AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,575 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I am now running my G90 at 1200p/96hz. (95.904) and it didn't take long to appreciate how much better the smooth pans and extreme depth looks - so much better than the film-like crap they give us at movie theatres! I just saw Tom Cruise's latest at the Odeon Theatre and was very aware of the poor motion (panning) and black levels. One thing is for sure - I'll take superb black levels, massive punch, smooth panning and extreme depth any day over film-like!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,234 Posts
Heck yes; only film I saw in theater all year was Indy Jones 4; even made a point of seeing it on the BIG screen, big theater, in the big city. Whole 9 yards.


Coulda saved the gas and money - the dvd (not even BD - movie wasn't that good) looked better on my Runco. Could only imagine a decently setup G90.


(and best of all - no one was on their cellphone at my home theater!)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,981 Posts
Yes 24fps film judder can be very distracting in bright scenes.


How does the G90 handle 96hz. Is it softer or still sharp. Amazing what some of these CRTs are doing these days. CRT on steroids
 

·
Registered
Certified Audiophile ;-)
Joined
·
2,165 Posts
Woah !!!! 1200p/96hz



Gotta be soft as hell!

It may sync up.....but sharpness is another story.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deja Vu /forum/post/15506508


I am now running my G90 at 1200p/96hz. (95.904) and it didn't take long to appreciate how much better the smooth pans and extreme depth looks - so much better than the film-like crap they give us at movie theatres! I just saw Tom Cruise's latest at the Odeon Theatre and was very aware of the poor motion (panning) and black levels. One thing is for sure - I'll take superb black levels, massive punch, smooth panning and extreme depth any day over film-like!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,575 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gouger /forum/post/15507675


Yes 24fps film judder can be very distracting in bright scenes.


How does the G90 handle 96hz. Is it softer or still sharp. Amazing what some of these CRTs are doing these days. CRT on steroids

It is set up to run 1080p/48, 1080i/60 and 1200p/96. It's at its best at 1200p/96. Looks as sharp and is much smoother with more depth. With gamma correction for full fade to blacks (and holds them) and a super smooth image with a ton of depth, CRT is keeping pace with improvements in digital projectors. Hard to believe from a supposedly "dead technology"!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
611 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deja Vu /forum/post/15506508


I am now running my G90 at 1200p/96hz. (95.904) and it didn't take long to appreciate how much better the smooth pans and extreme depth looks - so much better than the film-like crap they give us at movie theatres! I just saw Tom Cruise's latest at the Odeon Theatre and was very aware of the poor motion (panning) and black levels. One thing is for sure - I'll take superb black levels, massive punch, smooth panning and extreme depth any day over film-like!


the bandwidth calculator at:

http://www.csgnetwork.com/videosignalcalc.html



tells me that this resolution needs 332 MHz bandwidth



no projector comes even to half that.


must be really soft


Michael
 

·
Registered
Certified Audiophile ;-)
Joined
·
2,165 Posts
I'm surprised that the electronics inside the PJ has not burnt out , yet!


Seriously.....dude.....are you serious about 1080p/96Hz ??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
669 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by rajdude /forum/post/15510244


Woah !!!! 1200p/96hz



Gotta be soft as hell!

It may sync up.....but sharpness is another story.

You guys are funny !


IT IS A G90.


It looks amazing.


I laugh every time these guys with great command over statistics and internet search engines provide hideously misguided *advice* to people who simply judge with their eyes...hahahaha.


You're likely one of those guys running their projectors so dimly that they can't make out the image, so they can *save the tubes*....hahaha



And if you don't want to "clip the bandwidth" , then I assume you're running your fabutauboulous, custom modded, better than white bread projector at 1080i (when you get it running...) cause 1080p is 50% higher than its rated bandwidth capability...


Soft, hahaha...right...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
611 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by none74 /forum/post/15527585


You guys are funny !


IT IS A G90.


It looks amazing.


I laugh every time these guys with great command over statistics and internet search engines provide hideously misguided *advice* to people who simply judge with their eyes...hahahaha.


You're likely one of those guys running their projectors so dimly that they can't make out the image, so they can *save the tubes*....hahaha



And if you don't want to "clip the bandwidth" , then I assume you're running your fabutauboulous, custom modded, better than white bread projector at 1080i (when you get it running...) cause 1080p is 50% higher than its rated bandwidth capability...


Soft, hahaha...right...


You wanna tell me that running a projector almost 3 times over it's spec'd

max. bandwidth will not produce a soft image ??


why would anyone want to run it with 1200 lines ??


that makes NO sense at all



Michael
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,355 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by rajdude /forum/post/15516260


I'm surprised that the electronics inside the PJ has not burnt out , yet!


Seriously.....dude.....are you serious about 1080p/96Hz ??

I think its 1600x1200 4:3 material he has that at. And in real world Video the actual top end of the 332mhz is never reached.Only if you decided to show one on one off vertical lines across the whole screen would you then see the bottle neck and things would go all hot and weird things happening.

Its the high frequency video material that will give it a test and in most movies super high bandwidth material isn't there. There was a white papaer i read that explained this and that the calculators are really there for the +/_ db facotrs so that 332 mhz top end might be half of that with real world video.


Athanasios
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
669 Posts
I like Athanasios's answer, but what I do is LOOK and then JUDGE, instead of read, and then assume.


The image LOOKS better. Period. Regardless of what you read on the internet. Try different resolutions and refresh rates yourself, and judge critically FOR YOURSELF, I will bet your opinions will change.


And the bandwidth demanded for full signal resolution of 1600x1200 at 96Hz refresh is not 3x over, but just a bit of 2x over.


EVERYONE here who runs even 1080p is exceeding the "spec'd" bandwidth of their projectors, are you saying they're ALL crazy for using that resolution ?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,816 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by none74 /forum/post/15527585


You guys are funny !


IT IS A G90.


It looks amazing.


Soft, hahaha...right...

Have you seen it in action or this is what you run?


I don't see why not run 1080p72, what is to be gained by doing 1080p96?


I can only assume that if it is not softer, you are not dialed in right on your other resolutions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,833 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by none74 /forum/post/15527585


IT IS A G90.


It looks amazing.

If the picture looks good to you, that's all that matters!


I remember sometime back running a Marquee at 1600x1200 60/hz at one of the meets. At that time I was showing how good it looked at that resolution. Some in attendance complained about it not being as sharp as they have seen that same setup. There were two things going on from the lower resoltion setup and the higher one that was set at 1600x1200 60.


The lower resolution setup was sharper, with the higher resolution setup having a smoother and better film quality image. There was a trade-off, but the end results depends on your choice of image. I prefer a better film quality image. However, the goal today is to get both.


The G90 is much like the Barco 909, in that neither of them are really capable of doing their rated bandwidth. In fact, they both struggle to do 1920x1080P /60hz. Now what they can do very well is FOCUS. And a very well focused CRT project can look very good at resolution above it's TRUE resolving power.


96hz was intended for STEREO and Virtual Reality setups. And the max for that was 1280x1024, which would make for a "FLATNESS" bandwidth of 85mhz.


1600x1200P 96hz has a flatness of: 124mhz


1920x1080P 60hz has a flatness of: 84mhz


1920x1080P 72hz has a flatness of: 101mhz


Flatness is not -3 db. The -3 db rating is much higher and is usually all over the place depending on which reference you use for bandwidth. The flatness is the more difficult one to do, so I prefer to use a flatness rating. And as you can see, 1920x1080P 60hz requires about 80mhz flatness to properly resolve that bandwidth.


The higher resolution setups will produce a more film like image, but with TRUE higher resolution resolve, you also get a sharper image that dazzles you with depth and 3D image.


Once you're above your resolve power, you loose those very special things in the backgrounds, and that is what HD is all about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
669 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Murrell /forum/post/15530190


1200p at 96hz is stupid to be honest, just the facts


we are just trying to help



-Gary

You are not trying to *help*. You are trying to make someone feel stupid, using "facts" gleaned from the internet that you've never tried yourself. Yes I have run a G90 at this resolution. Yes it looks BETTER than 1920x1080 at 60Hz. Yes it is smoother and more realistic than any other setup. There is a greater imitation of reality and it has greater depth and LOOKS better.


Also, as MP pointed out, personal preference has more to do with one's judgment of the "quality" of an image than statistics and ratings. Just because the "best" college football team plays every year, doesn't mean it wins...


I've just recently been experimenting with running my Marquee at 1280x1024 at 120Hz refresh, and I LOVE the way it looks. And no it doesn't look "soft" and no there isn't any "streaking". It is smooth, smooth smooth, and lifelike with great depth of field and a solidness to the image that was never there before.


I know what my eyes tell me, and they tell me faster refresh rates which are exact multiples of film look BETTER.


If you guys want to think differently, without trying it, go right ahead, and you're even allowed to think you prefer the lower refresh rates, but to say I'm stupid for LIKING the way the image looks is ludicrous.


And 96Hz looked BETTER than 72Hz, which is why that was used...


Compare the same movie clip using the same software player and the same output characteristics, but change the refresh rates and look at the differences, perhaps you'll be surprised...Or don't, I don't care. Keep watching your juddery, jerky approximation of film.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
962 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by none74 /forum/post/15530804


You are not trying to *help*. You are trying to make someone feel stupid, using "facts" gleaned from the internet that you've never tried yourself. Yes I have run a G90 at this resolution. Yes it looks BETTER than 1920x1080 at 60Hz. Yes it is smoother and more realistic than any other setup. There is a greater imitation of reality and it has greater depth and LOOKS better.


Also, as MP pointed out, personal preference has more to do with one's judgment of the "quality" of an image than statistics and ratings. Just because the "best" college football team plays every year, doesn't mean it wins...


I've just recently been experimenting with running my Marquee at 1280x1024 at 120Hz refresh, and I LOVE the way it looks. And no it doesn't look "soft" and no there isn't any "streaking". It is smooth, smooth smooth, and lifelike with great depth of field and a solidness to the image that was never there before.


I know what my eyes tell me, and they tell me faster refresh rates which are exact multiples of film look BETTER.


If you guys want to think differently, without trying it, go right ahead, and you're even allowed to think you prefer the lower refresh rates, but to say I'm stupid for LIKING the way the image looks is ludicrous.


And 96Hz looked BETTER than 72Hz, which is why that was used...


Compare the same movie clip using the same software player and the same output characteristics, but change the refresh rates and look at the differences, perhaps you'll be surprised...Or don't, I don't care. Keep watching your juddery, jerky approximation of film.

Isn't your last sentence the reason why you jump on people in the first place? I'm confused.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,823 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by none74 /forum/post/15530804


You are not trying to *help*. You are trying to make someone feel stupid, using "facts" gleaned from the internet that you've never tried yourself. Yes I have run a G90 at this resolution. Yes it looks BETTER than 1920x1080 at 60Hz. Yes it is smoother and more realistic than any other setup. There is a greater imitation of reality and it has greater depth and LOOKS better.


Also, as MP pointed out, personal preference has more to do with one's judgment of the "quality" of an image than statistics and ratings. Just because the "best" college football team plays every year, doesn't mean it wins...


I've just recently been experimenting with running my Marquee at 1280x1024 at 120Hz refresh, and I LOVE the way it looks. And no it doesn't look "soft" and no there isn't any "streaking". It is smooth, smooth smooth, and lifelike with great depth of field and a solidness to the image that was never there before.


I know what my eyes tell me, and they tell me faster refresh rates which are exact multiples of film look BETTER.


If you guys want to think differently, without trying it, go right ahead, and you're even allowed to think you prefer the lower refresh rates, but to say I'm stupid for LIKING the way the image looks is ludicrous.


And 96Hz looked BETTER than 72Hz, which is why that was used...


Compare the same movie clip using the same software player and the same output characteristics, but change the refresh rates and look at the differences, perhaps you'll be surprised...Or don't, I don't care. Keep watching your juddery, jerky approximation of film.

It might look better to your eyes but is it film like or do the films now look like HD sports or television broadcasts ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
669 Posts
SirJMon: You're right. It is a contradiction to describe something as "film like" because it does NOT exhibit some of the biggest negatives of a film presentation. There isn't an accepted descriptor that easily encapsulates the effect on the image of a high refresh rate, so "film like" comes easily to mind because many(myself included) equate that term with an image that is involving and high in quality. I guess a more accurate descriptor would likely be "realistic" as opposed to "film like" if the latter brings to mind the short comings of film presentation.

Many of us are conditioned, or perhaps simply prefer the look of film, even WITH its short comings...

I don't mind a bit of improvement.


The effect of a high refresh rate, which is also a multiple of film frame rate, using computer playback, is it approximates frame interpolation to some extent in that the amount of information presented to us, while being redundant, never the less fills in the gaps we can perceive between frames during normal playback of material during a video presentation of film. Or at least that is my take on it, if pressed to explain WHY the high refresh rate looks so good.


No one is obliged to even try this, but just because someone wanted to post their observations of the improvement in image they've perceived is no reason to tell them they're wrong or stupid, ESPECIALLY if someone hasn't tried it themselves...


WTS: The processor was an Nvidia 8500GT video card.
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Top