Screenshot War!!!!!!!! - Page 13

Mike your shots are Awesome But i have to say Clarence's reds are more true to color. Yours are a little on the orange side. Do you think this is where color corrected HD144/145's would help or is it that your set just needs a better color calibration.

Athanasios

Maybe so, but my HD-145's are color filtered. Not sure why that's not so red. It's seems to also be the same with DVD Man's Ruby (12 hour calibration):





I also have another shot done at the same time I took that other one. Look at here finger nail polish:

I only really noticed this on the Fifth element shot where the objects to the left and right of their heads in Mike's shots are orange but red in Clarence's shots. The hair is a little different as well, but not as noticeable.

I like that one. Bruce's skintone looks deeper than mine. But it's not over-exposed becuase the details in her shirt are showing up better. Mine may be missing some yellow depth... maybe it's the wear on my green (9800 hours on these tubes )...

G90:


And another one (G90, 1080P, 115" wide)...

Jeeze 9800 hours? Were they previously driving a 50" screen or something? What do they look like?

It would explain the "too much red" though.

Well, maybe it's time for a calibration. An optical comparator can only be so precise..

3 spare tubes on my shelf, in case I ever decide these have had enough

Why don't you guys stop the war and bring the troops home?

Thermal Bandages!!! Multi Pass.... Multi Pass...

I have that movie, but it was still shrinkwrapped...

G90:

I should've stood next to the screen for this one...




and my favorite...

Very cool screen shots. Bruce Willis is one of my favorite actors.

Clarence or anyone,

I'm so amazed when I saw the number of hours on your screenshot. Does hours still move even if projector is off?

Thanks,

Neil

No, hours only accumulate when the projector is on. They also accumulate during PIC MUTE.

My G90 had 5K when I got it. It'll be 2 years next month. And next month I'll certainly roll it to over 10K hours.



That's 2500 hours per year. 6.8 hours per day

A typical day consists of me turning it on to check to see what I recorded on the HD DVR... if it's "hard drive worthy", I'll export it via firewire to my HTPC. Then when my kids get home from school, they might play XBox360 or PS3 for an hour.

Every couple of weeks or so, my son will turn off the PS3 without turning off the projector... so I'll get some useless overnight hours of black screen. That doesn't bother me as much as it initially did.

After dinner we might watch a movie. And after we put our kids to bed, my wife likes to watch primetime TV in the HT because it's soundproofed, so the boys don't get out of bed when they hear the TV.

On weekends it's usually on all day, especially during football season... college games all day Saturday. NFL all day Sunday and MNF, usually with friends and neighbors. Also on Sunday, we have a home group from our church that gathers here, so we have 15-20 kids in the basement... pop some popcorn and put on a movie and they behave and stay entertained for a couple of hours.

10000 hours plus many thousands more on these tubes. Plus 3 more tubes sitting on the shelf.

That's always been one of my favorite things about CRT. If I had a d!%!#@|, I know I'd subconsciously obsess about how many hours the bulb had, wondering if it was going to blow the next time I turned it on.

This was the deciding factor for me when I chose to get a CRT over digital.

Clarence's shots have more lower end detail than Mike's. Could be a lot of things though: greyscale, gamma, room, camera, source, and a few other factors I probably missed. For example, see the left side of the following screenshots.

Clarence's


Mike's





My favorite shot:

Speaking of war, did anyone watch Ken Burns' "The War" last night? First installment of 7 playing this week. Looks like it will be a good series.

Thanks guys for displaying Tears of the Sun. Great movie in all aspects.

Hmmm.. I even tried adjusting the contrast and brightness on my monitor, but I see nothing on the left side of those shots. I can see a tiny bit of colored detail in Bruce's collar, but nothing in the background.

What am I missing?

I think you're noticing a subtle difference in sharpness that may be related to the differences in the cameras or the shot that was taking. The cameras will not always focus precisely on every shot. I know the Camera that I have won't.

Also, I'm not using any gamma anywhere, so I can't comment on gamma.

I'm surprised that you have not noticed the flesh tones and the purity of the flesh tones. As well, the range of colors, saturation and hues.

If you really want to check for lower end detail, it can be found in dark scenes, and non dark scenes. But the better rule for low end detail is background detail. It's the background detail that present the challenge for video stages. That's where the one pixels are mostly put to test.

Foreground is always easy. They are usually 'sharpness' test, everything as it relates to colors and hues. Detail, is usually always a background thing. And that's the nature of "High Resolution" images. HD is not only for foreground, it's supposed to bring out the background that was not really available because of lower resolutions native SD material.

The attached images are really good for detail, because it can be shown through-out the images. especially in the far backgrounds:






I'll post more higher detail images later tonight.

Can you see all the distinct shades?

(grayscale image credit to dpreview.com)

"I'm surprised that you have not noticed the flesh tones and the purity of the flesh tones. As well, the range of colors, saturation and hues."

Mike, this is what I have been most impressed with in your images. Simply stunning.

Concerning flesh tones, colors and hues. Check out the purity of the color saturation and hue accuracy through-out the flesh on in the two images:

Y and Z are a bit difficult for me to see a difference in. I can even see the difference between A and B more easily than I can the black end of the scale.

Can you see all the distinct shades?

(grayscale image credit to dpreview.com)

Maybe the high-IRE range of your monitor will show the differences better...

Here's the negative of both screenshots...

Mike's 8500:


My G90:


I think it helps highlight the detail.

I'll do up some DETAIL and COLOR shot tonight. Of the Blu-RAY DVD's that I have, do anyone have a preference for DVD's that I've posted so far and scenes?

I don't quite have every Blu-Ray released. So we'll have to work with what i have.

Also, can we post all images in IMAGESHACK. That way we'll be able to not only keep everything as close as possible, but there's other things about Imageshack that will keep things equal.

I'll be checking back from time to time. I have a VERY bad case of sinusitus and bronchitis, and it seems to not be getting better..

OK Clarence, they look close still. But keep in mind. You're comparing an Air Coupled 8" CRT against an 9" LC CRT. And with that, that 8500 is doing far better than I had expected. Apples to Apples on this test would be an 9" LC Marquee to your G90.

Now, since that non LC 8500 'may' not hold its own too well with the contrast ratio test. let's move onto the real test, that are not necessarily related to the LC vs AC debate.

What say, we go after those colors and detail..


Edit: after looking back over the negatives, I'm seeing a very good amount of black in my shot. That plus considering that I'm not using any gamma correction and they look that close. I may not even go LC.

Also, LC tubes assemplies do actually work out better for finer detail... nevertheless, I'm still looking forward to DETAIL shots.

Mike, I was just commenting on the non-obvious more subtle differences. Yes, your flesh tones and colors are very good. Your shots have much more contrast and depth to the image as I commented a few days ago. The only negative thing I can see from your shots is you lose some lower IRE detail, but you are using an air coupled projector without any gamma adjustments, and I can't comment on how it looks in person. But other than that they look great . I'm just being picky. After all, pickyness leads to improvements, don't they? But don't worry, we'll all witness your skill on a 9500LC in less than a month .

I'll bring my monitor to the Blendzilla meet... I think you're going to be shocked at how different they look. I think you'll also understand why several people have asked why your screenshots have crushed blacks. That's why I was trying to demonstrate that it's possible to capture those low IRE details in a screenshot. Especially since that's what I consider a huge benefit of your mods.


Nope. I'm comparing screenshots. Check the thread title... this is a "screenshot war"... not "G90 vs everybody else".

I've always been impressed by your effective mods. I've seen your M8500 in person... very, very, very impressive. After trying 1080P@72 on my G90 and getting slightly overlapping one-on one-off scanlines, I went back to 1080P@60. I was instantly impressed when you brought up the fully-resolved 1080P@72 pattern on a "mere" 8500. IMHO, your screenshots aren't capturing any of that magic. On my monitor, your screenshots are missing a LOT of low-IRE detail. And resolution... go count Bruce's whiskers in the reverse image comparison above. But I have the advantage of knowing what your projector can do first-hand.


Nope. Apples to Apples would be same screen, same camera, same photographer, same exposure settings, etc.


I don't think the differences I'm seeing should be attributed to LC vs AC. I'd guess it's:
20% due to digital camera,
20% due to photographer's technique and camera settings,
20% due to my moome gamma and calibration,
20% due to projector (8" AC vs 9" LC offset by mod vs stock and fresh tubes vs 10K hour tubes),
20% due to monitor settings.