AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,137 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I run my PJ without anamorphic squeeze, but at a 16:9 screen since I

only watch wide material. (just back-story)


Now that we are close to HD formats, and WM9 is already here I have

the urge to find a high res. for future proofing once and for all. Wouldn't

1440x1080 be superb for a BG808?


Thanks,


Nicholas
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
838 Posts
I tried to keep my BG808s close to a 1:1 aspect ratio. I recently created 1280x720 and 1440x768 modes, and they seem to work pretty well on a 16x9 screen. I have not had a full calibration done by a professional, but my initial rough calibration suggests that this will be quite sharp.


I think 1440 horizontal should be fine, but I have my doubts as to whether you can squeeze 1080 lines vertically onto a 16x9 screen without overlapping. You may also be pushing your scan rate with such a high vertical resolution.


- Chris
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,800 Posts
OK, stupid question. But what does running the projector with "anamorphic squeeze" really mean? I know what anamorphic DVD's are very well but is this basically when I size the raster to a 16:9 screen? Or is there something else I am missing? Brian
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,646 Posts
Either you run a 4:3 or a 16:9 resulotion. When you are not telling us definitively how many active lines you have inside the 16:9 frame you cant expect much help. The way you put it made it a bit confusing to me.


Per Johnny
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,606 Posts
Based on another (very long) thread, Nich is using a 4:3 desktop image from his computer, and a 4:3 raster on the projector. His DVD player software generates a 16:9 image within the 4:3 desktop to create a 16:9 image on screen. (Basically 16:9 letterboxed in a 4:3 display.) His screen itself is 16:9, so he's washing above and below his screen with the 4:3 image if the DVD player program doesn't letterbox.


3000 horizontal would be fine. :) The question is the 1080 lines. My guess is Nich is going to run 1080 lines in a normal 4:3 raster (no vertical squeeze at the projector). If this is true, 1080 lines is pushing the limit of the projector's resolving ability. 1080 vertically squeezed is far too much.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
238 Posts
Spearce,

have you got around to trying higher than 1280x720 on your bd808 yet?

Or are you still a lazy member?


regards

Steve
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,606 Posts
Nope Steve, too lazy. Still at 1280x720. :)


I'm getting my rockets Friday. Must get them setup. When I do, I'll most likely have to do a resetup of the Barco, and may try then.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
838 Posts
Ahh, now I understand his reference to "anamorphic squeeze." He's projecting a 4x3 raster onto a 16x9 screen. The disadvantage of this is that you needlessly push your scan rate higher than you need, by wasting trace time on parts of the phosphor that will not be utilized.


Nich, would you consider vertically squeezing your raster to a 16x9 aspect ratio? There are lots of benefits to this, including a sharper picture at the same refresh rate and resolution, or the ability to run higher resolutions and refresh rates than you otherwise could.


- Chris
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,137 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Chris, I'm too drunk now, but I'll find the link in morning about

squeeze/nonsqueeze. Hope you don't mind the wait.


Nich
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
I had a hard time figuring out what squeeze was. I figured it out after playing with settings a bit. The max resolution of your projector is 1600x1200 at 4:3. This means there are 1200 lines vertically using most of the phosphor.


1440x1080 is a 4:3 resolution. You would not normally squeeze this resolution because for a a square to look like a square(not rectangle) on the screen you would set your projected image to show a 4:3 image. I don't think there is a standard resolution for 16:9 at 1440 pixels wide, it would be 1440x810. If you were to set ths resolution it would show up on the pj at 4:3. This would mean that a square would be "taller" than it should be on the screen. So you would "squeeze" Vsize to get it to look like a square again. In reality you are using only part of the phosphor to display the 810 lines which means the phosphor is really being "driven" at 1080 lines. A "lines per inch of phosphor" value would make this much easier to explain, than just using lines and aspect ratio. Try the above on your PC monitor if you can set something like 1280x720. It will look strange until you adjust Vsize so a square looks like a square.


I do understand that there are some players that will display an anamorphic image(the tall square) on a regular 4:3 resolution. If your try squeezing this then your desktop will be squeezed(wide square) but your movies would look normal, or some of them anyway. And you would very easily exceed the lines per inch of phosphor.


This is the way I undesrtand it. Any comments?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
The max resolution of BG808 quoted in tech specs (1600x1200) refers to maximum scan frequency that the projector can accept. Sure it will show this signal but it doesn't mean that it will fully resolve 1200 lines. My own experiments with this projector suggest that it has (as most other 8" with non LC optics) a sweet spot around 720p (with anamorphic vertical squeeze). Pushing it beyond this will result in scan line overlapping and picture softening as a result. I've seen it slightly improved beyond 720 with exceptionally good setup (a very tight beam - one that I could never achieve in my own setup ;-) I suspect there was some RGB input board tweaking involved) but I still doubt it was good enough to resolve 1080p. For that I guess you need a very good 9 incher ;-)


Just my opinion

Cheers,

Richard
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,137 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
But if you use 720 with squeezed raster, wouldn't that equal over

1000 lines if I don't use squeeze? If I can run with 720 squeezed to

16:9, then I should be able to run 1080 in 4:3. That sounds logic.


Nich
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,646 Posts
720 lines in 16:9 equals 960 in 4:3 setup. If you run 1080p in 4:3 you are pushing the limits, and your beam spot and crt condition must be top notch to approach resolving that resolution.


Per Johnny
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,137 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Hmm...Ok. But you can understand why I want higher res. now

that T2 in WM9 is coming in July, right? Might as well be ready

for HD movies.


Nich
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,646 Posts
The 808 will do 1080i nicely, but it will certainly not resolve 1080p. Which format will T2 in WM9 be? Just remember that the source material isn't that sharp in the first place. The Dtheater version of T2 is the least sharp-looking.


Per Johnny
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
249 Posts
I have been watching a lot of HD demo's lately, I run them at 1280x1024 @72 hz, this is a nice 4:3 resolution that my PJ handle's very well. I tried running at 1600x1200, but it's more fuzzy. this resolution gives me 768 lines in the 16:9 area, Perfect for 720p. Even the Dvico demo's at (I think) 1080p looks very good at this rez, and gives me the sharpest picture I have ever seen.


I still go back to XGA for DVD's though.


Frode
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top