Screenshot War!!!!!!!! - Page 178

Simply amazing!!!!

Nashou

Wow. Very nice indeed VPH-G90 (cedric). Can you tell us a bit about how you take these photos? (I'm a bit of a photo nut too with a Canon DSLR with L-lenses and shoot all RAW).

Kal

May I ask where these images are captured from?

A smokin hot G90.

A few more quickies...

Full 1920x1080P into my 9500LC Ultra...


Uploaded with ImageShack.us


Uploaded with ImageShack.us


Uploaded with ImageShack.us


Uploaded with ImageShack.us


Uploaded with ImageShack.us


Uploaded with ImageShack.us


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Hi Kal, I use a canon powershot A610 with 5 mega pixel.
I do white Balance to 40 IRE.

pause time varies from 0.8 sec to 6 sec for these screenshots

the resolution on My G90 is 1920x817p96 Hz and contrast on/off mesured at 1 280 000:1
Cédric

I found these pictures on the internet

Excellent shots. Just goes to show that you don't need fancy camera equipment, you just need to know how to use it.

Kal

Yeah Cliff, I'm bowing down as I type..

I'm too lazy to look for shots on the internet to keep up. So I'll stay with the film based natural looking stuff, but will increase showing more finer detail clarity through out the image shots. I'm even too lazy to tweak my shots..

Now I have to wait for my next Netflix Blu ray, and try to show more HD stuff. But I' just want everybody to know that I'm not bothered at all that I never took the crown or won the war here..........



Good seeing you post again dude. Hope all is good with you and yours, and by all means, post a shot or more here to let us know you're still out and the stack is still doing its thing. I'll call you this weekend.

Amazing !

CRT is still the King

G90 new Lugs 1.3Million CR


JVC RS65

Thanks Kevin.

The G90 shot looks much more realistic to me. The JVC more like a Photoshop pic with too much sharpening.

ElTopo

Almost Every image that Kev does a comparison of, is computer generated and clearly shows "sharpening" but these same kinds of images seem to be what all the hype is about. The same is true for some of the other shots in this thread.

Not sure why computer generated shots are even being used for reference, because there are NO elements of natural in them. It's also easy to "Photoshop" (enhance, sharpen, tweak) computer generated shots, mainly because most never saw a camera, and the ones that did involve a camera, it was not a second process as what is done when actual movies are transferred to Blu Ray. and since there are no natural elements, trees, flesh tones, complexions, background detail, etc. how would one know when it looks like the real thing?

And with all of the computer generated shots, not one of them really show any bandwidth challenges, which is what makes a difference with High Definition reproduction. Flesh tones, range of colors, finer detail and various shades of low end performance should be the real challenges, but since there's no real performance rules on the table, its fine to go with anything that sharp, bright and colorful.

I'm still waiting on Kev to get back to posting film or natural based comparisons..
Edited by mp20748 - 6/16/12 at 2:08am

Look a little closer at the fur if any sharpening is applied to JVC the fur would look unnatural
The differences you are seeing is down to the 2k-4k settings.
The face detail and under the neck in the CRT pic shows added sharpening to me anyways.

Link to image used
http://static.nextwallpapers.com/1920x1200/digital_leopard_1920x1200.jpg

Just incase others want to show how it should look on their modded CRT`s:)

Wait a minute that was a fully modded CRT so it must be STACK time or naybe not ran off with tail between his legs last month:)

You all should get yourselves a Darbee Vision Darblet to give this JVC a bit of competition:)
Edited by Kevin 3000 - 6/16/12 at 3:55am

Or you could post shots taking of NATURAL stuff, like real (not computer generated) people to include other NATURAL things like trees and nature scenes. You know something that a person would already have a frame of reference.

When you get away from posting those very low resolution shots of artificial things and are able to post shots showing TRUE film class images, its then that I'll look forward to seeing your shots, and will also then blow away any non-artificial shot you post..

Kevin thanks for your screenshot in comparison with mine I realized that there was a display error (actual size display mode and not full screen on my PC for projection on my G90). The consequence is that my screenshots is less sharp than yours.
I will make new screenshots and compare it with yours.

ok kevin !

this is original to 1024 pixel



My new screenshot with G90



Your screenshot with JVC RS65




My camera is bad, I had to lower the G90's gamma for this screenshot.

On my screenshot the black is bad because i had to lower gamma. in reality the black is... black.
JVC can't reach 1.3 million CR.
Even with the option motion flow JVC may not have as good fluidity in the image that the G90 at 96 Hz

And sorry kevin my screenshot is not improved, just resize at 1024 pixel, I did not cheat !

Regarding the 1.3 million : 1 contrast ratio ... How are you measuring your light output? What equipment are you using?

Contrast ratio is the ratio of light output when black is shown, compared to when white is shown. To measure you put up a 100% black field, measure light output, then a 100% white field, and re-measure.

As the black light output level approaches zero, the contrast ratio approaches infinity. Since CRT projectors can be set up to do 100% true blacks (where you don't see your hand in front of your face) if you set the brightness too low and/or have the tube bias (G2) set too low, just about any CRT projector can be set up to get a measurable contrast ratio of near infinity. Not really a useful number.

Does that mean it looks good? Not necessarily. You're likely crushing blacks and losing detail. Even if you use a 20-step parametric gamma adjustment like found on the Lumagen Radiance video processor to come out of black slightly faster than normal, you may still be crushing detail slightly. Best to set up a CRT projector such that black isn't 100% black. Do just a bit more. If you can't see your hand in front of your face with a 100% black pattern, it's most likely too low.

The other issue that few meters can properly read light output levels at the extreme lowest output. Most tri-stimulus colorimeters will not do a great job at such low output levels and give erratic results. All spectroradiometers most certainly are not up to the task. You really need to a use light meter (illuminance meter). Luckily they're fairly inexpensive. They're used by photographers mostly (and display calibrators who want to provide accurate contrast ratio numbers... ).

The other important thing to consider is that true 100% blacks are not required for a good image quality. As mentioned above, you don't need black so black that you can't see your hand in front of your face. Go back 10 years ago and that was the one thing that people used to brag about with their CRT projectors... but most people probably had them improperly set up and were losing detail by crushing blacks. Advanced (parametric) gamma control is a fairly new thing. It used to be that we only had a single dial to control how fast we came out of black. With something like that it's fairly impossible to get 100% true black and proper gamma all the way down to black.

IMHO, once a digital projector can do blacks that are black "enough" to appear black, it is good enough and you don't mind looking at the image. Then ANSI contrast ratio (aka 'inter-scene contrast ratio') becomes much more important for proper image quality. This is the contrast ratio between black and white while both are shown on the screen at the same time. Many will tell you that ANSI contrast ratio is considerably more critical to image quality. If the projector can do adequate blacks (the JVC RS series does this well) then I tend agree: ANSI is more important. Most digitals do ANSI a *LOT* better than any CRT.

Where CRT can often really shine is on a average low light output (APL) scene where everything is dark. If brightness and gamma are perfectly set up you'll get a lot of detail. Almost 3D like and mesmerizing. Throw up one bright spot on the screen however and it'll wash out the rest quite a bit more than with a digital. That's just the nature of the technologies at play.

I like both technologies. I own a Barco Cine 8 Onyx "clone" projector which was well set up and provided fantastic image quality, especially with these darker, lower light output scenes. (One of the reasons I was always a Barco fan). It's being replaced by a JVC RS55 in the next month or two however and I look forward to better image quality in some aspects and possible lesser image quality in others. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. Apples and Oranges.

Kal

Sad!!

Thank you Kal for precision.
This is my luxmeter (PCE L100 precision 0.001 lux)





I measured one meter in front of the projector.. The G90 is calibrated D65 gamut SMPTE-C gamma 2.4.

I realize a lot of calibration in France

I think my measurement procedure are good

In October i receive my spectroradiometer photo research RP 670.

Cedric

Impressive. Sounds like you really know what you're doing Cedric!

Kal

Cliff, try setting your camera's shutter speed yo match the refresh rate of the video signal. If you are displaying 1080p@60Hz. set the shutter speed to 1/60th of a second. That should help you get a screenshot without the banding from the scan frequency.
Let me know if you need any more help. I am familiar with Nikon DSLR's.

Nicholas