Resolution requirements for lenses - Page 44 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 269Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1291 of 1307 Old 08-13-2017, 06:56 PM
Advanced Member
 
AJSJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sonoma County, CA, US
Posts: 886
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomas2 View Post
Very weird in my book
Spooky, even

Last edited by AJSJones; 08-13-2017 at 07:05 PM.
AJSJones is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1292 of 1307 Old 08-13-2017, 08:16 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 7,861
Mentioned: 140 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3552 Post(s)
Liked: 2735
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmjohnson View Post
... At this point I'm tired of typing substantially the same thing over and over.

But I might re-quote myself in the future. I've said all that needs to be said, so repeating it is a simple matter.
I've just gone back and read some of the original posts in this thread, and it's weird and spooky how new forum members keep entering the thread with the same misguided intuition about the physics of projected images. All the questions have already been answered in dozens of different ways, and it really does come down to repitition.
Dave in Green is online now  
post #1293 of 1307 Old 08-13-2017, 10:16 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
darinp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,735
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 543 Post(s)
Liked: 749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in Green View Post
I've just gone back and read some of the original posts in this thread, and it's weird and spooky how new forum members keep entering the thread with the same misguided intuition about the physics of projected images.
I may regret bringing this up, but this whole subject reminds me of a somewhat famous statistical problem, that many call the Monte Hall problem.

Wikipedia has an explanation of the problem here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

Here is how it was asked of Marilyn vos Savant in Parade magazine:
Quote:
Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?
I remember seeing it there in 1990. This was a couple of years after I had first heard it though.

My first exposure to the problem was during a statistics class in college. The teacher laid out the question, I thought for maybe a minute, then turned to somebody I knew next to me and told him that people should switch because then they would have a 2/3rds chance of winning.

I considered this one of our easier problems in that class. To me it seemed obvious. I was shocked that after the teacher explained it for the whole rest of the class time, the class still left with many people believing the odds were 50/50.

People can learn all sorts of rules, but if they don't understand the underlying reasons for things then they are likely to mess up when given a problem where those rules don't apply.

To me this was an easy problem because when you pick a door you have a 1/3rd chance of picking the car, there is a 100% chance that the host can pick a door with a goat that isn't your door, so the odds that you picked the right door to begin with don't change one bit when the host opens a door. And the odds that the car is behind a door you didn't pick don't change just because you were shown one of the doors. The odds were 2/3rds that the car was behind a different door than you picked to begin with, and they stay at 2/3rds when you are shown what is behind one of the doors, which has 0% chance of containing the car, because the host knew which door to open.

The host showing you a door not changing the odds that you picked the car to begin with is the kind of thing I was referring to in the original post in this thread when I said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post
I view this as like test questions in school where the teacher would put irrelevant information and part of the class would change their answer based on it. In this case the irrelevant information is whether the left and right side are shown at the same time or at different times when each is being shown at higher frequency than the viewing system can perceive.
Much like the way Dave Harper claims we have to believe his expert and that I am just a weekend warrior who hasn't used physics in this area since college, despite the fact that Dave's expert can't even answer the questions without contradicting himself, in the Monte Hall problem many people with great credentials claimed that Marilyn vos Savant was wrong and others claimed that we had to go with what those with great resumes said. As it says on the Wikipedia page:
Quote:
Many readers of vos Savant's column refused to believe switching is beneficial despite her explanation. After the problem appeared in Parade, approximately 10,000 readers, including nearly 1,000 with PhDs, wrote to the magazine, most of them claiming vos Savant was wrong (Tierney 1991). Even when given explanations, simulations, and formal mathematical proofs, many people still do not accept that switching is the best strategy (vos Savant 1991a). Paul Erdős, one of the most prolific mathematicians in history, remained unconvinced until he was shown a computer simulation demonstrating the predicted result (Vazsonyi 1999).
Sometimes being a certain kind of thinker matters more than what it says on a person's resume.

For those who use their intuition to think that eShift must have the same lens requirements as the native resolution because that is all that goes through the lens at a moment in time, and also that the odds in the Monte Hall problem must be 50/50, here is one that I consider a pretty easy proof of the Monte Hall problem.

Start with 6 people playing the game with the car behind the same door, but without seeing the other 5 people play, having the host go through all 6 people, who are taking all 6 possibilities a contestant can take. Those 6 combinations of choices are:

1: Stayer, starts with door A.
2: Stayer, starts with door B.
3: Stayer, starts with door C.
4: Switcher, starts with door A.
5: Switcher, starts with door B.
6: Switcher, starts with door C.

Now, there are only 3 possibilities for the car. Door A, B, or C. Here are the winners for every one of those possibilities.

A: 1, 5, 6
B: 2, 4, 6
C: 3, 4, 5

In other words, no matter where the car is, out of those 6 people one stayer wins and two switchers win. One out of three stayers and two out of three switchers. There are only 18 possibilities in the game and stayers win 6 of those, while switchers win 12 of them.

In short, if you are a stayer and want to win the game, you have to pick the car. If you are a switcher you always win if you pick a goat. The odds of picking a car are 1/3 and the odds of picking a goat are 2/3, so it is better to be a switcher than a stayer, at least based on the odds, since you are twice as likely to win as a stayer is.

Simple, right?

I learned some things about human intuition there, since to me my intuition was very different and was what turned out to be the right answer, while I've talked to people who I consider extremely intelligent who got the wrong answer to that problem. I enjoyed problems like that since I was young, so I probably had some advantage there by the time I heard it.

One thing that the Monte Hall problem should tell anybody who hasn't been paying enough attention to notice this already in life, is that just because a person can point to a great resume that doesn't mean they are always right, especially when the problem isn't as a straightforward as the problems they've been used to getting.

For the Monte Hall problem a very simple rule fits. If you are a stayer and want to win you have to pick the car to begin with, which you have 1/3 chance of doing. Those who think that being shown a door means the odds of the car being behind your door change are a lot like those who think that all you have to do to show smaller details with higher fidelity through a lens is to only show part of the image at a time, IMO. Those who think those things can take solace that a lot of very smart people thought the first one too, and would likely be true if enough people were asked about the 2nd one also. Lots of people having the same intuition doesn't change the truth though.

--Darin
Elix likes this.

Last edited by darinp; 08-13-2017 at 10:50 PM.
darinp is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1294 of 1307 Old 08-14-2017, 07:30 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
cmjohnson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Sharply focused on sharper focus.
Posts: 6,140
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Liked: 34
There is a special case in which photons can and do interact.

That special case is what we know as quantum entanglement.

I don't know if this has any future applications in image projection for home theater usage.

http://spookyactionbook.com/2016/02/...created-video/
cmjohnson is offline  
post #1295 of 1307 Old 08-14-2017, 12:47 PM
Advanced Member
 
Tomas2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: New Orleans,LA
Posts: 728
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 453 Post(s)
Liked: 688
I've noted the post above by Dave in Green, and I assume he is referring to yours truly. I attempted to leave this thread a few times already, but a few forum members continued to engage and ask for clarification(s). The subject itself is intriguing and I see no reason to malign any member for participating in the thread. I've already thanked everyone for helping understand a few things but also discovered that my perception was valid... the caveat being on what magnitude

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives...1223.Ph.r.html

Re: Why photons don't collide, interfere or react with each other ?

...."The simple answer to this question is that photons really do collide and interfere with each other they just do it very quickly and it is very difficult to detect"

...."The question of photon interaction always stimulates an interesting and usually heated debate. I have heard professional physicists arguing over this one and it usually comes down to people's definitions of what interaction exactly is. Paul Dirac, one of the fathers of quantum theory writes in his book entitled "Principles of Quantum Mechanics" (I am pretty sure it is this book - I don't have a copy on hand) that photons do not interact with each other. This is what is usually quoted in answer to this question. I, personally, think that this is quite wrong, but only since I can benefit from another 74 years worth of research since he wrote those words. I quote Einstein: "We are standing on the shoulders of giants". Dirac developed a new mathematical formulism for describing nature at the quantum mechanical level when quantum mechanics was at the developmental stage. He was certainly no idiot, just not in possession of all the facts in the 1920s and 30s"

..."The conclusion to all of this is that photons are quite strange and, although not like solid matter where you can easily see collisions and interactions, still can interact and influence each other, given the right circumstances. I want to stress here a point which I kind of glossed over above and that is that the photons must have identical properties for them to interact fully. Partial interaction and brief interaction is allowed for non-identical photons though. The other thing that you should take from this is that you shouldn't believe everything that you read. Ask as many people as you can, read as much as you can with a critical eye and, better still, try it out for yourself!

...Unsubscribe

SAMSUNG QLED | ROTEL | MOREL | M&K | HAFLER | TECHNICS SP-25
Tomas2 is offline  
post #1296 of 1307 Old 08-14-2017, 03:55 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 7,861
Mentioned: 140 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3552 Post(s)
Liked: 2735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomas2 View Post
I've noted the post above by Dave in Green, and I assume he is referring to yours truly. I attempted to leave this thread a few times already, but a few forum members continued to engage and ask for clarification(s). The subject itself is intriguing and I see no reason to malign any member for participating in the thread. ...
I was not thinking about you when I posted that. In fact I previously acknowledged that your participation in the thread was welcome. I just happened to read the original posts in this thread and was surprised to see the same things being said then as now. When I went to post a comment I noticed the "weird" and "spooky" references in a couple of previous posts and just tossed those into mine.

If it will make you feel better, my initial intuitive response was also to think that e-shift would not be any more demanding of lens quality than 1080p. It was only after reading many explanations from Darin and others that it clicked. If it wasn't for people like you questioning Darin's core point there wouldn't have been as many detailed explanations given.
Tomas2 likes this.
Dave in Green is online now  
post #1297 of 1307 Old 08-14-2017, 04:45 PM
Advanced Member
 
Tomas2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: New Orleans,LA
Posts: 728
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 453 Post(s)
Liked: 688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in Green View Post
...I was not thinking about you when I posted that. In fact I previously acknowledged that your participation in the thread was welcome.
Understood and my bad.

Thanks Dave

SAMSUNG QLED | ROTEL | MOREL | M&K | HAFLER | TECHNICS SP-25
Tomas2 is offline  
post #1298 of 1307 Old 08-14-2017, 10:36 PM
Advanced Member
 
AJSJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sonoma County, CA, US
Posts: 886
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Liked: 24
[
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomas2 View Post
I've noted the post above by Dave in Green, and I assume he is referring to yours truly. I attempted to leave this thread a few times already, but a few forum members continued to engage and ask for clarification(s). The subject itself is intriguing and I see no reason to malign any member for participating in the thread. I've already thanked everyone for helping understand a few things but also discovered that my perception was valid... the caveat being on what magnitude
They have recently demonstrated photon interaction in the LHC . Not that it affects the current discussion but suggests you have good intuition for quantum chromodynamics.

Last edited by AJSJones; 08-15-2017 at 02:47 PM.
AJSJones is offline  
post #1299 of 1307 Old 08-21-2017, 06:17 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
darinp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,735
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 543 Post(s)
Liked: 749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomas2 View Post
The conclusion to all of this is that photons are quite strange and, although not like solid matter where you can easily see collisions and interactions, still can interact and influence each other, given the right circumstances.
I found an article from CERN from just last week that I think put things in a little bit of perspective. This is the organization that has the Large Hadron Collider, where they get particles to collide at very high energies.

I think some of us have mentioned that photon interactions are rare enough at low energies that they can normally be ignored, even besides the fact that interactions would then be happening for the light for a single sub-frame.

This article is about collisions at very high energies where the whole point is to get photons to interact:

https://home.cern/about/updates/2017...ght-scattering

"Studying more than 4 billion events taken in 2015, the ATLAS collaboration found 13 candidates for; light-by-light scattering."

If sending 2 sets of photons at the same time was like sending 2 sets of water (or similar liquid) at the same time, like one person suggested, scientists wouldn't have nearly as much trouble detecting photon interactions as they do.

EDIT: This is the same article AJSJones had linked to, and I hadn't caught that.

--Darin

Last edited by darinp; 08-22-2017 at 02:43 PM.
darinp is offline  
post #1300 of 1307 Old 09-07-2017, 06:39 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
darinp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,735
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 543 Post(s)
Liked: 749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post
Please get Rod Sterling to clear this up.
I talked to Rod about this a couple of hours ago.

Rod said basically what I have been saying all along, although he went even further than I did, since he pointed out that it isn't just the lens requirements that are higher with eShift than the same native, it is prisms and other parts in the light path.

Fortunately, the eShift JVCs have prisms, lenses, etc. that are up to the task for eShift. IMO, if you are going to buy an eShift projector there should be some comfort in getting one from a company that understands that adding eShift no longer has just the requirements of the native resolution for glass (or plastic) elements.

Rod said that somebody told him the same thing many people here have been telling me - that since the native resolution is all that passes through the lens at one time, that is all the lens requirements are for. He said that he had to set this person straight, since that position is false.

As Rod told me, the eShift projector is displaying details that are smaller than a native pixel and so the requirements (where we talked about how "requirements" is like 4K chips requiring better elements than 2K at the chip size even though nobody is forced to provide better elements) for the lenses and prisms are higher.

I wonder if Dave Harper will ever admit that he has been claiming that the temporal separation between the eShift sub-frames means that the lens requirements are the same as the native resolution, even after Dave's expert told him that the temporal separation basically doesn't matter.

I don't know Dave's expert, and he might be a great guy and be great at answering questions about lenses that don't require him to think outside the box, but from his answers that have been provided here, I think it is clear that he isn't in Rod Sterling's league as far as figuring out the subject matter of this thread.

--Darin

Last edited by darinp; 09-07-2017 at 06:46 PM.
darinp is offline  
post #1301 of 1307 Old 09-07-2017, 11:07 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Ericglo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Just below the US in South Florida
Posts: 11,423
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3374 Post(s)
Liked: 1836
Darin asked me to witness the conversation and I can confirm what Rod said.

IIRC Rod said he has a test pattern that will help with this.

Having fun playing the new mobile game Volley Village
Ericglo is offline  
post #1302 of 1307 Old 09-10-2017, 09:30 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
darinp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,735
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 543 Post(s)
Liked: 749
This thread has become one of the most ridiculous on the forum because of the misinformation that some people posted in the thread over and over, IMO.

As an example of how ridiculous things have gotten on this forum and how much ignorance has prevailed much more than I think it should, on August 1st Highjinx seemed to claim that he would trust Rod Sterling's position, but now doesn't. Rod is one of the world's top experts on eShift.

Here is what Highjinx said on August 1st:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post
Please get Rod Sterling to clear this up.
Now that I asked Rod Sterling in person (with another person there to make sure I represented Rod's position correctly) Highjinx has made it clear that we should believe Highjinx's position and completely discount what Rod Sterling said on the subject matter.

Dave Harper was acting like we couldn't figure this stuff on our own and needed to go find an expert. There is no comparison between his "expert" and Rod Sterling, IMO. Dave's expert didn't even know what eShift was and contradicted himself trying to figure the subject matter out, although he did at least figure out that the temporal separation between the sub-frames doesn't really matter (while Dave continues to claim that it does).

Now that Rod Sterling has weighed in on the subject matter I wonder if Dave will just leave his misinformation in this thread (which is what a dishonest person would likely do), will admit that he was wrong, or will be like Highjinx and try to convince us that we shouldn't trust Rod Sterling on the subject matter of eShift and lenses.

--Darin

Last edited by darinp; 09-10-2017 at 10:40 PM.
darinp is offline  
post #1303 of 1307 Old 09-11-2017, 10:52 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 7,861
Mentioned: 140 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3552 Post(s)
Liked: 2735
@darinp , your efforts to get to the truth will be greatly appreciated by all those who actually wanted to get to the truth as opposed to anyone playing forum debate games. When a doubter tells you to check with Rod Sterling to clear this up and then says Rod Sterling doesn't know what he's talking about when he doesn't verify their alternate reality it's game over.
Dave in Green is online now  
post #1304 of 1307 Old 09-11-2017, 07:28 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
darinp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,735
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 543 Post(s)
Liked: 749
Thanks Dave In Green.

One other thing for those who have continued the nonsense claim that if a manufacturer uses the same lens in 2 different models with different resolutions (like 1080p vs 1080p+eShift) this then proves that the lens requirements are identical (as if a manufacturer popping a 4K chip in a 2K projector and using the same lens model would prove that 2K and 4K have identical lens requirements), it isn't just the lens model that matters.

Lens and prism tolerances can be changed some without changing the actual models. Just like manufacturers can hand pick parts with tighter tolerances, they can tighten their tolerances for parts going into a projector and reject parts that fall outside these tolerances. Whatever the change in resolution (where eShift is a change in the resolution presented to human vision no matter how many people want to believe it isn't), a manufacturer could put some people on tightening up the requirements for some things in the light path, and this doesn't always require a whole new part.

I recall one manufacturer where I got to see a preproduction version of their projector. After pointing some stuff out they went back and changed the lens position just slightly (I think using spacers to get it slightly further from the imaging chip). So, no change in lens model, but a change to how sharp the pixels were because of a slight change in the light path.

--Darin
darinp is offline  
post #1305 of 1307 Old 09-18-2017, 11:51 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
darinp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,735
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 543 Post(s)
Liked: 749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Harper View Post
I'm actually known as one the most honest people with the utmost of integrity amongst those that know me personally ...
Dave,

You told me here how honest you are, yet you have spread your misinformation to multiple threads and conveniently left your misinformation on 2 different forums here. You've done that while ignoring the input from Rod Sterling, who should be considered one of the world's top authorities on eShift, being chief engineer for JVC, and for those who have experience with him, one of the most trustworthy guys in the industry. Your "expert" didn't even know what eShift was and couldn't keep his story straight about whether it really matters whether the 2 eShift sub-frames go through the lens at the same time or not.

For my:
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp View Post


Quote:
With totally incoherent light do A, B, and C all have the same lens requirements:

A: One 2.7k image.
B: Two different 2.7k images with half pixel offset and going through the lens at different times.
C: Two different 2.7k images with half pixel offset and going through the lens at the same time.
D. One 4k image.
On July 23rd, you posted that your expert said:

"A and B have the same lens requirements"

and

"A C where the pixels are actually superimposed to be a single image with a higher resolution would require a better lens"

That is despite the fact that earlier this same expert said:

"But they could pass through at the same time so long as the light was perfectly incoherent"

and you also said that for my A, B, C scenario your expert said that all 3 had the same lens requirements:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Harper View Post
In fact, I have posted what he said, that A=B=C ...
Which is it? Is his position that B and C in my example have different lens requirements, or the same lens requirements? You tell us how much of an expert your guy is, yet he can't even keep his story straight.

Instead of telling me what a stand up and honest person you are, how about actually proving it by addressing Rod Sterling's input and if you want to claim that Rod doesn't know what he is talking about, why we should trust your guy when he can't even figure out whether it really matters whether the 2 sub-frames go through the lens at the same time or not.

If you and your expert actually understood this subject matter you wouldn't need to claim both that B does not equal C and that B equals C.

If your expert heard Rod Sterling's position that B does have higher lens requirements than A, and Rod's professional position with JVC, I bet your expert would say that he hadn't really been sure about A vs B and he would defer to Rod. That doesn't mean you will be enough of a stand up guy to admit that Rod is right and your own expert was so unsure of his own beliefs that he clearly contradicted himself and needed to try to get his mentor's views (who probably also had never heard of eShift).

I can't recall the last time anybody posted misinformation as many times on the AVS forum as you have with regard to this subject matter. Just leaving that misinformation on every thread you infected is not the right thing to do. Will you do the right thing in this case, or will you leave your posts with misinformation as is, so more people will be misled?

--Darin
darinp is offline  
post #1306 of 1307 Old 09-26-2017, 05:45 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
Moderator
 
rboster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 24,729
Mentioned: 56 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1588 Post(s)
Liked: 2163
Both of you need to stop it. One more post attacking one or the other will be deleted. Suspension issued and banned from posting in the thread.
Dave Harper likes this.
rboster is online now  
post #1307 of 1307 Old 10-03-2017, 03:53 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Javs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 7,837
Mentioned: 475 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6779 Post(s)
Liked: 6395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Harper View Post
As we see, Javs had it most correct that higher MTF is always better, which no one including myself disagreed with.

I'm out. I've said my piece.
Yep, I even said multiple times that as a result of that at the end of the day everybody agrees!

EDIT - To add to this... To cement my position and try and make some sense out of this thread.

Higher MTF is always better.

I have always been saying in that MTF is always able to be improved and improvements will always be there unto infinity, and the JVC email seems to show they are of the same opinion.

I am not going to add to this thread anymore, people have become fixated on what is defined as minimum requirements as usual. You know my position, its clear if you read through the whole thread, its closer to Darin's technically than it is to Daves, you have all seen the graphics I posted showing that even a lens which is good enough for 2k to clearly delinieate the pixels and show the inter-pixel gaps, then is 'legally' also good enough to resolve an 8k line pair. That renders the whole argument moot since nobody can agree on what the minimum was in the first place.

The bolded above is critical to this whole debate, if everybody was forced to discuss the hypotheticals purely based on legal minimum MTF definition, which is, a line pair blurry as it is, still a line pair, then everyone is in agreement by default, believe me!

I say the minimum is to resolve a single line pair, Dave's personal defintion relating to this particular discussion says the minimum is to clearly resolve the inter-pixel gaps (WAY beyond the real minimum)...

That is why Dave was saying I was on the right track all along, because I kept coming back to this same fact. Nobody is defining the true minimum to base our discussion off, except me actually! I have been defining it since the word go!

Even Highjinx was saying he sees it as a lens that can clearly resolve the hard edges and clear interpixel gaps on individual pixels! This is SO far beyond the minimum 2k MTF requirements its pointless to discuss really. The simple fact that each of them defined it as resolving a single pixel clearly as a baseline for 2k then they have inadvertantly agreed on an MTF so high it shoots way past e-shift and 4k to boot.

Does everybody agree that to resovle 2k resolution, technically, the only thing you have to resolve is a line pair and not a pixel, nor its interpixel gaps?

If you do believe that, and we had a lens sitting at the bare minimum, then NOTHING past that is possible, not e-shift, not 4k, nor 8k since they are all require (NO matter the time inolved created real or brain constructed detail past its original state) line pair density higher than that of 2k.

If you have a lens showing a 2k pixel which has a well defined hard edge, and we are looking at a line pair which is sharp and we can see all the interpixel gaps, then we are looking actually at the minimum MTF requirements for something like 8 or 16k.



Even a bad lens as per below, which essentially blurs the inter-pixel gaps, is legally able to show 8k line pairs...



As for the original question about moments in time, I was confused initially in the first couple pages of the discussion. But its clear to those who read this thread through that things are not so simple. JVC's email actually seems to back this up too. If you look at my youtube videos and read/ingest all my graphics supporting the conversation it will indicate that despite at any one moment in time, you may only have one set of pixels passing through the lens, the 'focus point' of those pixels is no longer 1:1 size, its actually quarter size since we are constructing new pixels from them, thus a higher MTF (Higher than WHAT though? Minimum legal MTF?? OF COURSE!! - This is where we ALL agree by default if you think hard about it, and really pay attention to the two graphics above) will always result in a more detailed image.
Dave Harper likes this.

JVC X9500 (RS620) | 120" 16:9 | Marantz AV7702 MkII | Emotiva XPA-7 | DIY Modular Towers | DIY TPL-150 Surrounds | DIY Atmos | DIY 18" Subs
-
MadVR Settings | UHD Waveform Analysis | Arve Tool Instructions + V3 Javs Curves

Last edited by Javs; 10-04-2017 at 02:07 PM.
Javs is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off