time and energy or any other work put into that crispness.

We CRT owners work very hard to align our convergence - and our focus, and our astigmatism, and our scheimpflug - to capture the excellence that CRT has always been capable of, capturing that luscious depth, most of which comes from deep, pure blacks. Cliff's triple-stack shots show how truly 3 dimensional CRT can really be.

When someone brings in a crisp fixed pixel display where he has not put ANY work into its being crisp, we just kinda let him be, because he is obviously not one of us.

We are artists, we are CREATING the crispness you see in our pictures. It takes a lot of dedication to get to where some of these CRT shots have arrived at, here in this thread, from CRT owners. They are absolutely dazzling, and their owners deserve a lot of credit. CaspianM, Cliff, Gino Aus, Gary Murell, Mike Parker...

Fixed pixel skips all that. It bypasses that whole challenge. So we really don't feel much of a kinship with owners who want to bring their panels or other fixed pixel displays in and call attention to how crisp they are. CRT owners can take personal credit for how crisp and lifelike their images are. Fixed pixel digital owners cannot.

I know this discussion is presently centered on colorations and not crispness, but I just had to point all that out anyway...




b

Chirp in why don`t you on the standards debate to set the record straight natural vs standards as you seem unbias and level headed.....

I owe you-1 cliffy...

The reference today for color decoding is what SMPTE has set forth.
The rest is a compromise. HDTV color supports wider gamut but at this time most conversion is done complying SMPTE-C (C stands for CRT) standard. That is why CRT can do a better job vs. fixed panel for the time being. Forget THX!

I don't even know why you are posting in this thread Kevin. It is for CRT's. I have seen all of your screen shots in the over 3K thread, and I have posted many there myself. Some shots look great and some look bad, both your's and mine. Trying to use screenshots to show "Reference" colors etc. is ridiculous.

Also, I haven't checked in on the JVC RS threads lately but the THX mode on the new projectors was far from perfect. That may have been fixed with the latest firmware, I don't know. Even the review of the Panisonic shows that the THX mode isn't spot on accurate.

Anyways, I'm heading back over to the Digital forums where I belong. I will leave the CRT's to the guys that have the talents to own them.

Jason

So you do adhere to a standard so natural looking comments were BS thanks for clearing that up...THX is my standard reference.....

I am not really following your question.
SMPTE is the standard.
What is THX?? What is basis for it to be chosen? I am lost!
With JVC rs20 the color gamut is close but the rest of JVC line pj's are mess in color.
I can see it myself with my rs2 clone.
You want color accurate output you will need to buy an out-board box and have someone to calibrate your rs-350.
Lets stick to the screenshot!

DUH....whats this todo with anything, i am responding to mine is more natural/greener than yours - keep up

Most of color corected CRT's have very close color gamut production compared to over saturated JVC's. Let's put it to rest.

We are comparing screenshots you have gone off topic....SCREENSHOT WAR thread......

The whole goal and intent with REFERENCE is to get things as close to NATURAL as possible.

In other words, when calibrated to REFERENCE, one should expect things to be more natural looking...far from what you're trying to get us to adhere to, when you present your images as being THE REFERENCE for image quality, when in fact, they look flat and colorless.....or maybe weak in colors would describe things better.


And the common thing to clear this up was the color green that I mentioned to you earlier. Your greens are terrible off. And that's one of the worst colors to not have on target. When you can't get green to vary in steps and degrees, from green pastels to deep greens in foliage and grass - something is seriously wrong.

Your colors are weak and your sharpness is not better than what we're doing with CRT, and you constantly keep mentioning "screenshots war" - at what point will you realize a flat image with weak colors will not qualify you to win anything. maybe you should wave the white flag and follow Jasons' advice and go back to the digital forum.

It's getting really ridiculous, that you keep posting images for us as a REFERENCE to follow..

We're just having fun posting images, period!

A REFERENCE pic being used from post 500..take a look....

Mine


I am just having a bit of fun keep your shirt on mp20748, better mine if you can...looks very close to reference to me

I have a problem with anyone trying to determine colours or saturation or shadow details when viewing any movie. The final hues/staturation etc. is all determined by what the director etc. wants to see in the final production and it usually had nothing to do with whether it looks natural or not.
So to say any projector looks more natural because of its colours or hues or saturation is alot of guess work on what said person thinks it should be which couldn't farther from what it was meant to look like in the final production house.
Seeing more detail is another thing all together.

So if someone refers to the color green being more natural looking, they could be off the mark, because the director, etc may have wanted the green to look purplish or some other color. Is that your point?

To me, a good point of reference makes perfect sense. And what better reference to use than grass...


discussions over other colors and pastels I agree, but to simply say that the grass or foliage looks natural should be honored. And if I'm wrong here, then there's no need to add C elements to our projectors and properly calibrate the colors, since it all depends on what the director wanted us to see. therefore we'll not know what the colors should really look like.

The director sets the reference

mp20748
Depends how the display has been calibrated and what standard used - all i see on my THX calibrated display is the color green same as i posted in my pics, unnatural to you but correct....

So were are you going with this... do you want us to acknowledge you as being the only person on this thread to claim a perfect setup and that we should see your setup as being the REFERENCE for what we see?

Kevin look at yours! Side of his face is supposed to be yellow not green if that is actually a reference picture.
Yellow obviously is a secondary color vs green to be primery but shows how JVC skews the color on broad basis. JVC green is over saturated and its hue shifts toward yellow by measurements and it is a documented. It also has over saturated red. Now it is all may be a bit nitpicking but to calim its accurate and natural is nonesense.

Thats why i said close to reference post better if you can talk is cheap seeing is believing.....

Ok, I'll try this again... None of us, or nobody can claim anything near reference when using the cameras that we're using. It's clear that what we see on the screen will not show in out shots, so how could we possible makes such claims?

And if so, we'll have to verify that the camera and system used for the shots were perfect or calibrated for perfection, which would mean they would have to be Broadcast Quality HD cameras. And would have to have calibration stickers on it, also showing who and when (date) calibrated.

Since that's not the case, NO ONE should claim a calibrated image. And that's why we just post along with our single chip point and shoot cameras. because we all know that it's impossible to claim "reference" using them.

And that also applies to the screengrabs... who's to say that they are in fact reference? Because when making those claims under the present "references" the same would apply as it does to cameras. The technical data MUST support the claim.

That picture you posted is not remotely close to your posted "reference" picture.
In fact green cast is all over your picture.

Thanks but no i would prefere if you got off your high horse and confess your sins