or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Rear Projection Units › >>Sony KDS-XXA3000<< Settings/Tweaks thread - OWNERS ONLY!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

>>Sony KDS-XXA3000<< Settings/Tweaks thread - OWNERS ONLY! - Page 150

post #4471 of 4486
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post

Looking at the AVS sharpness pattern, at 1080i the text is more sharper with Game Mode off. In addition, on the Stacey and Spears Nyquist pattern, there is more resolution with Game Mode off. These are all static patterns. However, with Game mode on, it handles jaggies and movement better.

I see what you mean on the text being sharper in the AVS pattern. I believe this is a result in the difference between weave and bob type deinterlacing. Explaining why gets very technical and difficult to explain so I won't go into detail here. Basically weave handles still images quite well because it displays two adjacent interlaced fields as one progressive frame. Bob can lose some fine detail in still images, because it interpolates the missing lines in each field to create two progressive frames (displayed in the same time as one weave frame).

I don't have the Stacey and Spears disc for comparison.
post #4472 of 4486
is there any way to turn down the overscan on this set? I never really noticed how bad it was until i transfered some fansub vids over to my ps3 and noticed the bottom subs were cut off. I also made some custom PS3 backgrounds and noticed a good chunk of the sides was being cut off (had a ps3 logo on the sides and its almost compltely cut off). When i use my VGA cable from my pc it doesn't fill the whole screen (tiny bit on top and sides is black) but there's 0 overscan. PS3/xbox, dvd player, everything else: overscan.

I notice there's a menu option that lets you increase the overscan by a tiny ammount and decrease it; however the decrease option is by a massive amount! about 5/8ths the size it seems

after noticing this and comparing it to a buddies neat 30" sammy monitor/TV combo with zero overscan im pretty bummed. Can i fix this at all?

and if i CANT what kinda tv should i look at for my next purchase that has NO overscan? Honestly i dont understand why it exists in this day and age, especially at the degree i see on this. Honestly i wouldn't even care if the very corners are black as long as theres no overscan. My rooms pitch black anyway.

Any ideas? Honestly i would just buy a monitor since i only use this thing for games and movies. I dont need a cable hook up. However obviously theres no 60" monitors out there. I did a quick search in the thread and saw people talking about it but not how to do it.. suposedly doing it can mess with the picture quality somehow though? ANd i saw people mentioning 'SSE" but i have no idea what that means
post #4473 of 4486
All RPTVs have overscan - you need a plasma or LCD to avoid. My A3000 has about 2.5 to 2.75% on each side which isn't terrible really. However, previous SXRDs had a bit less as the cabinets were not as narrow. Your only option is to scale the image to avoid overscan, but that will cause you a loss in resolution as you lose the pixel mapping. My Oppo BDP-83 has a nice scaling feature and I can get the overscan to where it's nearly gone, but I prefer the maximum resolution instead. I'm sure there's some way to do it in the service menu too. SSE or silk screen effect has no relation to overscan. It's the sparkly effect seen on the screens of these sets and other digital RPTVs.
post #4474 of 4486
Quote:
Originally Posted by BasicBlak View Post

Interesting test results, KC & Crusader. Appreciate your taking the time to explore this further. Seems that after all this time, this set still has its share of mysteries. It would certainly lend credence to why I first noticed the "improvement" on my HD sat signal (a 1080i source). All in all, both 1080i and 1080p just seem slightly more natural-looking to me with Game Mode activated. (And I agree, what a crappy name they gave to "Game Mode".)

Well said... Couldn't agree more. A flaw is a flaw, and if it's there during test patterns, it's there during so-called "real world" operation as well. Not noticing a given flaw due to one being distracted by, say, the wonderment of Batman gliding the nighttime skies of Hong Kong's financial district doesn't mean it isn't still there. Kinda like those pro reviews where a component blatantly fails a 3:2 or 2:2 test, but then the reviewer will say, "During actual content playback, it shouldn't represent a problem." Huh?!

I disagree to a certain extent. You can't just make a blanket statement like that without considering the context of how the algorithm works and what it's trying to accomplish.

When you're talking about 3:2 pulldown, there is a right and wrong way to do it. When you're talking about ME, or sharpness enhancements, or any other kind of trickery, what works for some situations may not work well for others, especially test patterns. Test patterns are great for calibrating things to a specific reference, but they do not represent real video and thus should be used with caution when trying to determine the benefits of a specific enhancement.

So while ME might make a motion resolution test pattern go haywire, in practice, it can have very real benefits. For instance, a sign during a fast pan at 24fps that is near impossible to read without ME can be clear as day with it on.
post #4475 of 4486
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

I disagree to a certain extent. You can't just make a blanket statement like that without considering the context of how the algorithm works and what it's trying to accomplish.

When you're talking about 3:2 pulldown, there is a right and wrong way to do it. When you're talking about ME, or sharpness enhancements, or any other kind of trickery, what works for some situations may not work well for others, especially test patterns. Test patterns are great for calibrating things to a specific reference, but they do not represent real video and thus should be used with caution when trying to determine the benefits of a specific enhancement.

So while ME might make a motion resolution test pattern go haywire, in practice, it can have very real benefits. For instance, a sign during a fast pan at 24fps that is near impossible to read without ME can be clear as day with it on.

I'm referring to a failure of basic performance parameters (like 3:2 or even 2:2, for instance) that often get shrugged off as irrelevant to real world conditions. So called enhancements are another matter entirely, but they too can sometimes apply.

In general, I can't say I necessarily disagree with any of your points. However, if one purchases enough software, one will eventually come across real-world items that pose any one of many "problems" that may have manifested during a test-disc phase, TV enhancements notwithstanding. To me, I'd think that would be the whole point in a review pointing these issues out in the first place. If anomalies that are discovered during a review/test didn't matter, there'd be no reason to do a review at all, let alone any of us paying any attention to them. Seems to me that many of us make purchase decisions more or less based on how well a given TV performs ultimately in these reviews; consciously or not, we often buy things based on performance reviews (along with, of course, manufacturer reputation, and/or personal preference). We want the TV, DVD player, etc with the fewest test disc issues in case said issues do eventually show up during our ownership, which is very probable if, like I said, you watch enough material. So in my personal opinion, a product failing an assortment of benchmarks during testing does potentially matter with real-world material and deserves to be taken into consideration. To that end, I feel SonyCrusader's original statement is quite valid. Just my two cents....
post #4476 of 4486
Quote:
Originally Posted by BasicBlak View Post

I'm referring to a failure of basic performance parameters (like 3:2 or even 2:2, for instance) that often get shrugged off as irrelevant to real world conditions. So called enhancements are another matter entirely, but they too can sometimes apply.

In general, I can't say I necessarily disagree with any of your points. However, if one purchases enough software, one will eventually come across real-world items that pose any one of many "problems" that may have manifested during a test-disc phase, TV enhancements notwithstanding. To me, I'd think that would be the whole point in a review pointing these issues out in the first place. If anomalies that are discovered during a review/test didn't matter, there'd be no reason to do a review at all, let alone any of us paying any attention to them. Seems to me that many of us make purchase decisions more or less based on how well a given TV performs ultimately in these reviews; consciously or not, we often buy things based on performance reviews (along with, of course, manufacturer reputation, and/or personal preference). We want the TV, DVD player, etc with the fewest test disc issues in case said issues do eventually show up during our ownership, which is very probable if, like I said, you watch enough material. So in my personal opinion, a product failing an assortment of benchmarks during testing does potentially matter with real-world material and deserves to be taken into consideration. To that end, I feel SonyCrusader's original statement is quite valid. Just my two cents....

I dont disagree with what you're saying either, I actually intended to quote SonyCrusader directly and quoted your response to him by accident. But he specifically used ME's behavior on a test pattern to make his point, and I think applying ME in to a motion resolution pattern to be a particularly bad way to measure its effects.

The reason why ME will fail miserably specifically on a motion resolution test is that its basically a worst case scenario for ME that doesnt exist in the real world at all. Motion resolution patterns have distinct alternating pixel structures that are rarely if ever found in video. ME has to measure the motion of objects in the video, and in order to accurately smooth out a motion resolution pattern and keep the pattern intact, it would have to do this on a pixel by pixel basis, or else the exactly pattern and thus the measurement is going to be destroyed. But such an algorithm can hardly work on a pixel by pixel basis, or else basic video noise would cause serious artifacts on real world video.

Just as video compression relies on analyzing blocks of pixels to determine motion and save on data, interpolation essentially does the same thing in reverse. Which works reasonably well on real video, but can cause artifacts in some scenarios.

But because a worst case scenario shows up on a test pattern, thats no reason to dismiss it outright. Another example - if one were to take a sharpness pattern on a DVD, and display it on a HDTV, the result would be blurred lines rather than sharp edges, due to the interpolated pixels in the scaling. Technically, the pattern is being displayed incorrectly. To do so would require point sampling, blowing up the pixels into larger squares rather than blending them. But if one were to apply point sampling to video, it would make you cringe just to watch it.

Still technically a flaw perhaps, but a desirable flaw in the real world.

ME may have it's issues, but I doubt future interpolation algorithms will be able to improve it much further. Its still basically creating something out of nothing, so it will never look as good as real high frame rate video.

Although I still think a large part of the dissatisfaction with interpolation on these forums is due to the association of high frame rate video with low quality programming such as soap operas, and I dont think that will ever change, no matter how good the interpolation becomes. Not until film is shot at a native 60fps or more will interpolated video actually seem like an improvment to most here.
post #4477 of 4486
Using a "motion" test to check the performance of motion enhancer isn't a bad idea...

The test I used was actually a moving resolution wedge. It's not the Mt. Everest of tests. As noted, a large (significantly!) portion of the thing just blanked out to white.
post #4478 of 4486
Quote:
Originally Posted by SonyCrusader View Post

Using a "motion" test to check the performance of motion enhancer isn't a bad idea...

The test I used was actually a moving resolution wedge. It's not the Mt. Everest of tests. As noted, a large (significantly!) portion of the thing just blanked out to white.

It's not a bad idea per se, but the only thing it really tells you is that ME doesn't work very well with moving resolution wedges. To be more specific, it doesn't work very well with small patterned alternating sections in motion, such as a distant picket fence in a fast pan.

ME isnt intended to help with "motion resolution" anyway. That's still a measure of spatial resolution...ME increases temporal resolution.
post #4479 of 4486
what a great thread! i did a search for "u-verse" to see what others were using with AT&T's service...but no hits. Anyone?

Here's mine:

Picture
Picture Mode: Custom

Advanced Iris - Auto1
Picture - 80
Brightness - 50
Color - 60
Hue - 0
Color Temerature - Neutral
Sharpness - 40
Noise Reduction - Off
MPEG Noise Reduction - Low

Advanced settings
Black Corrector - Low
Gamma - Low
Clear White - Off
Color Space - Standard
Live Color - Off
White Balance - (all default - 0)

Detail Enhancer - Low
Edge Enhancer - Low
post #4480 of 4486
Well, this thread has been super quiet for a while. I finally bought a Spears & Munsil Blu-ray disc. In running the color space and chroma alignment patterns (from my Sony BDP-S1 outputting 1080/24p YCbCr) I found that in other than game mode results in an apparent chroma delay. It looks to me like the set is using "nearest neighbor" when game mode is off, and either bicubic or bilinear when game mode is on. I'm not sure if the BDP-S1 is outputting 4:2:2 or 4:4:4.
post #4481 of 4486
It's a shame that this TV uses such a small detection area for CineMotion pulldown. Running the Video Processing Source Adaptive Inverse Telecine patterns on the Spears & Munsil disc to the TV in native resolution result in CineMotion kicking on and off as the wedges move in and out of the detection area.
post #4482 of 4486
Has anyone determined how the A3000 processes color space? I just got a new Oppo BDP-103 so I'm now able to feed various combinations that I was unable to before. From what I've seen so far, RGB Video Level, YCbCr 4:4:4 and YCbCr 4:2:2 all look the same, and create visible banding on RGB color ramps. Only the RBG PC Level option (which of course clips all below video black and above video white information) removes the banding from the color ramps. I can discern no difference on any setting for Deep Color. Off, 30 Bits, and 36 Bits, Dithered or not all look the same.

I'm sorry if this has been answered before, but I didn't find anything conclusive by searching the thread. I'd really like to know exactly how the A3000 processes the various Deep Color options and 4:4:4 vs 4:2:2 vs RGB. I would like to make the feed to the A3000 in the manner that requires the least additional processing by the A3000 itself.
post #4483 of 4486
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post


4:2:2 actually provides a bit better chroma resolution on the Stacey & Spears multiburst test pattern. However, during regular viewing with film material I'm not sure if it's a noticeable difference. The only problem is for some reason with this display and the BDP-83, 4:2:2 gives just a slightly darker image, so 4:4:4 is correct and better all the way around with this player and display. As you said, I've also experimented with the Deep Color stuff and have yet to see any difference. I know the A3000 accepts it, but now sure how it really handles it.

Finally, the info I was hoping to find. I also see the reduced intensity on the highest frequency horizontal chroma resolution bursts when using 4:4:4 from an Oppo BDP-103. However, I'm finding that black levels and peak white levels appear to be identical between 4:4:4 and 4:2:2. Could the perception of a slightly darker image be the result of an increase in gamma?
post #4484 of 4486
Well, just in case anyone is still reading this thread... I've done some extensive testing with the different HDMI output options and I've determined the following. The best option is to use YCbCr 4:4:4 and turn "Game/Text" Mode ON for the associated input. YCbCr 4:4:4 in combination with Game/Text Mode and YCbCr 4:2:2 both reproduce every chroma resolution burst on the Spears and Munsil disc accurately. RGB modes result in an apparent bleed to the luminance channel from Cb (Cb bursts on black background go to gray instead of black).

As DavidHir posted earlier in this thread the highest frequency horizontal chroma resolution bursts show an amplitude drop in 4:4:4 as compared to 4:2:2. However I found that turning on "Game/Text" mode restores the amplitude in 4:4:4. I cannot see that "Game/Text" mode either on or off makes any change to 4:2:2 input. However 4:4:4 without Game/Mode and 4:2:2 all appear to result in "nearest neighbor" chroma upsampling. Game/Text mode in combination with a YCbCr 4:4:4 input appears to be the only option that results in either bilinear or better chroma upsampling. This results in more accurate chroma alignment as verified with chroma alignment patterns.

My old Sony BDP-S1 BD player (along with my AppleTV) only offers a single YCbCr option without specifying 4:4:4 or 4:2:2 output. Based on the fact that the chroma upsampling does change with Game/Text Mode setting, it apparently is outputting 4:4:4. I don't know if this is universal when 4:4:4 or 4:2:2 is not specified. However based on my findings having Game/Text Mode turned on would make no difference if the source was 4:2:2, and offers improved chroma upsampling and better high frequency chroma response if the source is 4:4:4, so I believe it is best to have it turned on. It is unfortunate that Game/Text mode is not available for the internal ATSC tuner. Of course I can't run these patterns through the internal tuner, so I have no idea what the results with it would be. Hopefully it is offered the chroma upsampling as well, even without the Game/Text mode option.

Strangely all options except RGB at PC levels create banding in RGB ramps. However RGB creates the issue with the Cb channel as noted above.

Tests were done using the Spears & Munsil 2nd Edition Blu-ray Disc, and an Oppo BDP-103 Blu-ray disc player.
post #4485 of 4486
Has anyone tried two different sets of settings for daytime and nighttime? Most of the settings I see posted on the Internet seem to imply that they are for viewing movies in a darker environment. What about some settings for viewing regular programming in a lighter environment? I'm thinking about something analogous to Cinema and Bright Room settings in the Panasonic plasmas.
post #4486 of 4486
Quote:
Originally Posted by paligap View Post

Has anyone tried two different sets of settings for daytime and nighttime? Most of the settings I see posted on the Internet seem to imply that they are for viewing movies in a darker environment. What about some settings for viewing regular programming in a lighter environment? I'm thinking about something analogous to Cinema and Bright Room settings in the Panasonic plasmas.

The only change I've made from night to day is to change the advanced iris from low to medium. I usually keep ambient light in the viewing room under control enough that low iris is adequate. I don't see any reason to change anything else.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Rear Projection Units
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Rear Projection Units › >>Sony KDS-XXA3000<< Settings/Tweaks thread - OWNERS ONLY!