AVS Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,112 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
What does everyone think about this...

http://www.techtv.com/holiday/story/...400468,00.html


Some highlights:


"Pixel for pixel DLP is the most-advanced display technology money can buy."


"With today's second-generation chip resolutions reaching 1280x848 there isn't much competition for DLP in the projection market."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,606 Posts
Well, since CRTs don't have pixels, they can't compete with DLP on a pixel for pixel basis. Therefore, when comparing DLP to LCD, which both have pixels, DLP is the best money can buy.


Sounds like they just forgot about CRTs.


Besides, how much stock should we put into an article that says "Think of your whole living room wall as one big movie image.". Isn't this kind of the point of home theater?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,112 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
CRTs not having pixels is a technicality. Pixel = picture element. An area of picture elements consitutes resolution, as in 2500x2000 on, say, a Sony VPH-G90Q CRT projector. Home theater as in "theater" at home. Does 35mm have pixels as a digital projector does? Nope. Does 35mm smoke DLP? Yep. Does it smoke CRT? Yep. The point is that TechTV didn't do their research. Makes me wonder how many other articles lack research. I know it's just a reflection of the current projector market, for which CRT is currently only a blip on the radar. However, it would have been nice to hear a mention of the king of home theater. And I say "king" without bias. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,606 Posts
I don't think a lot of mainstream press concerns itself with that detail of background in a story. Takes too long to do the research, understand the issue(s) and write a fair article.


Especially when the outcome of the article (show how great current DLP technology is) was known before the research really began.


I avoid mainstream media like TechTV, cnet, etc for exactly this reason. Consequently, I'm an uniformed (stupid) America. :D Who happens to own (and love) a CRT projector.


Alan Gouger had a thread in the Ultra-High End forum not to long ago about how cheap 35mm projectors are used, even with a proper anamorph lens. The problem is getting a movie on film platters, and then having a platter system to switch reels during the movie so you don't have to get up every 20 minutes...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
243 Posts
Anyone know what the equivelent resolution of 35mm is based on the limit of the film grain? I assume its very high, but of course it also gets blown up several X larger than a HT screen. Just curious at what point does the reproduction technology surpass the resolution of the original source material. Since so much flim is now handled digitally in its intermediate stages, anyone know what resolution they scan and print the 35mm at?


Rob
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
609 Posts
The Nikon LS-1000 Super Coolscan 35mm Film Scanner scans at 3888 x 2592. a commercial / industrial scanner might go higher, but this one supposedly preserves film grain in the image so it might be effectively high enough.


for making prints the article I found said this exceeded the "resolution" of most photographic paper, although I don't know if that means anything in terms of making movie film prints from digital sources.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
251 Posts
There was an advert in our local paper's AV supplement yesterday ("The Green Guide", for those who are curious). It was an ad for a DLP projector, and it said (in total):


.....So you measure the size of your big screen in inches?


.....*How cute.*


I was amazed at the impact. Advertising at its best, though of course it does not directly help the CRT camp. :)


- David Eddy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
85 Posts
From my bare logical (meaning: not technical) point of wiew I would say:


in order to properly capture film resolution, digital must go far below grain dimension.


This is due to a simple fact: digital pixels are always the same in shape/dimension, grain is different in shape (and dimension) in each frame, and our brain in some way "interpolate" this differences...


On top of this: our brain tend to recognize the geometrical (ad fixed) shapes of digital pixels; on the other side, the "chaos" of grain is undiscernable and, for this reason, probably ignored.


Stefno
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top