AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,769 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
After viewing some of the jvc material on their QXGA chip and Digital Cinema I started to wonder when is it too good? http://www.jvcdig.com/digital_cinema.htm


Sure It's gonna look totally breathtaking with the right source material, but there is so much junk out there to view now(for home use) won't this just be annoying for HT?


This QXGA chip, and the other improvements, are gonna make every little flaw in the source material very visable.


Is there some middle ground? Are the current SXGA devices going to be more pleasing to the masses for HT?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,225 Posts
Nope, I think this resolution would be adequate for 1080p (line doubled 1080i HDTV). By the time it hits the market, we should have scalers or PC products that could perform the line doubling task.


Then the owners of those obsolete G10/G15/G20's should upgrade and sell their old DiLA's cheap....some of us are still using LCDs!


Gary
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
I was just going to ask on a new post if anyone knows for sure if QXGA projection is going to be displayed at Infocom, and wondering what the source material was going to be.....running through what? But, this thread is a good lead for the question as well. Sorry if this has already been asked and answered elsewhere.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,027 Posts
Current projectors already have more than enough resolution to reveal "every little flaw" in NTSC material. Adding more resolution will just spread those same flaws over more pixels. I don't think this will look any worse than what we're seeing now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,141 Posts
I agree, the more pixels, the closer to CRT. ie smoother and filmlike. Real life has zillions of "pixels" (molecules etc.), but even though we can't see them individually, collectively much better realism seems acchievable with higher "resolution".


------------------

Jeff

Currently - Zenith 7" CRT, 80x60 1.3 gain screen


Soon to be - 107x60 1.3 gain...with ?Seleco 250 with Panamorph or "cheap" 9" CRT
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,525 Posts
Pixels made of molecules...now you're talkin' reality!


When you perfect that technology, make sure to let us all know before you go public!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,769 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
After reading this again I really can't believe I asked this question!?! Too good?!


So I'm gonna follow stupidity with more stupidity.


1. At what point do you see deminishing marginal returns with reducing the pixel size and the same screen door(thickness)? Or does the aperature percentage stay the same on the QXGA chips?


2. Why can't the screen door be eliminated? does there need to be an insulator of some sort between the pixels? Why???


3 BTW I'm all for molecular pixels.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
496 Posts


In the world of digital cameras, a 3.3 megapixel CCD is said to have similar resolution to 35mm film (I'd make this, then, a MINIMUM "ultimate" resolution). D-ILA's currently run about 1 megapixel. So there's still some way to go....


- Marc
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,667 Posts
My G1000 has more than enough resolution.


Give me brightness with contrast, good color and long bulb life.


------------------

Ken Elliott
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
457 Posts
When I purchased my G11 about 8 months ago, I did it sight unseen, strictly from the technology, some spotty reviews, the number of connectors http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/eek.gif , and the specs(what little I really knew about them). That was before I found this forum. Boy, did I get lucky.


As I have mentioned in other posts, at the moment I'm just driving it with a progressive scan DVD, no modifications, no calibration. And I think it looks pretty good.


Personally, I'm tickled http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/biggrin.gif every time I read about how much better this projector can look if you can send it a better signal. I have NO problem whatsoever knowing that the single most expensive piece of equipment in my Theatre, is also much better than all of my current source equipment. I like the thought of being able to upgrade my source equipment, in the range of $500-$2500, without any chance of my projector being not able to handle it.



------------------

DVI/HDCP makes your HDTV not ready
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by mblank:


In the world of digital cameras, a 3.3 megapixel CCD is said to have similar resolution to 35mm film.
Well I believe that's what the digital camera manufacturers say http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/wink.gif . I own a scanner for film and when I scan a 35mm slide I get a 6 million pixels file I'm pretty sure not to be above the film resolution.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
701 Posts
When imaging to digital film recorders using 35mm, 4k resolution is regarded as appropriate for any graphic.


That equates to 4096x2732 (3:2 aspect ratio) or 11 megapixels. So the 3.3mp CCDs have a way to go yet.


Chivs
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,225 Posts
Something leads me to believe that effective film resolution is limited at near the present video resolutions - anyway I have read many DVD reviews that mention a "grainy" look. It could mean that less than ultra fine grain film stock or less than ideal film processing result in an effective film resolution above the theoretical video resolution limit in the usual case for the usual movie. Those movies that exceed the limit could be what we consider reference DVDs today. Perhaps the next generation of projectors will make the flaws in today's reference DVDs obvious.


Gary
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,769 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Ok Gary...


...your thinking along the same lines as I originally was. Maybe I wasn't so stupid because I left out one very important factor.


How much can the human eye resolve?


It obviously depends on many factors.

1. how good your eye sight is

2. how far you are from the object

3. how many pixels in the image

4. how good is the signal or how it's processed.

etc...


But really, on my system 10' wide Dila sitting 15' from the screen with a Video based HDTV signal(1080i). I CANNOT IMAGING IT CAN GET BETTER. Sure you could go 1080p but wont that just help motion artifacts?

More pixels may not make it look any sharper... It is already so glorious! I've seen a 9' CRT and it looked good but the Crispness of the D-ILA image I thought was better. There is something magical happening, is it just the processing?


I'm thinking that more pixels will just allow you to sit closer. I'm so confused...


Quick, someone give me a QXGA projector to demo.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,225 Posts
Resolution, of course, is only one parameter, and there are others such as contrast, brightness, and color purity. 9" CRTs currently offer the blackest blacks, but they suffer from lack of brightness compared to digital projectors. Most digital projectors offer lower resolution and less contrast and grayer blacks than the best-of-breed DiLAs. Yet CRTs, DiLAs, LCDs, and DLPs all have devotees.


Some of us obsess over "the best picture" but I suspect that many projector users are satisfied with what they have and much time passes before they feel the urge to upgrade. I've been there - this time of year it's not unusual for my urge to tweek the home theater to be overcome by an urge to go trout fishing, for example.


Gary
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
I agree with Tryg......more resolution allows those who want maximum immersion in the experience to sit even closer to the screen. That's why the detail & peripheral vision experience with IMAX is so stunning.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,160 Posts
It is a good point that the greater limiting factor of a quality picture from a DVD source is the original Film quality, DVD transfer, compression, and MPEG decoder.


The D-ILA's 1360 X 1024 resolution is already well past the DVD's 720 X 480 native resolution, and all the higher resolution does is smooth and define all of the native detail mastered on the DVD. But as has been mentioned, that looks glorious, even on a 10 foot wide+ screen.


The combination of the D-ILA's high resolution, narrow pixel gap, and (optionally) anamorphic lens does allow enjoyable viewing from one screen height away, which is much less than the standard recommended 3 picture widths away.


High definition looks even better, and that's why I'm encouraged to see the next generation of 2048 X 1536, or more likely 1920 X 1080 D-ILA FPTVs. Because I'm hoping that both the scaling and compression will improve for NTSC sorce material, and more imporantly I'm hoping for movies to be released in 1080i/p resolution, where the extra detail will be revealed.


I do think that film has a great deal more resolution than HD, and obviously more than DVD, but with our smaller screens, viewing distance, and eyesight limitations, the difference is not all that big, especially with abused theatrical film prints with debris and scratches, dim bulbs, old projector jitter, and not being focused.


I am most thankful for the picture and sound quality that I'm getting at my home theater today, but being an early adopter I can't help but be lured by the coming technological advances.


-Dean.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
578 Posts
Ok, Dean pretty much just said all this, but oh well...


Even in the biggest of 'home theaters' huge screens a 1080P system (using around a 90-99% fill pixel array like a liquid crystal on silicon chip -like JVC's D-ILA-, or if TI could come out with a 1080x1920 DLP array) pixels would be undetectable, and the resolution would mimic film so well, you'd hardly tell a diff. at a higher resolution (depending on your eye sight, and of course not being 2 feet from the screen!).


I read somewhere that 35mm film resolution is more like 20+ million though. But even being so far from that resolution, I don't think it'd matter to have much beyond 1080P. Call 1080P a 10:1 compression ratio much like how the Dolby Digital compression is pretty much loss-less -though it really ain't.


Once 1080P becomes the most common resolution in all home tv/monitors (which I'm saying I think'll happen) I think we'll also see a big push to have 1080i signals from all broacasters (upconverted to prog. at home), eliminating 720P as a High Def. 'choice', and have 1080P HD-DVDs released too.


All that'll be better than a continuing upward spiral of higher resolutions that have no content available to take advantage- at least in home use. I'm sure a huge movie theater screen would be improved by resolutions above 1080P, but I'm talking home use. Hate theaters anyway!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
774 Posts
As I mentioned after seeing our QXGA projector at ShoWest, there is a lot of information being thrown away when displaying current Film to HD transfers on either the TI DLP Cinema (1280x1024) or our current 1365x1024 displays. I was amazed at what is actually there to be seen. There was a clip from Rumble Fish, looking down a sidewalk in front of a brick faced building...you could see the individual bricks and the texture a good ways down the street. On an HD monitor or an SXGA device, it was just a blur...not enough resolution to show you the detail there. The same was true on all the clips selected, so much more there that there is currently no way to show.


The typical distribution print used in theaters is pretty equivalent resolution wise to HD, at least in the horizontal measurement. Obviously the the original or IP prints are much higher but that's not what Joe Public gets to see.


Going much higher in projector resolution with DVD and NTSC really doesn't buy you much but, if we can get our hands on HD, hold on, nothing but full res will be satisfactory.


------------------

Tom Stites

Director, Business Development

Digital Systems Division

JVC Professional Products

"My opinions do not necessarily reflect..."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,525 Posts
Tom,


A few of us are really hoping to get that private demonstration of this technology, if you would be able to set something up.


I don't have any numbers for you, but I bet there will be a fair amount of interest.
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top