DLP contrast worse than 5 years ago? - Page 24 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 307Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #691 of 707 Old 09-02-2019, 07:50 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Aztar35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 3,059
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2447 Post(s)
Liked: 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Garrett View Post
Let's put your only dynamic contrast matters to a simple test. Let's say you have two laser projectors. Both projectors are identical in cost, brightness, sharpness, motion handling and color space. Both track gamma identically and both have the same HDR tone mapping capability. Projector number one has 1,000:1 native and ∞:1 dynamic. Projector two has 1,000,000:1 native and 1,500,000:1 dynamic. ∞:1 compared to 1,500,000:1 is a huge difference. Which projector are you going to pick for your room?
Well....now that's an extreme example. I think the real question is at what point on the ADL scale does dimming begin to activate, whereby the difference between the higher native contrast machine and the higher dynamic contrast machine becomes relatively small. We have to keep in mind that laser dimming has benefits over lamp-based DIs.

Take the Optoma UHZ65 laser projector; it has a native contrast of a little over 1,000:1 but I measured a dynamic contrast of over 30,000:1 on the one I had a while ago in its mid-range dimming mode called DB2. The Runco LS-5, which has a .95 chip, is spec'd at having 3,000:1 native contrast (I measured it at 2,300:1 on my sample). For fun, I ran the two projectors for scenes in the lower ADL range (perhaps you can test the UHZ on scenes between 2% and 5%), and the Optoma with its laser gave the impression of better contrast and better dynamic range than did the LS-5. Go figure.
jpbonadio likes this.
Aztar35 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #692 of 707 Old 09-02-2019, 09:18 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 26,241
Mentioned: 238 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12324 Post(s)
Liked: 9944
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aztar35 View Post
Well....now that's an extreme example. I think the real question is at what point on the ADL scale does dimming begin to activate, whereby the difference between the higher native contrast machine and the higher dynamic contrast machine becomes relatively small. We have to keep in mind that laser dimming has benefits over lamp-based DIs.

Take the Optoma UHZ65 laser projector; it has a native contrast of a little over 1,000:1 but I measured a dynamic contrast of over 30,000:1 on the one I had a while ago in its mid-range dimming mode called DB2. The Runco LS-5, which has a .95 chip, is spec'd at having 3,000:1 native contrast (I measured it at 2,300:1 on my sample). For fun, I ran the two projectors for scenes in the lower ADL range (perhaps you can test the UHZ on scenes between 2% and 5%), and the Optoma with its laser gave the impression of better contrast and better dynamic range than did the LS-5. Go figure.
Yes, it was an extreme example, but it proves the point that it is not all about dynamic contrast. Your question about at which ADL point is not a set in stone point. Take for example the RS4500. It has an excellent dimming system, but you still see artifacts when set to auto 2 dimming and auto 2 dimming is where you get full fade to black. These artifacts are pretty bad, as in I have seen text and some of the image almost completely disappear. But still most people use auto 2, because it makes such an improvement 99% of the time.
Aztar35 likes this.
Mike Garrett is online now  
post #693 of 707 Old 09-02-2019, 08:56 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Ericglo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Just below the US in South Florida
Posts: 11,693
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3530 Post(s)
Liked: 1956
I think Darin once said it was like jumping off the second or third step of a staircase to the floor.

Having fun playing the new mobile game Volley Village
Ericglo is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #694 of 707 Old 09-02-2019, 11:22 PM
Senior Member
 
blake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Posts: 233
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 188 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in Green View Post
I'm open to the possibility that laser could improve the contrast performance of DLP beyond typical UHP lamp numbers. We just need more data to confirm how great such an improvement might be. While I wouldn't totally dismiss a single source with an established reputation like Kraine, given the variability of individual testing the more data from more reliable sources the more reliable the results.


Look at the contrast of Barco and Christie laser units that use single chip DLP. Their contrast is much improved. Mind you the units cost $25k and up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
blake is online now  
post #695 of 707 Old 09-03-2019, 02:32 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Frank714's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Berlin
Posts: 1,493
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 966 Post(s)
Liked: 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in Green View Post
I'm open to the possibility that laser could improve the contrast performance of DLP beyond typical UHP lamp numbers.

The way I read a couple of recent posts that appears to be the case - and rather considerable, IMHO.


But first things, first. On behalf of Kraine I wouldn't discount the possibility that the quoted Chinese Xiaomi UST projectors perform dynamic laser dimming out-of-the-box, mistaken as "native" contrast, especially since the "dynamic mode" didn't yield a noticably better contrast.


It has been suggested that I missed tons of discussions concerning DLP laser which is correct. Given the limited lens shift range of the Optoma UHZ 65 and the extra cost of laser, I wasn't interested at first.


AFAIK there is no devoted thread here at the AVS (or elsewhere) that discusses the apparently crucial difference between dynamic bulb dimming and dynamic laser dimming.


Instead we have this thread that correctly emphasizes how much native DMD contrast has deteriorated in the past years, but just now (?) also talks about technical evolutions to overcome this particular problem thanks to laser technology.


Why should I care about native DMD contrast when dynamic laser operation in my everyday use will yield better contrast levels and no disturbing operation hickups?


Do I care that the 4K DLP images are the result of XPR pixel shifting? If the objective result gets very close to the native 4K of other projector manufacturers I'd say no.


We might just as well discuss what a horrible, cheating technology DLP is - projection images aren't created simultaneously but sequentially.



"It is only about things that do not interest one that one can give a really unbiased opinion, which is no doubt the reason why an unbiased opinion is always absolutely valueless." Oscar Wilde
Frank714 is offline  
post #696 of 707 Old 09-03-2019, 06:39 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 26,241
Mentioned: 238 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12324 Post(s)
Liked: 9944
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank714 View Post
The way I read a couple of recent posts that appears to be the case - and rather considerable, IMHO.


But first things, first. On behalf of Kraine I wouldn't discount the possibility that the quoted Chinese Xiaomi UST projectors perform dynamic laser dimming out-of-the-box, mistaken as "native" contrast, especially since the "dynamic mode" didn't yield a noticably better contrast.


It has been suggested that I missed tons of discussions concerning DLP laser which is correct. Given the limited lens shift range of the Optoma UHZ 65 and the extra cost of laser, I wasn't interested at first.


AFAIK there is no devoted thread here at the AVS (or elsewhere) that discusses the apparently crucial difference between dynamic bulb dimming and dynamic laser dimming.


Instead we have this thread that correctly emphasizes how much native DMD contrast has deteriorated in the past years, but just now (?) also talks about technical evolutions to overcome this particular problem thanks to laser technology.


Why should I care about native DMD contrast when dynamic laser operation in my everyday use will yield better contrast levels and no disturbing operation hickups?


Do I care that the 4K DLP images are the result of XPR pixel shifting? If the objective result gets very close to the native 4K of other projector manufacturers I'd say no.


We might just as well discuss what a horrible, cheating technology DLP is - projection images aren't created simultaneously but sequentially.


The problem with this train of thought is: you can't have 1,000:1 native and expect dynamic contrast to make up the difference and not have some artifacts, if you expect good dimming. As the old saying goes, you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. You have the same problem with projectors that have much higher native contrast than 1,000:1. The Epson LS series, which had good laser dimming systems had this problem also. With them, the biggest issue was when the projector came out of full fade to black to its black floor with a pixel lit. It was too big of a jump. It was not a smooth transition.
Mike Garrett is online now  
post #697 of 707 Old 09-03-2019, 07:20 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 8,232
Mentioned: 150 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3732 Post(s)
Liked: 2962
It's good that the conversation is differentiating between the various types of contrast as that helps clear up confusion and misunderstanding that usually develops when discussing projector contrast in general. I can see where laser has a dynamic contrast advantage over UHP lamp but I'm not clear if there's any scientific reason why laser would have any noticeable native contrast advantage. If anyone has any technical reasoning for this I'd be interested.

I've always thought of dynamic contrast as a crutch to help at least partially compensate for lack of native contrast. It seems to me that a projector with optimum native contrast wouldn't benefit from adding dynamic contrast. That is, if a projector could be operated with its light source at 100% while simultaneously being able to produce perfect whites and blacks then adding dynamic dimming would only produce negative visual side effects.

To me this all adds up to why projector technologies that produce the best native contrast are often held up as the holy grail and that projector technologies with the worst native contrast benefit the most from various dynamic contrast solutions. But even though native contrast remains a continuing weakness of DLP, that technology continues to have enthusiastic fans who vigorously defend its overall performance. Science aside, it's what we see with our own eyes that matters most to us. So it seems that DLP enthusiasts are OK with what their eyes are telling them about DLP contrast in general as a component of DLP's overall performance.
Frank714 likes this.
Dave in Green is online now  
post #698 of 707 Old 09-03-2019, 07:42 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Frank714's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Berlin
Posts: 1,493
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 966 Post(s)
Liked: 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in Green View Post
It's good that the conversation is differentiating between the various types of contrast as that helps clear up confusion and misunderstanding that usually develops when discussing projector contrast in general. I can see where laser has a dynamic contrast advantage over UHP lamp but I'm not clear if there's any scientific reason why laser would have any noticeable native contrast advantage. If anyone has any technical reasoning for this I'd be interested.

Same here. In hindsight I'm somewhat positively surprised about the Optoma UHZ 65 dynamic contrast figures (I guess I dropped out of that thread way too soon ).


From what I was able to research today it looks as if dynamic laser dimming improves native contrast by a factor of x3 (up to x8).


If this formula is correct it goes without saying that the 0.66" DMD with its better native contrast (1,100:1) can achieve 3,300:1 (and perhaps more), but the 0.47" DMDs with a native contrast of only around 500:1 will not exceed much more than 1,500:1 which remains rather underwhelming.

"It is only about things that do not interest one that one can give a really unbiased opinion, which is no doubt the reason why an unbiased opinion is always absolutely valueless." Oscar Wilde
Frank714 is offline  
post #699 of 707 Old 09-03-2019, 07:47 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 26,241
Mentioned: 238 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12324 Post(s)
Liked: 9944
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank714 View Post
Same here. In hindsight I'm somewhat positively surprised about the Optoma UHZ 65 dynamic contrast figures (I guess I dropped out of that thread way too soon ).


From what I was able to research today it looks as if dynamic laser dimming improves native contrast by a factor of x3 (up to x8).


If this formula is correct it goes without saying that the 0.66" DMD with its better native contrast (1,100:1) can achieve 3,300:1 (and perhaps more), but the 0.47" DMDs with a native contrast of only around 500:1 will not exceed much more than 1,500:1 which remains rather underwhelming.
Laser is a light source, just like a lamp is a light source. Going to laser does not improve native contrast. I think you mean improves dynamic contrast?
Mike Garrett is online now  
post #700 of 707 Old 09-03-2019, 07:51 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Frank714's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Berlin
Posts: 1,493
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 966 Post(s)
Liked: 425
That is correct.


"dynamic contrast" which exceeds "native contrast".

"It is only about things that do not interest one that one can give a really unbiased opinion, which is no doubt the reason why an unbiased opinion is always absolutely valueless." Oscar Wilde
Frank714 is offline  
post #701 of 707 Old 09-03-2019, 08:03 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 8,232
Mentioned: 150 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3732 Post(s)
Liked: 2962
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank714 View Post
That is correct.


"dynamic contrast" which exceeds "native contrast".
Dynamic contrast certainly exceeds native contrast in terms of visual artifacts.
Dave in Green is online now  
post #702 of 707 Old 09-03-2019, 09:42 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
fleaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,000
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 232 Post(s)
Liked: 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Garrett View Post
Let's put your only dynamic contrast matters to a simple test. Let's say you have two laser projectors. Both projectors are identical in cost, brightness, sharpness, motion handling and color space. Both track gamma identically and both have the same HDR tone mapping capability. Projector number one has 1,000:1 native and ∞:1 dynamic. Projector two has 1,000,000:1 native and 1,500,000:1 dynamic. ∞:1 compared to 1,500,000:1 is a huge difference. Which projector are you going to pick for your room?
Frank714 (nor anyone else) answered this hypothetical, but the answer is obviously the '1,000,000:1 native and 1,500,000:1 dynamic' PJ is superior.

That being said, since they are both laser PJ's, the '1,000,000:1 native and 1,500,000:1 dynamic' could also have a 'turn off laser' mode/setting which would make it ∞:1 dynamic, at a much much finer step than the 1000:1 native laser PJ.
fleaman is offline  
post #703 of 707 Old 09-07-2019, 07:39 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,793
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2110 Post(s)
Liked: 1061
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in Green View Post
It's good that the conversation is differentiating between the various types of contrast as that helps clear up confusion and misunderstanding that usually develops when discussing projector contrast in general. I can see where laser has a dynamic contrast advantage over UHP lamp but I'm not clear if there's any scientific reason why laser would have any noticeable native contrast advantage. If anyone has any technical reasoning for this I'd be interested.

I've always thought of dynamic contrast as a crutch to help at least partially compensate for lack of native contrast. It seems to me that a projector with optimum native contrast wouldn't benefit from adding dynamic contrast. That is, if a projector could be operated with its light source at 100% while simultaneously being able to produce perfect whites and blacks then adding dynamic dimming would only produce negative visual side effects.

To me this all adds up to why projector technologies that produce the best native contrast are often held up as the holy grail and that projector technologies with the worst native contrast benefit the most from various dynamic contrast solutions. But even though native contrast remains a continuing weakness of DLP, that technology continues to have enthusiastic fans who vigorously defend its overall performance. Science aside, it's what we see with our own eyes that matters most to us. So it seems that DLP enthusiasts are OK with what their eyes are telling them about DLP contrast in general as a component of DLP's overall performance.
This is true at least in my case. By the way I’m still living happily back in time with my 1080p .66 DLP waiting around for the next best thing of the next best thing to convince me to advance again.

My eyes have active irises and limited abilities to discern much CR instantaneously maybe 500:1 at any instants and 1,000,000:1 if I throw in the iris factor/time.

So 99% of the contrast I view is perceptual contrast in comparison with a brighter image and my irises stopped down and when the movie fades to black or the credits roll I get a feel for how poor of a black I’m actually watching. The .66 Dark Chip 3 in a total light control room with very dark colors and a dark ND screen is good enough for those dark nighttime images. It’s not HDR and only 709 color space but rewarding enough to watch, and with returning FL in the 25FL range highlights in SDR really pop.

I hope they figure out what is needed with the smaller DLP chip and all the rest to improve real CR, but as you mentioned I read completely different reviews from casual users like myself as to PQ on these projectors than what I read from people studying CR of these machines. For most what their eyes tell them is good enough.

I keep thinking about making a test/tester that measures perceived contrast.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #704 of 707 Old 09-07-2019, 03:53 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 26,241
Mentioned: 238 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12324 Post(s)
Liked: 9944
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
This is true at least in my case. By the way I’m still living happily back in time with my 1080p .66 DLP waiting around for the next best thing of the next best thing to convince me to advance again.

My eyes have active irises and limited abilities to discern much CR instantaneously maybe 500:1 at any instants and 1,000,000:1 if I throw in the iris factor/time.

So 99% of the contrast I view is perceptual contrast in comparison with a brighter image and my irises stopped down and when the movie fades to black or the credits roll I get a feel for how poor of a black I’m actually watching. The .66 Dark Chip 3 in a total light control room with very dark colors and a dark ND screen is good enough for those dark nighttime images. It’s not HDR and only 709 color space but rewarding enough to watch, and with returning FL in the 25FL range highlights in SDR really pop.

I hope they figure out what is needed with the smaller DLP chip and all the rest to improve real CR, but as you mentioned I read completely different reviews from casual users like myself as to PQ on these projectors than what I read from people studying CR of these machines. For most what their eyes tell them is good enough.

I keep thinking about making a test/tester that measures perceived contrast.
The ones that say it is not good enough have bat caves and are comparing side by side with high native contrast projectors. So they can see what they are missing.
Mike Garrett is online now  
post #705 of 707 Old 09-08-2019, 03:56 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,793
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2110 Post(s)
Liked: 1061
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Garrett View Post
The ones that say it is not good enough have bat caves and are comparing side by side with high native contrast projectors. So they can see what they are missing.
Ignorance is bliss. I truly believe that in many cases.

My nephew and I once set up an A/B speaker cable test for a few of his high end audio buddies, comparing some $4/foot speaker wire against #12 romex wire.

The results were entertaining to say the least but nothing changed with their desire to want the premium speaker wire.

I’m actually glad most of the times I like to stay a safe distance behind the leading edge of technology yet still follow it as if I was participating. Like you said without a comparison it keeps me happy not knowing what I’m missing.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #706 of 707 Old 09-08-2019, 05:32 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Mike Garrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 26,241
Mentioned: 238 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12324 Post(s)
Liked: 9944
Send a message via Skype™ to Mike Garrett
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
Ignorance is bliss. I truly believe that in many cases.

My nephew and I once set up an A/B speaker cable test for a few of his high end audio buddies, comparing some $4/foot speaker wire against #12 romex wire.

The results were entertaining to say the least but nothing changed with their desire to want the premium speaker wire.

I’m actually glad most of the times I like to stay a safe distance behind the leading edge of technology yet still follow it as if I was participating. Like you said without a comparison it keeps me happy not knowing what I’m missing.
That is very true. Many years ago, I had a solid screen and my center channel was below my screen. I thought my audio was very good this way. As an experiment, I tested using three identical speakers, all at the same height. So the center channel was vertical and up in the screen area, with all three tweeters at ear level. I noticed immediately the improvement in sound pans across the screen. Also I thought the audio was tied to the screen better. When I put my center channel back down below the screen, I really noticed the difference. At that point, I felt like I had no choice but go to an AT screen. If I had not done that experiment, I would have just continued on my merry way and been happy, ignorant of the difference.
Mike Garrett is online now  
post #707 of 707 Old 09-08-2019, 05:57 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,793
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2110 Post(s)
Liked: 1061
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Garrett View Post
That is very true. Many years ago, I had a solid screen and my center channel was below my screen. I thought my audio was very good this way. As an experiment, I tested using three identical speakers, all at the same height. So the center channel was vertical and up in the screen area, with all three tweeters at ear level. I noticed immediately the improvement in sound pans across the screen. Also I thought the audio was tied to the screen better. When I put my center channel back down below the screen, I really noticed the difference. At that point, I felt like I had no choice but go to an AT screen. If I had not done that experiment, I would have just continued on my merry way and been happy, ignorant of the difference.
Haha so true. I have always had my RL mains centered at ear level and although my center is a fairly good match with them it is not the same and like your old setup sits below angled up. I didn’t notice much of a problem and my nephew was over and suggested I try the phantom center setting on the AVR. It sounds perfect and tracks perfect as long as I’m in the center seat or close to it. 90% of the time it stays on phantom now and I switch it back for company and they don’t know the difference even if I left it on phantom or set it to mono.

Years ago when I started my goal was to have as good of PQ as a commercial theater. I met that goal within the first month of starting up a HT. Even though commercial theaters have got better in some areas they for the most part have went downhill IMO overall at least the run of the mill mall theaters. That was an easy goal to hit. Perfection is a much tougher goal. I think it is easy to get to 90% of perfection now and 95% within most peoples range. It is the guy that is at 98.5% and striving to get to 99% that’s working hard at it. No different than golf a 20 handicapper can shave it down to 18 with a little practice a zero trying to be a –2 will work years at it.
humbland and Mike Garrett like this.

Bud
bud16415 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