Max resolution on NEC LT240k?
- Status
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
I believe so. I've seen the LT150 being fed all sorts of amazing resolutions from a HTPC. It would take them, downconvert and display them back.
I believe that the accublend technology will still work up to the 1600 x 1200 range. I'm sure it's very similar with the 240K.
Anyone who knows all the details please chime in.
I believe that the accublend technology will still work up to the 1600 x 1200 range. I'm sure it's very similar with the 240K.
Anyone who knows all the details please chime in.
Maximum resolution refers to a PC input signal's resolution. The LT240K has a native XGA res of 1024 x 768 but can be fed up to 1600 x 1200 in non-native mode (if your PCs video card can handle that). I haven't actually tested to see whether feeding it a higher res in non-native mode would increase image quality, but I'll give it a try soon and report back.
Joined
·
29,354 Posts
Quote:
The "Resolution" option only works with an RGB input signal. If you're feeding it Component YPbPr, you can't use "Native" mode.
The 240k also disables the "Native" mode if you feed it a 1024x768 signal, regardless of Component or RGB. In theory, 1024x768 should be the projector's native resolution, but in practice it's difficult to get true 1:1 pixel mapping.
| Originally posted by shankar BTW, on my PJ, the resolution option is deselcted (grayed out), so I can't set to native or auto. How do I make it come back? |
The 240k also disables the "Native" mode if you feed it a 1024x768 signal, regardless of Component or RGB. In theory, 1024x768 should be the projector's native resolution, but in practice it's difficult to get true 1:1 pixel mapping.
To add to the discussion about NECs Accublend scaling techology, I offer the following:
a) All PJ's can upscale from their "native" or "recommended" resolution, some higher than others, and some better than others (LT240K = 1024 x 768 in "native" mode).
b) However, upscaling (via PCs desktop resolution mode) does not necessarily produce desired results. Using my HTPC I never found that upscaling this way produced a superior image. Simple desktop icons and text appeared "blocky" and not nearly as sharp as when in "non-native" mode, so I never upscaled via PC desktop mode. When I say "upscaling" I mean desktop resolution.
I've read that some members have produced desired results using PowerStrip (or video card drivers) to feed their PJ an upscaled image that was an improvement, but I doubt that. It probably just produced a "differently" scaled image which they may have preferred. Having just said that I now wonder what the difference is between upscaling via desktop mode or using FFDshow to upscale?
c) Finally, NEC's scaling technology is considered to be one of the industry's best as discussed here on May 4, 2004 at ProjectorCentral
a) All PJ's can upscale from their "native" or "recommended" resolution, some higher than others, and some better than others (LT240K = 1024 x 768 in "native" mode).
b) However, upscaling (via PCs desktop resolution mode) does not necessarily produce desired results. Using my HTPC I never found that upscaling this way produced a superior image. Simple desktop icons and text appeared "blocky" and not nearly as sharp as when in "non-native" mode, so I never upscaled via PC desktop mode. When I say "upscaling" I mean desktop resolution.
I've read that some members have produced desired results using PowerStrip (or video card drivers) to feed their PJ an upscaled image that was an improvement, but I doubt that. It probably just produced a "differently" scaled image which they may have preferred. Having just said that I now wonder what the difference is between upscaling via desktop mode or using FFDshow to upscale?
c) Finally, NEC's scaling technology is considered to be one of the industry's best as discussed here on May 4, 2004 at ProjectorCentral
Joined
·
29,354 Posts
The scaling chip inside the LT-240k is a pretty good one, however I have found improvement using an iScan-HD external scaler.
TweaKing, it sounds like your computer just doesn't do a good job of scaling on its own, and the 240's scaler is better. Using a better scaling program or PowerStrip might show an improvement.
TweaKing, it sounds like your computer just doesn't do a good job of scaling on its own, and the 240's scaler is better. Using a better scaling program or PowerStrip might show an improvement.
Quote:
I've tested my HTPC using "non-native" modes (ie: non-XGA resolution) using PowerStrip and also my video card's default drivers. Both methods didn't produce as sharp an image as running my HTPC in its native 1024x768 mode, which is the way to go from what I've read and experienced.
However, I should also add that I'm also doing further upscaling via FFDshow to 1920x1080 resolution (lanczos), Dscaler Sharpen (70), and Gradual Denoise (30) also, and then having my 9500Pro Radeon Video card downsize to the PJ's native resolution.
The overall image produced by using these filters and downsizing to my PC @ 1024x768 is very, very nice. Foreground images such as close-up facials of Frodo, Gandalf, Fifth Element, etc. often posted online produce a beautifully sharp yet smooth film-like image. Distant background shots (like tree branches) aren't quite as gorgeous, but I suspect that's a limitation of the PJ's total available pixels, not a scaling issue. Can't wait to get my Panamorph to squeeze every available pixel on the screen!
In fact, newer DVD's that I view (and as long as the transfer is a clean one such as LOTR, etc.) produce an image that is so close to High Definition that an untrained eye wouldn't be able to notice anything different. I'd say it's about 90% as good as high definition.
I'm curious if your external scaler can produce similar results? I've read that newer progressive scan DVD players (Bravo, Momitsu) come pretty close to a "tweaked-out" HTPC...
| Originally posted by Josh Z TweaKing, it sounds like your computer just doesn't do a good job of scaling on its own, and the 240's scaler is better. Using a better scaling program or PowerStrip might show an improvement. |
However, I should also add that I'm also doing further upscaling via FFDshow to 1920x1080 resolution (lanczos), Dscaler Sharpen (70), and Gradual Denoise (30) also, and then having my 9500Pro Radeon Video card downsize to the PJ's native resolution.
The overall image produced by using these filters and downsizing to my PC @ 1024x768 is very, very nice. Foreground images such as close-up facials of Frodo, Gandalf, Fifth Element, etc. often posted online produce a beautifully sharp yet smooth film-like image. Distant background shots (like tree branches) aren't quite as gorgeous, but I suspect that's a limitation of the PJ's total available pixels, not a scaling issue. Can't wait to get my Panamorph to squeeze every available pixel on the screen!
In fact, newer DVD's that I view (and as long as the transfer is a clean one such as LOTR, etc.) produce an image that is so close to High Definition that an untrained eye wouldn't be able to notice anything different. I'd say it's about 90% as good as high definition.
I'm curious if your external scaler can produce similar results? I've read that newer progressive scan DVD players (Bravo, Momitsu) come pretty close to a "tweaked-out" HTPC...
Joined
·
29,354 Posts
Quote:
You don't feel that doing all of this leaves the picture looking too "processed"?
| Originally posted by TweaKing However, I should also add that I'm also doing further upscaling via FFDshow to 1920x1080 resolution (lanczos), Dscaler Sharpen (70), and Gradual Denoise (30) also, and then having my 9500Pro Radeon Video card downsize to the PJ's native resolution. |
Quote:
I've tested extensively using post-processing filters via FFDshow and AVISynth and I've always felt the "processed" image was superior: sharper, smoother, more saturated, less noise.
One can get carried away with an HTPC's options and have the image looking too "processed" if one isn't careful with all the various settings. However, most members on the HTPC forum would agree that resizing with FFDshow and applying these imaging filters results in an image that is superior to most scalers.
I've never had the luxury of A-B comparing an HTPC vs a good scaler (I've heard good things about the IScan HD), or even an SDI-modified player, but I'm quite satisfied that I've squezed all that I can from my 240K with my HTPC.
| Originally posted by Josh Z You don't feel that doing all of this leaves the picture looking too "processed"? |
I've tested extensively using post-processing filters via FFDshow and AVISynth and I've always felt the "processed" image was superior: sharper, smoother, more saturated, less noise.
One can get carried away with an HTPC's options and have the image looking too "processed" if one isn't careful with all the various settings. However, most members on the HTPC forum would agree that resizing with FFDshow and applying these imaging filters results in an image that is superior to most scalers.
I've never had the luxury of A-B comparing an HTPC vs a good scaler (I've heard good things about the IScan HD), or even an SDI-modified player, but I'm quite satisfied that I've squezed all that I can from my 240K with my HTPC.
Joined
·
29,354 Posts
Quote:
I haven't had extensive experience with FFDShow, but from what I've seen it left me dissatisfied with the edge enhancement it added to the picture. I suppose you can apply other filters on top of FFDShow to tame some of that, but that strikes me as counterproductive.
I guess in some respects I'm in the old "straight wire, no gain" camp, and prefer to do as little processing as necessary. Scaling is one thing. You have to do scaling to play back a DVD on a fixed-pixel display. But beyond that most other forms of sharpening, denoising, and various filtering are more harmful than good.
Just yesterday I tried watching the "THX-mastered" edition of Tombstone on my large screen. That disc is a case study in what happens when you overprocess a video image. THX filtered the hell out of the picture to mask compression artifacts, then laid edge enhancement on extremely thick to bring some false sense of sharpness. The result is an ugly, garish "electronic" looking picture that is practically unwatchable.
DVD video transfers are already tweaked and manipulated enough in the studio. Doing even more once you get the disc home is like going to McDonalds and adding extra salt to your (already too salty) fries.
Your mileage may vary.
| Originally posted by TweaKing I've tested extensively using post-processing filters via FFDshow and AVISynth and I've always felt the "processed" image was superior: sharper, smoother, more saturated, less noise. One can get carried away with an HTPC's options and have the image looking too "processed" if one isn't careful with all the various settings. However, most members on the HTPC forum would agree that resizing with FFDshow and applying these imaging filters results in an image that is superior to most scalers. |
I guess in some respects I'm in the old "straight wire, no gain" camp, and prefer to do as little processing as necessary. Scaling is one thing. You have to do scaling to play back a DVD on a fixed-pixel display. But beyond that most other forms of sharpening, denoising, and various filtering are more harmful than good.
Just yesterday I tried watching the "THX-mastered" edition of Tombstone on my large screen. That disc is a case study in what happens when you overprocess a video image. THX filtered the hell out of the picture to mask compression artifacts, then laid edge enhancement on extremely thick to bring some false sense of sharpness. The result is an ugly, garish "electronic" looking picture that is practically unwatchable.
DVD video transfers are already tweaked and manipulated enough in the studio. Doing even more once you get the disc home is like going to McDonalds and adding extra salt to your (already too salty) fries.
Your mileage may vary.
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
- Status
Join the discussion
