AVS Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 126 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,916 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
A friend of mine received his Ruby yesterday and I had a few hrs to look at it. Our adjustments were limited to contrast, brightness, zoom, etc. Here is my take on thye unit without further experimenting.

* At it's furthest throw location the PJ is almost dim looking. When you move it closer to it's minimum location the light output is very satisfactory for a 100" wide 16:9 screen that we were projecting on (Stewart grey)

* Most of my viewing was done with the iris on.

* The "halos" when you put up an all white screen (they look like 4 dim flashlights from each of the corners pointing in towards the center) are unacceptable. This really destroys any all black field. Moving the PJ to it's minimum distance seemed to reduce this effect somewhat.

* The PJ's ANSI Contrast is very LC CRT looking. We didn't measure anything but you can see it pretty clearly as soon as you put up anything bright on an all black field (like the TT screen saver) which in turn makes the "halos" in the corners go away.

* All black is a huge improvement over any digital I have seen in the past but still not a CRT. I will say that the "stock" gamma is very good on the low end producing good shadow detail.

* Picture is very smooth and has a real CRT look which I really like. Pixel structure just isn't there.

* The crushed whites are another concern that will need to be addressed by Sony or some of the after market "tuners" Although folks have been turning down the contrast to try and improve in this area I found that the picture was just to dim looking and didn't have any "punch" when that was done.

* Although the picture was very sharp, I didn't find it to be much sharper than my G90 which has outstanding focus with HD10GT17 lens's on it.


My hats off to Sony for this leap forward in digital technology. We were told by some Sony folks last year at CES that they were a few generations away from making a G90 looking digital. It will be interesting to see where this technology goes.


I hope to do some more testing on this Ruby towards the end of the month at my place directly comparing it directly to my G90. At this point my impression is that there are a few things that will need to be "fixed" to make the Ruby a CRT beater and reference viewing device.


Terry
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,501 Posts
Good stuff Terry, it's always good to read a report from someone that knows CRT's inside and out rather than from someone that posts


'man, this thing looks great as compared to my 640 X 480 Sharp'


:)


I'll see it on Friday at CES, I'll post next week as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
584 Posts
Sounds promising, Lets be real here if digitals get there act together I my self might just buy one. When they offer a bulb which extends beyond 4000hr , let say at lest 6000hrs then to me it will be worth it. I think its just a matter of time before they produce a digital that will compare to a high-end crt like the g90. When that happens I will give up my two beast and embrace the bulbs till then there is just no comparison!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,141 Posts
It's good to know that when the day comes when CRT projectors just aren't a viable option

anymore except for the serious antique user (vintage audio, now vintage video?), by that

time digitals will be fully ready to deliver the goods. Sounds like the Ruby is getting really

close. It sounds to me like the Ruby is better than most lesser CRT projectors already.


I'm also a bit amused at the whole "pursuit of technology" mindset and how it sometimes

causes us to take a step back in quality in order to get into the newer technology, as if

having the higher technology ITSELF was worthwhile. I mean, how many millions of

dollars have gone into developing newer technologies that are only just now getting ready

to compete with the 80 year old and now very mature CRT technology? My attitude is

that all the money thrown into the earlier revisions of the new technology, which resulted

in INFERIOR picture quality, represents a lot of effort spent on reinventing the wheel and

its payoff is only just starting to be seen as digitals are just now finally starting to be

competitive in picture quality. Did all that money spent on R&D get wasted, or not?

Depending on your mindset, the answer could be either yes or no.



CJ
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,724 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmjohnson
It's good to know that when the day comes when CRT projectors just aren't a viable option

anymore except for the serious antique user (vintage audio, now vintage video?), by that

time digitals will be fully ready to deliver the goods. Sounds like the Ruby is getting really

close. It sounds to me like the Ruby is better than most lesser CRT projectors already.


I'm also a bit amused at the whole "pursuit of technology" mindset and how it sometimes

causes us to take a step back in quality in order to get into the newer technology, as if

having the higher technology ITSELF was worthwhile. I mean, how many millions of

dollars have gone into developing newer technologies that are only just now getting ready

to compete with the 80 year old and now very mature CRT technology? My attitude is

that all the money thrown into the earlier revisions of the new technology, which resulted

in INFERIOR picture quality, represents a lot of effort spent on reinventing the wheel and

its payoff is only just starting to be seen as digitals are just now finally starting to be

competitive in picture quality. Did all that money spent on R&D get wasted, or not?

Depending on your mindset, the answer could be either yes or no.



CJ
A very interesting take and one I've thought about a lot myself. Darin said a few years ago now that CRT was stagnated not because it couldn't be improved but that the minds and hands were working on fixed pixel devices so that's where the progress will be.


The versatilty and convenience drove the fixed pixel devices initially we know that but it is really cool IMO that they are where they are. Who wouldn't want to have peak performane but smaller, quieter, easier to set up , and cheaper.


Many would disagree but if it weren't for the stratospheric on/off CR capabilities of the best CRT FP devices the digital guys would never have continued to fight for that parameter so much,film was surpassed years ago.


Art
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
515 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmjohnson
I'm also a bit amused at the whole "pursuit of technology" mindset and how it sometimes

causes us to take a step back in quality in order to get into the newer technology, as if

having the higher technology ITSELF was worthwhile. I mean, how many millions of

dollars have gone into developing newer technologies that are only just now getting ready

to compete with the 80 year old and now very mature CRT technology? My attitude is

that all the money thrown into the earlier revisions of the new technology, which resulted

in INFERIOR picture quality, represents a lot of effort spent on reinventing the wheel and

its payoff is only just starting to be seen as digitals are just now finally starting to be

competitive in picture quality. Did all that money spent on R&D get wasted, or not?

Depending on your mindset, the answer could be either yes or no.
Your point is valid, but only assuming the criteria being pq. Some -- like non-ht -- applications value things like ease-of-use or physical size more than pq. From those points of view, putting money into developing technology like digital projection is a big forward leap. Hmm.. I see red-green-blue helicopters out the window...


...

NO! I'm not with the d******s! Don't take me awa.... *biff* *pow* *zam* urgh....... :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,175 Posts
And not to mention that brand new digital PJs have long been a fraction of the cost of brand new CRT PJs. How many of us bought new CRT PJs at their normal selling price? Only a few of us bought new at any price. If our only options were new CRT PJs at their original prices, or new digital PJs, the vast majority of us would be the digital PJ owners.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,141 Posts
Well, the long-term results of the development of these digital technologies will be a maintenance free, high quality, high resolution, low cost projector that costs little and

is for all practical purposes non-repairable. It will become a throwaway item just like

a 19" TV set is now.


And despite the often held belief that newer products that aren't as robustly built as

older ones, (compare a 50's or 60's era TV set's construction to that of a new one and

you'll see this very clearly) and concerns about their real "quality" compared to the

older units, I would dare you to go to your local retailer, buy any budget 17" TV set

on the floor, and then compare it to your museum quality 17" Trinitron from the early 70s.


I would be very surprised if the new set didn't deliver a BETTER picture. And it has a LOT

more compatibility with modern systems plus loads of features that simply didn't exist

in the 70s.


Despite fears to the contrary, consumer oriented devices are constantly delivering better

quality in the ways that matter. Engineers "waste" time trying to get the black levels to

near true black, but once they've figured out how to do that, their discovery goes into

regular production and will continue to be refined with later generations. The customer

DOES get the benefit of high end research. It just takes a few generations of equipment

for those benefits to trickle down.


The WORST digital projector you can buy new today is better than the best one available five years ago.




CJ
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,175 Posts
I wonder how much the repainted, rebadged Runco Ruby will retail for? :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,815 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuchuf
My hats off to Sony for this leap forward in digital technology. We were told by some Sony folks last year at CES that they were a few generations away from making a G90 looking digital. It will be interesting to see where this technology goes.

Terry
Terry, how does the ruby compare to well set-up G70 or 8500LC?


Phil, very funny but be careful, you migfht be getting a letter from the Runco legal dept. :rolleyes: :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,501 Posts
I never got a letter, just a call...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
962 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by draganm
Terry, how does the ruby compare to well set-up G70 or 8500LC?


Darin and Steve Smith did a comparison between the G70 and Ruby. Check it out in the Lcos Forum.




I know Digitals are coming along great(which I'm really glad about), but as pointed out above, one of the things that kept me from getting a Ruby as a Second PJ is the darn life span of the bulbs. I certainly don't wanna be forking out a grand every 1000 hours or so, just to have what I had when I bought it. That's just too fast of a time for me to justify the cost. The way I see it is, I don't care if a Ruby MIGHT look better to me then my G70 does, if it only looks better for the first 500 hours or so, then the G70's PQ takes over for the next 3,4,5,6k hours i'll take that trade off any day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,141 Posts
It's just a matter of time before the lamp is replaced with an LED device, with improvements in efficiency, cool operation, built-in redundancy (if individual emitters go out, the rest stay lit), fully variable output with proper color temperature tracking, adjustable color temp,

and no time- or voltage-related color temp changes. Plus huge lifespans.



CJ
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,188 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Smith
And not to mention that brand new digital PJs have long been a fraction of the cost of brand new CRT PJs. How many of us bought new CRT PJs at their normal selling price? Only a few of us bought new at any price. If our only options were new CRT PJs at their original prices, or new digital PJs, the vast majority of us would be the digital PJ owners.
And those used CRTs would not have been available in the quantities they were/are or at the same prices if people/businesses hadn't gotten rid of them for digital projectors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuchuf
* At it's furthest throw location the PJ is almost dim looking. When you move it closer to it's minimum location the light output is very satisfactory for a 100" wide 16:9 screen that we were projecting on (Stewart grey)

* Most of my viewing was done with the iris on.
I wouldn't expect iris "On" to be real bright on a gray screen (depending on the model and viewing position). But then the gray is really more for the room and not necessary if the room is right (for those who want to argue that it is needed to get the absolute black level down, just going to a bigger screen could do as much or more).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuchuf
* The "halos" when you put up an all white screen (they look like 4 dim flashlights from each of the corners pointing in towards the center) are unacceptable. This really destroys any all black field.
I agree that these can be annoying. It seems that Greg Rogers' review unit didn't have this problem, so I don't know where it is coming from. A guy in Canada on some French forum reportedly said he could fix it (but he calibrates projectors for a living and so it would cost). I'm tempted to open one up and see if I can fix it. In the meantime I've done some stuff in the service menu and gone to an angular-reflective screen (causes some hotspotting in the center more like a CRT) that has reduced the number of scenes where I notice the brighter corners a lot. But I'm also using "Auto" mode after my changes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuchuf
* Although the picture was very sharp, I didn't find it to be much sharper than my G90 which has outstanding focus with HD10GT17 lens's on it.
What resolution and framerate were you using on the G90 for this comment? Have you decided how (resolution and framerate) you are going to run 1080i film material to the G90 in the long run?


--Darin
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,545 Posts
I have an 8500LC with new tubes and a red c-element. The 8500LC is dramatically better with black level. The Ruby was a big disappointment to me in this area - it just doesn't cut it when it comes to black level, especially after all the hype concening its 17000:1 full on/off CR! There's an interesting thread on the LCoS section started by a former CRT owner who is asking if there is something wrong with his Ruby's black level because it is much higher than he expected. He's being told that his expectations were just too high!


A good LC CRT (8 or 9 inch - I have both) has a much better black level than the Ruby without gamma correction and with gamma correction the Ruby can't compete, IMO. I tried a number of fade to black scenes with the Ruby in a light controlled room and this convinced me that I have done the right thing by moving to CRT rather than being frustrated with the constant upgrading of digital projectors just to find the latest and greatest still can't get blacks right!


The Ruby looks very good (except for fade to blacks) on a Firehawk screen, however, on a higher gain white screen it looked harsh with DVDs, but extremely good with HD! If the bulb dims by 30 to 40% in the first couple hundred hours we're going to be hearing some major complaints from the digital guys who have low gain screens.


What the Ruby really does is to expose the major flaw with digital - depreciation! It will single-handedly turn the market place upsidedown. How does one "upgrade" from a $12,000 to $14,000 Marantz DLP to a Ruby at $10,000 or less and get any real value for the 720p Marantz? When I saw the Ruby for the second time it was with a Qualia selling for $42,000 Canadian. The salesperson said he preferred the Ruby to the Qualia. What the hell do they do with the Qualia? The first time I saw the Ruby it was with a Sharp 12000 selling for $14,000 Canadian. The Ruby retails for $12,000 in Canada, so what do they do with the 720p Sharp? This is going to be happening everywhere and is going to hit home with the digital crowd that it is really a buyer beware market place that's in an extreme transition with respect to picture quality and price - one going up with the other coming down. The guys with the upper end digitals (and retail outlets) can rationalize this any way they want, but the bottom line is they were snookered by Sony.


The other major problem with the Ruby is BC or brightness compression. There may be a fix for this at some point, but this and the poor black level would be the deal killers for me. Of course you don't have to leave the iris in auto and avoid the BC. You also avoid the much higher full on/off CR as well. There's a real trade off here, one that the consumer should not have to deal with. This is a great digital projector, but one that really does not live up to all the hype! Obviously, just my opinion, however, after seeing it a couple of times it left me wondering what all the hype was about (my point of reference is a 9 inch CRT so I suppose if I was used to a LCoS projector with a full on/off CR of less than 2,000:1 CR I would have been really enthralled). Without the hype and therefore with lower expectations I would have been much more impressed. I know, I am being really tough on the Ruby, but without valid criticism we're not going to get the manufacturers to deliver the goods.


Cheers,


Grant
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,175 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by draganm
Phil, very funny but be careful, you migfht be getting a letter from the Runco legal dept. :rolleyes: :D
:D Someone had to say it for Curt. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,175 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2
And those used CRTs would not have been available in the quantities they were/are or at the same prices if people/businesses hadn't gotten rid of them for digital projectors.
Darin,


Right. There were many good reasons to switch from CRT to digital. PQ wasn't, and still may not be, one of those reasons. :p :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,847 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deja Vu
This is a great digital projector, but one that really does not live up to all the hype! Obviously, just my opinion, however, after seeing it a couple of times it left me wondering what all the hype was about (my point of reference is a 9 inch CRT so I suppose if I was used to a LCoS projector with a full on/off CR of less than 2,000:1 CR I would have been really enthralled). Without the hype and therefore with lower expectations I would have been much more impressed. I know, I am being really tough on the Ruby, but without valid criticism we're not going to get the manufacturers to deliver the goods.


Cheers,


Grant
Having seen the same two Ruby setups as you have, your comments are accurate..


As CRT owners, I can understand you not being that impressed - the hype is coming from existing digital owners and I see why..


I though, am impressed with the Ruby - it really is a compliment to CRT's - it has the best colour accuracy I have seen from any digital - every single digital I have seen before always pushes a colour - most often it's green, but i have seen both red and blue push..the colours did not look right on that Qualia..we have been spoiled by the great colours we get from a CRT..


The Ruby (on that firehawk) was smooth - noise and artifact free - again much like what we have been used to with our CRT's..


On the contrast ratio - previous to these demos I watched a guy's Projection Design latest 720P offering - it has a rated CR of 4000 - it was not even close to being acceptable to me and suffered from the digital haze in dark scenes..the Ruby far excels over that 720 DLP - I can really understand the Wow's coming from new Ruby owners - they are finally getting many of the things we have had for years with our CRT's..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,423 Posts
It is interesting how different the "man in the street" reviews are. :)


Here is a summary of a A/B by a Cine 9 owner, and frequent digital critic. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhafner
So far I would say this (both Ruby and CRT were certainly not tweaked to perfection so take this with a grain of salt)(Ruby calibrated for superior contrast in dark cave, not maximum brightness)

- Color: Without gamut mapping for Ruby CRT is superior since closer to the standard primaries

- Detail, sharpness: Ruby is better (my CRT does not use all phosphor it could due to distance to screen problem). Difference not big with standard consumer HD material, though.

- Motion: Comparable

- Geometry: Ruby far better (the CRT hates 1080i concerning geometry, will improve with 1080p source)

- Evenness of shading/illumination: Comparable except for Ruby's brighter corners.

- Brightness: Ruby is a bit brighter with low lamp hours, will be darker after some hundred hours

- Instantaneous Contrast: For most material comparable, for critical dark stuff CRT still in another league with no haze (except when ANSI comes into play) and superior 3d effect. White crush was not an issue on the Ruby on the stuff I watched (does not mean there was none. I did not see any obvious cases. Comparing with Iris off might have revealed cases)

- ANSI contrast: Ruby somewhat better, but hardly relevant when watching feaure films

- On-Off contrast: CRT 2-3 times better without losing shadow detail

- Shdow Detail: Comparable

- Convergence: Comparable (CRT can be made to converge better but the resolution of the signal (especially blue) and the corners are not as focused so there detail disappears despite better convergence), hardly an issue when watching feature films on both systems

- Noise: Comparable, very clean when source is low noise

- Overall film like appearance: Comparable


Summary: Ruby is a breakthrough product.
 
1 - 20 of 126 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top