AVS Forum banner

141 - 160 of 696 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,352 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gouger /forum/post/20922457


A few JVC videos posted to the cedia picture sticky.

Thanks Alan.


However, I see new photos in that thread, but no videos.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,668 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi /forum/post/20922401


Look, those wobulation links google will find you are most likely comparing wobulated 960x1080 projectors to full 1920x1080 projectors (that's the only thing wobulation was used for with projection until now). *Of course* wobulated 960x1080 projectors are less sharp than true 1920x1080 projectors. And *of course* wobulated 4K projectors will be less sharp compared to true native 4K projectors. But that's all totally irrelevant here, since what we're discussing here is native 1080p projectors vs. wobulated 4K projectors. So basically you can trash all those google wobulation links because they have absolutely *nothing* to say about sharpness, when comparing a native 1080p projector to a wobulated 4K projector.

Good point. Let's see what people say.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,352 Posts
Thank you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,253 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawguy /forum/post/20922487


Take a look at the pictures from the Chronicles of Narnia that are at the end of the article here .


If you compare the RS1 to the RS20 to the RS35 to the A900B in my mind the differences between those pictures are the pixel gaps. The RS1 is the softest but has the least visible pixel gaps. The A900 is the sharpest but has the most visible pixels gaps.

Look at the "you" letters further up in that same article. The biggest sharpness difference between the Samsung and the JVCs is that the Samsung has no convergence problems (single chip), better optics and a bigger chip (0.95" vs. 0.70").


Less fillrate does not help sharpness, it introduces artificial high frequencies which don't belong there. Less filltrate increases artifacts, not sharpness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawguy /forum/post/20922487


I am not arguing in favor of preserving pixels. Far from it. But, if the end result is a softer picture you have to question whether what you are doing is a good thing.

*If*. All I'm saying is that we should preserve judgement. Your posts are all so full of worry about losing sharpness when in reality it could just be the opposite. I've no clue whether the 4K wobulation trick will increase or decrease perceived sharpness in the end, but neither do you. From a purely scientific point of view, proper 4K projection does not need to decrease perceived sharpness at all. So that's why I find the sentiment in your posts to be a bit premature. Let's just wait and see how it plays out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,668 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi /forum/post/20922550


Let's just wait and see how it plays out.

I agree.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
254 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawguy /forum/post/20922487


Take a look at the pictures from the Chronicles of Narnia that are at the end of the article here .


If you compare the RS1 to the RS20 to the RS35 to the A900B in my mind the differences between those pictures are the pixel gaps. The RS1 is the softest but has the least visible pixel gaps. The A900 is the sharpest but has the most visible pixels gaps.


I am not arguing in favor of preserving pixels. Far from it. But, if the end result is a softer picture you have to question whether what you are doing is a good thing.


Again, I am not reaching conclusions. I am issue spotting here.

That article is about pixel uniformity and that is different from what wobulation or using a real 4K projector would do with 2K material. The article shows that the LCoS display should have uniform sized pixels with a uniform color right to its edge but doesn't quite make it. The RS-1 looks like chromatic aberration or convergence and the RS-35 show that neighboring pixels affect the look of the other when displaying black/white line pairs. The DLP shows a nice uniform sized pixel and uniform color. Panasonic's SmoothScreen tech does not look like this on purpose to fill in the pixel gaps but all the detail is still there unless the panels are misconverged. SmoothScreen isn't worse because it doesn't have that super precise DLP pixel edge. It would only be worse if there was color bleed or misconvergence due to its design.


Separately from that, if you have more pixels available or you want to wobulate the same pixels, there are other ways to display 1920x1080 in 3840x2160 than just filling in the 2x2 sub-pixels with the same value, simulating the exact look of a 1920x1080p native projector. Some will prefer the precise look of 1920x1080 DLP and think it is sharper. Others will prefer the smoothed look of scaling the image up by an integer value. Neither has more detail but generally the upscaled image will be closer for real world images and DLP will look be exactly right for computer generated 1920x1080 text and desktops.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,253 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Anstey /forum/post/20922615


Separately from that, if you have more pixels available or you want to wobulate the same pixels, there are other ways to display 1920x1080 in 3840x2160 than just filling in the 2x2 sub-pixels with the same value, simulating the exact look of a 1920x1080p native projector. Some will prefer the precise look of 1920x1080 DLP and think it is sharper. Others will prefer the smoothed look of scaling the image up by an integer value. Neither has more detail but generally the upscaled image will be closer for real world images and DLP will look be exactly right for computer generated 1920x1080 text and desktops.

Yep, filling the 2x2 sub-pixels with the same value is called "nearest neighbor" scaling, which is pretty much the worst upscaling algorithm that exists for images/videos...
It's a good choice for computer type content, though. Personally, I believe that 99% of all people would prefer a good upscaling algorithm over nearest neighbor sampling (for images and videos).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,869 Posts
I vaguely recall from Mark Peterson's blog that the JVC pixels were actually made up of subpixels and their behavior was what caused the edge transition issues. I wonder if they are individually controlling the subpixels in conjunction with the wobulation to mimic 4K resolution somehow.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,004 Posts
I've posted my take and observations as well as a few photos related to the new JVC projectors introduced at CEDIA over on the CEDIA Rumors and Spoilers Thread starting with THIS POST . Basically to create the 4K image the processor in the RS55 and RS65 upscales a 1080p image by a factor of 2 times both vertically and horizontally. As with most scalers the new pixels are not repeats of existing pixels but are interpolated pixels created by taking the contents of the adjacent pixels then estimating what the new pixel should be. The projector displays the original 1080 x 1920 pixels then shifts the projected image 1/2 pixel width horizonal and 1/2 pixel width vertical (or a diagonal shift) then displays the new 1080 x 1920 image using the interpolated set of pixels. As is the case when scaling 480p to 1080p (such as done with upscaling DVDs to HD resolution) the results can never be as good as having the original source will the full native higher resolution image. Or using something most you are familar with, an upscaled DVD will not look as good as Blu-rays of the same movie, but an upscaled DVD can look better than DVDs actually displayed at their native 480p resolution. Along the same lines upscaled 1080p will not look as good as true native 2160p (or similar resolution professionall 4K video format), but it can look better than a native 1080p display. Below is a slide from today's JVC's presentation that provides an overview of the new e-Shift feature on the RS55 and RS65.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,658 Posts
So Ron (and anyone else) how do these look? Were they projecting images? I haven't read any comments about pq...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
145 Posts
Saw sony vw1000Es, everything in DPI booth and lengthy showing in JVC booth.


RS65 was our favorite. 11ft wide Stewart Reflection 170. Blu-ray demos including movies and some video footage shot at 4k, downcoverted to blu-ray, then internally scaled by projector to 4k. Sharpness: excellent. Convergence: excellent. Colors:excellent. Brightness: excellent. Native Contrast 120,000:1


Saw it with e-shift on and off (service menu option for now). Expected it to soften image...not true. Image was awesome. IMO, best of show. Convergence was awesome, and fine tuning by 1/16th pixel seems nice. Brightness was great on 11ft wide Stewart Reflection 170. Plenty o' Lumens. According to engineers, changed internal dichroic (sp?) filters and lumens should be much better than this years models. Now rated at 1200 lumens for 55 and 65 and 1300 for 45. 3D seemed much better than the x30/RS45 demo. Anamorphic features are gimmicky but do work well. 3 memories for zoom, lens shift which should be useful to some CIH folks. Takes 15-30sec to switch modes.


I've found my next projector.


No RS55 on display.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,658 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcastle /forum/post/20924119


Saw sony vw1000Es, everything in DPI booth and lengthy showing in JVC booth.


RS65 was our favorite. 11ft wide Stewart Reflection 170. Blu-ray demos including movies and some video footage shot at 4k, downcoverted to blu-ray, then internally scaled by projector to 4k. Sharpness: excellent. Convergence: excellent. Colors:excellent. Brightness: excellent. Native Contrast 120,000:1


Saw it with e-shift on and off (service menu option for now). Expected it to soften image...not true. Image was awesome. IMO, best of show. Convergence was awesome, and fine tuning by 1/16th pixel seems nice. Brightness was great on 11ft wide Stewart Reflection 170. Plenty o' Lumens. According to engineers, changed internal dichroic (sp?) filters and lumens should be much better than this years models. Now rated at 1200 lumens for 55 and 65 and 1300 for 45. 3D seemed much better than the x30/RS45 demo. Anamorphic features are gimmicky but do work well. 3 memories for zoom, lens shift which should be useful to some CIH folks. Takes 15-30sec to switch modes.


I've found my next projector.


No RS55 on display.

Thank you!!


Your report of having a service menu item to turn e-shift on and off is the first I heard it can be turned off (other than going to 3D).


Sounds intriguing.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
254 Posts
jcastle,

Do you know, see, ask if e-shift creates 3-2 judder for 24p material instead of a nice clean 5:5 (over 2 frames) at 120Hz or 2:2 @ 96 Hz?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,546 Posts
A little confused... Here's what I got.. someone tell me if I'm right/wrong... So this projector has 3840x2160 resolution with a special way of upscaling 1080p material which is different than we've seen of other upscale methods, but in the end, it's just upscaling.


The big disadvantage is -- while it's 4X full HD resolution, it does not accept a true 3840x2160 feed... Kinda similar to how there were some 1080p tvs back in the day that would de-interlace 1080i to 1080p, but could only accept 1080i/720p input material...


Or am I completely off base?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,076 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by stumlad /forum/post/20924652


A little confused... Here's what I got.. someone tell me if I'm right/wrong... So this projector has 3840x2160 resolution with a special way of upscaling 1080p material which is different than we've seen of other upscale methods, but in the end, it's just upscaling.


The big disadvantage is -- while it's 4X full HD resolution, it does not accept a true 3840x2160 feed... Kinda similar to how there were some 1080p tvs back in the day that would de-interlace 1080i to 1080p, but could only accept 1080i/720p input material...


Or am I completely off base?

The projector receives a 2k image. It up-scales the image to 4k. The image is then split into two 2k images. One 2k image is flashed on the screen, then the second image is flashed on the screen. The shifting of the pixels on the second image is done optically. The image is passed through a lens that when given an electrical charge bends the light, changing the focal point. It worked very well. With your nose to the screen you did not see pixels.
 

·
Hello, World!
Joined
·
2,465 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by mjg100 /forum/post/20924675


With your nose to the screen you did not see pixels.

Could you see the "wobule" ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
276 Posts
So in reality it is kind of 2x2K instead of 4K. Come to think of it, if they would add another shift element at 90 degrees angle to first, they could have poor mans 4K.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,253 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by karrih /forum/post/20925244


So in reality it is 2x2K instead of 4K.

Doesn't seem like that to me. The slides clearly claim they internally upscale to 3840x2160. The shifting is done diagonally, so through the 1/4 overlap the smallest "unique" pixels are truely 4K size. Whether they can perfectly set the exact color value for each of those 4K subpixels, I don't know.
 
141 - 160 of 696 Posts
Top