AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,506 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I've had the opportunity to tweak and view several high end installations that have had really nice jobs done on some XG's and 9500LC's recently.


These include a 9500LC sold by Tim Martin into Edmonton driven by a ...(damn, can't remember the name of the high end scalar!), a KBK tweaked 9500LC here locally driven by a Leeza, and I modestly include my own XG 75 driven by an NEC IPS 4000Q quadrupler.


The 9500LC's are driven in quadrupling mode, the XG I have is in line tripling mode. I use a DVD taken to 720p. my HD is going directly to the projector in 1080i.


The one 9500 driven by a Leeza takes the 1080i signal and converts it to 1080p. The Tim Martin unit in edmonton is driven with 1080p or 960p I believe on a 67" wide screen.


Close to the screen, I can still see scanning lines on my XG, if I looked carefully at the 9500LC's, I could barely see scanning lines at 1-2'. Mind you, the 9500LC's were on slightly smaller screens than my 96" wide one.


Unless I'm mistaken, I actually prefer line tripling. I realize I'm not quite comparing apples to applies here with different makes and tube sizes, biut I've always been under the impression that line quadrupling softens up the pix a bit. Sometime next week I'll set a memory location up in the NEC and set up the projector for quadrupling, but right now I think I prefer tripling over quadrupling.


Am I nuts or do others agree?


Curt
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,506 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
PS: No question there is a big difference in the two makes of set picture wise. Both look stellar individually, but set up next to one another, I'll bet it would be a split down the middle as to what each individual viewer would say is the better unit.


Curt
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
549 Posts
I'm with you, Curt.


I have a 1209, and while I could line quadruple, I prefer to have the sharper picture that a lower resolution provides.


The scan lines are not visible at normal viewing distance and to me that's the critical point.


You don't watch a movie at 2ft from the screen.


Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,655 Posts
Curt,


I see where you're coming from.

I had an XG 110 for some time and mostly drove it with 900 lines and more on a 16:9 screen height.


Phosphor was almost maxed out and I could see scanlines at 1600 x 900.

I couldn't see that even a little overlap makes you lose detail, so mostly I watched HD resolution 1920 x 1080.


I tried 720p, too but it looked sharper to me only in a negative sense, it was artificial sharpness due to line structure.


So I guess it's a matter of preference really.


Oliver
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,533 Posts
Curt,

Very good observation and its what you like. Different people like different things, some wear glasses and some dont.


The set up plays a big part running above 800-960P as well as bandwidth of the signal path (switcher) / display device. I have seen many fall short of spec. Doug
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,916 Posts
Curt,


I personally like 1280 x 720P on these 8" machines. Give a very sharp picture with great detail and colors. Since 960P is the next "natural" progression, it will cause overlap on the 8" machines when squeezed anamorphically. This produces a softening of the picture. Some folks like this. Not me, I want it as sharp as I can get it.


Terry
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,904 Posts
I agree with you Curt. I run only tripled(via HTPC for DVD) and I think its the highest I'd go because I prefer the super sharpness attainable with the tripling. Above that and its just less appealing to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,506 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Does that include running 720 p on 9" sets as well?


Just curious.


Curt
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,515 Posts
I have an XG 1100 (calibrated by Terrry) and I prefer 720p over 960p. I can see scan lines up close, but the picture is defintely sharper with no visible scan lines at my seating distance -- 14' from 92" wide screen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,533 Posts
Curt,

Most of the 9" that I service run 768P on a 4:3 format, a couple at 1200P (with the right head-end) and a few at 960P.


I also have a few that had me step it down from 960P to 720P by choice.


I find some people are brain trained for 'video' and others prefer 'film', most wives like the 'video' look. Doug
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,660 Posts
The 9500LC with the Leeza scaler has not been touched in almost a full year. 10 months, if I recall correctly. so it may be drifting. Since I don't swing out BC way often (once to be exact) I made sure it was physically settled in pretty well as far as chassis shift goes, and spot convergence used was as minimal as possible.


Overall, I spent about 6-10 hours getting the physical alignment right, over a period of two days and at different temperature and night/day conditions, to be sure it was stable. My favorite trick is tapping the tubes (not at the neck! but at the lens area) and clamping structure with a screwdriver handle or whatever (during the tightening process to help aid proper settling of the components without twisting or torsional pressure coming into play), to make sure things won't shift. this really -seems- to increase stability.


As for the argument of Tabletop vs Ceiling mount: One must remember, these PJ's were DESIGNED to be HUNG, thus they tend to achieve their best image stability when ceiling mounted - given that the ceiling mount Conditions are stable.


I've no idea what it looks like now (every case is slightly different), but running at 1080P requires it to be damn stable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,111 Posts
I've gone back and forth from 720P to 960P with my 1209 on 92" wide 16:9 screeen and found I prefer 960P, there seems to be more depth on films which I prefer.


Of course I never did get that professional set up from John Gannon. Any one know what happened to John and how he's doing ?


Rod
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,916 Posts
Doug,


You would have very little trouble setting up a 1209 considering your background with the NEC's. It's just a matter of learning the "randon" menu items. Really quite easy compared to the XG's.


Curt:

most 16:9 9"ers and especially the 9500 I would set up at 960P.


Terry
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,124 Posts
Terry and Doug

What is YOUR optimum resolution and refresh rate for a XG1352LC with clean tubes on a 16/9 screen assuming very very good (by hobbyist standards so I'd guess 90% of your standards) setup?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
827 Posts
increasing scan lines is not only changing the number of visisble lines it also increase the video bandwith required from the projector. I personally drive 9 inch and 8 inch with 1440 x 768 p with both PAL (75Hz) and NTSC

( 60 or 72 Hz) giving me the best visible results.

Actually most 9 inch are not sharper than 8 inch, especially if we are talking about the EHOMES. I am sure Tim agrees.

Any higher scan rate in theory is better but not with most of the projectors we are using. The tube amplifiers are the bottleneck. You may well remember the guys that are lurking for 48 Hz because this is decreasing

video bandwith requirements with HDTV and there is plenty to ask from

a CRT ( most likely over 100 MHz or more)

G90 and Cine9 not considered.

So do yourself a favour and do not drive CRTS with too high scan rates, your picture will be better for sure. I read posts where people are using

2000 x 700 pixels or higher on SONY 1270, this is ridiculous.

Older 1270 cannot even display 1024 x 768 with 75 Hz without showing sever high frequency reflections on the CRTs, that definetely are coming from the low bandwith video amps and internal connections.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
869 Posts
Hi Guys:


Whenever possible, I always choose the lowest possible scan rate for an installation. This will usually result in a better image, as the processor is trying to interpolate less additional information, and therefore the image is cleaner. With an 8" projector, I set processors to 720p usually, and use 1080i as the HD setting on STB's. With a 9" projector, my answer is the same, but I also like the Faroudja 5000 set to 1080p, but it requires an calibration that is truely above and beyond the normal to really make the added scan lines shine.


Overall, I LOVE the colors, and resolution of the XGs. I can make an XG run circles around most 9" setups (except the better calibrators - they know who they are).


Jeff in Detroit
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,056 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by VideoGrabber
Oliver Klohs commented:

> I tried 720p, too but it looked sharper to me only in a negative sense, it was artificial sharpness due to line structure.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top