AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 99 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
595 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
OK, overclkr and I got in an fla... discussion
about the merits of small (~1000pixel) screenshots to show off projector sharpness. I argue that you

need, at a minimum, 1920-wide screenshots if you're to have any hope of truly evaluating the sharpness of a projector. Even then, you're not able to

distinctly see whether one-on-one-off patterns are fully resolved - of course - but it's much better than the 1000-pixel-wide screenshots that

usually get posted.


So, he suggested that we start a new shot thread for full-size screenshots.


I've tried to add some other suggestions here to make color comparisons at least somewhat more representative - though they'll always be tenuous.


Updated rules are:

For posters:
  • Minimum 1920-wide (the image itself)
  • Image border should be a maximum of 20 pixels (for a 1980-wide shot) on any side, with allowances for off-angle shots. 2.35 shots should be cropped

    to 2.35, not 16:9. This prevents using big black areas to enhance perceived contrast...
  • No adjustment to the image aside from downscaling and cropping - this includes adjustments to fix chromatic aberration, distortion, etc
  • Specifically, no sharpening or 'levels' adjustment, in-camera or out
  • Shoot RAW mode where possible. Where not possible, specify your camera settings. Turn off shadow detail enhancement, set sharpness to 'normal'

    where possible.
  • Set camera white balance to D6500, or as close as you can get. If that's not possible, you can manually set white balance by finding a 6500k light

    source to light up your screen to use as a reference. Auto white balance will completely throw off any possible color accuracy.
  • It's helpful to put hard-returns in your text every so often to force some word wrap and make long sentences a bit more readable, since the thread

    will be forced to 2000 pixels wide!
For viewers:
  • Calibrate your display as best you can for D6500. On most LCD monitors, this will mean setting to 'warm' color temp.
  • Make sure you can see gray down to about 4IRE (try Nokia Monitor Test for an easy gray ramp). Don't criticize someone else's shadow detail unless your own

    reference display can show it!
  • Gray tracking is usually pretty good, but be aware that inexpensive TFT monitors will skew warm toward the bottom and cool toward the top. Scenes

    from Fargo will usually look wrong - consider it a vertical version of a high-gain CRT setup's color shift.


Another thing we might want to consider is having some raw, un-processed bluray screenshots. They'll let viewers see an *absolute* reference,

to determine whether a perceived problem is with the shot, or with their own display. If anyone has any links / suggestions, I'll add a couple in here.


The truly brave could find ones of the same scenes in their screenshots and post them alongside! Now THAT would be hardcore!



I'll kick off with one of mine as a demo. This was unfortunately shot before my latest round of adjustments, and has some gray tracking problems too

IIRC, but it's not too awful.


 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,214 Posts
Maybe it's possible to apply even more rules to this specialized screenshot thread. For example, pics must be taken in RAW mode. Maybe specify the size. Also, maybe we could standardize on a resizing program and method, and pick one that's free if possible. Just some thoughts......


Bob


p.s. I abandoned the previous thread after it drifted off into the "try this, try that" attempts involving image processing to improve screen shots. That ruined the thread's value IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
595 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citation4444 /forum/post/16986910


Maybe it's possible to apply even more rules to this specialized screenshot thread. For example, pics must be taken in RAW mode. Maybe specify the size. Also, maybe we could standardize on a resizing program and method, and pick one that's free if possible. Just some thoughts......

I considered that, too. RAW mode is a bit draconian, since very few people have access to cameras that can do it. We could say, "Specify what camera settings you're using", and to set sharpness to 'normal' if there's an option.


I think sticking with regular bicubic downscaling is reasonable. Photoshop has three options - normal, smooth, and sharp, but other programs like gimp might only have normal. So, normal seems the most reasonable.


The other obvious thing is to require that people take shots of the movies as they'd actually watch them... I can pile a huge chunk of unsharp mask on my bluray output and the shots look great, but the actual movie is nigh-on unwatchable!



Another good rule would be to have no level or color adjustment, and fixed D6500 white balance where possible (I have to set my camera to 6700 as it has only 63 and 67...). Some cameras (esp. Nikons) also have 'shadow detail enhancement' and such, which would provide the same effect as a gamma bump.


I guess I'll stick some of this stuff up in the first post. Maybe some day, this thread can have 147 pages... *looks misty-eyed toward the sky*
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,355 Posts
Peri not bad at all.


Athanasios
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,833 Posts
Here ya go. 100% un-touched. Straight from the camera (RAW), with absolutely no resizing and have never re-sized a shot.


Now that i have the color space issues solved, there's really no need to tweak anything. Little David is ready to Rock and Roll..



Blu Ray 1080P
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
595 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Yeah, but that's only 1000 pixels wide; the original was 1920. It's basically a 540p shot... the whole point is that we're trying to see stuff at as close to native resolution as possible. I can't imagine your camera can only take 1024x768 pictures - are you sure you've got it set right? Or is Photobucket resizing for you? That seems more likely...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,833 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeriSoft /forum/post/16988719


Yeah, but that's only 1000 pixels wide; the original was 1920. It's basically a 540p shot... the whole point is that we're trying to see stuff at as close to native resolution as possible. I can't imagine your camera can only take 1024x768 pictures - are you sure you've got it set right? Or is Photobucket resizing for you? That seems more likely...

Opps, I'll have to change that in Photobucket.


I'll try that one again...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,833 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeriSoft /forum/post/16988719


Yeah, but that's only 1000 pixels wide; the original was 1920. It's basically a 540p shot... the whole point is that we're trying to see stuff at as close to native resolution as possible. I can't imagine your camera can only take 1024x768 pictures - are you sure you've got it set right? Or is Photobucket resizing for you? That seems more likely...

Goes to show how much i know about this stuff, how do I change that in photobucket?


The only setting in my camera is 8MB, and that's the highest!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,550 Posts
Untouched RAW format - X3F double sized Adobe 8bit tif - photoshop resize saved as interlaced png.


ISO 50 - custom WB - A 1/6s - F2.8 - -1.0 - STD. - MF - Evaluative* metering - Slow sync


- not compatible for interlaced png. standard png file sizes too large. deleted -
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,355 Posts
Steve what Kinda Screen? I think i can its texture in that one!! Is it a weave of some sort? or is it scan lines I see? What res is the PJ at on that? And What PJ?


Athanasios
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
595 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
What movie is that second shot from?


And there you go - that first shot is definitely damned sharp!


Anyway... I see your tweaked-out Marquees and G90s, and raise you a badly-set-up AC Barco 808!





 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,550 Posts
It's a BenQ w5000 @ 23Hz 1080P. Those lines showing appear to be some compatability problems with flickr for my image format. I can't get it to load also. It's a High Power screen so I'm not sure there would be visible screen surface. Let me try JPEG and see if that helps.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,439 Posts

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,439 Posts

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
707 Posts
In my opinion the BenQ is winning with the Quantum of Solace shots...unless they are Casino Royale shots. But its partly the photography. Sometimes I think the best contest would be where you do a screen capture and layer it over your screen shot until its as close to what you think you are seeing as possible. Because the camera always seems to blow out the whites and does other weird things. I only have a 1271 and many of you have a better projector than mine. But what my eye thinks it is seeing at home is usually better than the screen shots. But carry on. I'm fascinated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,355 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by atomiccow /forum/post/16991671


In my opinion the BenQ is winning with the Quantum of Solace shots...unless they are Casino Royale shots. But its partly the photography. Sometimes I think the best contest would be where you do a screen capture and layer it over your screen shot until its as close to what you think you are seeing as possible. Because the camera always seems to blow out the whites and does other weird things. I only have a 1271 and many of you have a better projector than mine. But what my eye thinks it is seeing at home is usually better than the screen shots. But carry on. I'm fascinated.

All I can say is Pixels in both the jpeg and the png.


Nashou
 
1 - 20 of 99 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top