AVS Forum banner

36381 - 36400 of 37376 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,754 Posts
In your own picture the grid line appears to be about 1/10th of a pixel. A 4K pixel, which is already tiny. Sorry but I'm not buying that being able to resolve this thin line is the arbiter between a bad picture and a good one. And I'd still think you can get relatively sharp pixels despite not being able to see a line a fraction of the size. I've honestly not looked for the grid because I don't care. The picture looks great. I can clearly read single pixel text corner to corner. Why go looking for something that couldn't possibly make a difference at my seated position?
If you're happy with it, then that's the end of the discussion. But you're also saying it won't make a difference from your seating position. You can only really make that latter conclusion after you've compared the one that can focus the grid with the one that can't side-by-side, right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,824 Posts
If you're happy with it, then that's the end of the discussion. But you're also saying it won't make a difference from your seating position. You can only really make that latter conclusion after you've compared the one that can focus the grid with the one that can't side-by-side, right?
From a scientific standpoint let's say we have 2 projectors. Sample A being able to focus in on the grid vs. B that can't (but manages to get a fairly sharp pixel), A will have a sharper picture. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. However that's not all the factors at play. Is the human eye able to see a faint line that is a fraction of a pixel from the seated distance? No. Is the slightly less sharp pixel on sample B noticeable vs. A? Again, almost certainly no. We're not watching these projectors from 6".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
615 Posts
To properly focus using the pixel matrix, should one not use black or as dark as possible photo printer paper instead of white ?
As the space between the pixels is not light emitted by the panels but void of light due to the matrices inter-pixel grid that does not emit light.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,754 Posts
From a scientific standpoint let's say we have 2 projectors. Sample A being able to focus in on the grid vs. B that can't, A will have a sharper picture. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. However that's not all the factors at play. Is the human eye able to see a faint line that is a fraction of a pixel from the seated distance? No. Is the slightly less sharp pixel on sample B noticeable vs. A? Again, almost certainly no. We're not watching these projectors from 6".
J, I can appreciate what you're saying but I don't know...those line differences when taken together should make a difference in the overall appearance of the image. Or else, we could extrapolate on that same reasoning to even argue that from 6 feet away, the smaller pixels of native 4K don't make a difference to the average viewer, which I don't think would be correct.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,824 Posts
J, I can appreciate what you're saying but I don't know...those line differences when taken together should make a difference in the overall appearance of the image. Or else, we could extrapolate on that same reasoning to even argue that from 6 feet away, the smaller pixels of native 4K don't make a difference to the average viewer, which I don't think would be correct.
The pixels are several times larger. The grid is not showing any information.

If you can make out that a single pixel is slightly fuzzier from 9' or more, then it's going to impact your viewing. Again this is assuming that the B projector is still able to get a decent focus at the pixel level and not something like Charles posted.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,754 Posts
Yep, this is exactly how I focus my projectors :) You don't have to get a super good pixel grid to have the text be readable. As long as you can see it, its probably good enough. On my RS4500 the pixel grid is super clear. But that's not what I expect out of an NX.
Whether an unwavering cheerleader or a fan of the brand who occasionally offers positive criticism, the fact is JVC's wire grid polarizer technology offers black levels so good in the price range that I will put up with certain things. But one thing I try to avoid is an image that's too soft. You can have all the resolution in the world, but if your lens sample is way too soft to display it...well then.

That's why I use the pixel grid to focus. And if I'm substantially seeing it in focus, I then know my machine is displaying sharply and doing its job beginning at the pixel level.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,273 Posts
In your own picture the grid line appears to be about 1/10th of a pixel. A 4K pixel, which is already tiny. Sorry but I'm not buying that being able to resolve this thin line is the arbiter between a bad picture and a good one. And I'd still think you can get relatively sharp pixels despite not being able to see a line a fraction of the size. I've honestly not looked for the grid because I don't care. The picture looks great. I can clearly read single pixel text corner to corner. Why go looking for something that couldn't possibly make a difference at my seated position?
To be fair, I don't think that is what was being said. You can still get what to many would look like a great picture even mildly out of focus. It is only truly important with computer text or text on static images. On moving images with all the inherent compression etc that goes on, not resolving a pixel grid is not that consequential, but it is the ideal end result for a picture that looks EXACTLY as it is mapped on the source.
 
  • Like
Reactions: woofer and Aztar35

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,824 Posts
To be fair, I don't think that is what was being said. You can still get what to many would look like a great picture even mildly out of focus. It is only truly important with computer text or text on static images. On moving images with all the inherent compression etc that goes on, not resolving a pixel grid is not that consequential, but it is the ideal end result for a picture that looks EXACTLY as it is mapped on the source.
If you can read the text fine on a sample that can't resolve a line that is a fraction of a pixel is it still an issue though? I've not ran across an NX7 that couldn't focus on a pixel adequately, but have never bothered to check if a sub pixel faint line is visible (because no one is watching anything close enough for this to matter). I get that in an ideal situation we'd all see it (screen factors aside), but this just feels like obsessing on minutiae.

I guess if people want to make this an issue to agonize over they can. Personally I'd save that for examples that can't focus adequately on a pixel. Heck most samples have very slight convergence errors larger than the grid. Maybe that can be the next thing to get out the pitchforks for ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
615 Posts
Very interesting results. What was written on the lamp? There seem to be several out there. Some could be fake while others might be 235 vs 265 watts. Could you post what was written on the lamp so this one can be avoided Does it say Ushio and 250JK or 265jk.
This is the one I got drop shipped last year from Dominic Chan :
20200124_153018b.jpg


Manufactured 06 jan 2020 / Reference is NSHA250JK and the number below is : 83A-0020-00
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,273 Posts
If you can read the text fine on a sample that can't resolve a line that is a fraction of a pixel is it still an issue though? I've not ran across an NX7 that couldn't focus on a pixel adequately, but have never bothered to check if a sub pixel faint line is visible (because no one is watching anything close enough for this to matter). I get that in an ideal situation we'd all see it (screen factors aside), but this just feels like obsessing on minutiae.

I guess if people want to make this an issue to agonize over they can. Personally I'd save that for examples that can't focus adequately on a pixel. Heck most samples have very slight convergence errors larger than the grid. Maybe that can be the next thing to get out the pitchforks for ;)
I get what you are saying. I also think that even though that NX5 couldn't focus down to the individual pixels, the image it looks like it is producing is okay for most.
The first thing you do when you set up a projector is to align and focus. If you can't get sharp lines with no blooming or fuzziness then you could have an issue.
However as you say, a lot of time even a good lens might be masked by badly aligned panels...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,824 Posts
I get what you are saying. I also think that even though that NX5 couldn't focus down to the individual pixels, the image it looks like it is producing is okay for most.
The first thing you do when you set up a projector is to align and focus. If you can't get sharp lines with no blooming or fuzziness then you could have an issue.
However as you say, a lot of time even a good lens might be masked by badly aligned panels...
Well at the end of the day JVC is ultimately the arbiter of what does and does not pass for their products. The example Charles posted is visibly worse than all 5 NX7's I've seen and, to me, looks like it would be out of spec. I just question how much weight a line that looks about 1/10th of a pixel wide should really be given. I can focus well at the pixel level and I can read single pixel patterns across the screen. Since the pixel is the smallest element actually displaying something, that to me is enough.

My sample has good panel alignment compared to the samples and screenshots I've seen and even it has fringing that is probably a tenth of a pixel. But I get that different folks have different ideas on what is "good" and what is "bad". It's probably time to move on and let those that feel this is an issue to take up with the manufacturer do so. I'll continue to live in ignorant bliss of not knowing whether or not the grid is visible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,462 Posts
Why is it too much to ask that our projectors simply be able to focus in enough to show the pixel grid?

That's how I always focus my projector.
I use the little " focus " icon and pixel grid. I've gotten too lazy to pull up a separate pixel grid pattern. Close enough. Besides, I rarely need to check or re-focus my projector.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,056 Posts
One thing I will mention when working with JVC is after the Factory Reset my AutoCal was discarded in one manner or another. Which is not what I have read in the past.

This is based on the "fact" after running AutoCal with the aperture set to 0 the image from 0 to 3 was dimmer than when set to 4 and the colors were different. After the Factory Reset 0 - 3 was brighter than 4 and the colors were no longer different. I reran AutoCal and once again 0 - 3 became dimmer (than 4) and the colors were different (improved to my thinking).

I noticed it didn't write a new init file like during the inital run and I can't say what part of AutoCal was retained (if any) during the Factory Reset. All I know is 0 - 3 performed the same as 4 which wasn't the case before the reset.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,401 Posts
One thing I will mention when working with JVC is after the Factory Reset my AutoCal was discarded in one manner or another. Which is not what I have read in the past.

This is based on the "fact" after running AutoCal with the aperture set to 0 the image from 0 to 3 was dimmer than when set to 4 and the colors were different. After the Factory Reset 0 - 3 was brighter than 4 and the colors were no longer different. I reran AutoCal and once again 0 - 3 became dimmer (than 4) and the colors were different (improved to my thinking).

I noticed it didn't write a new init file like during the inital run and I can't say what part of AutoCal was retained (if any) during the Factory Reset. All I know is 0 - 3 performed the same as 4 which wasn't the case before the reset.
Doing a reset will not restore the factory calibration.
Are you using the same picture mode and colour profile before/after reset?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,658 Posts
On panels I’m impressed with streaming 4K but not as much on a large pj screen. The artifacts are still there. Wether or not it bothers you is why we all have our own personal preferences.
Oh and the term is not “macro-blocking” it’s “micro-blocking” as in minuscule in size.
Macro-blocking would be large blocks. You prolly know this and it was just a simple mistake.
If the pixel clusters are large enough for you to see, they are macro-blocks. Micro would be too small to see.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,056 Posts
Doing a reset will not restore the factory calibration.
Are you using the same picture mode and colour profile before/after reset?
Yes - that is why I found it strange. He stated when I did the reset it wouldn't (as I have read)... and I can't say it did... however I can say image wise (using the same settings) it was altered if not put back to the factory state.

Now this was a Factory Reset via a service menu...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,401 Posts
Yes - that is why I found it strange. He stated when I did the reset it wouldn't (as I have read)... and I can't say it did... however I can say image wise (using the same settings) it was altered if not put back to the factory state.

Now this was a Factory Reset via a service menu...
Which Picture Mode were you using prior to the reset?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,056 Posts
Which Picture Mode were you using prior to the reset?
Natural

I have a print out of my various settings (SDR & HDR)... which I entered before testing to see if AutoCal survived. Once I had everything restored I played a few scenes to see if everything looked good and that's when I checked if AutoCal lived. Obviously I might be mistaken... I didn't study it... rather reran AutoCal and called it a day.
 
36381 - 36400 of 37376 Posts
Top