[mike_1972]

Hi,

a little more tricky here ... I was in the market for a 4805.. but recently learned that I will be in Europe soon.. since the prices in the US are generally lower I would like to take advantage of that....


I will only be watching DVD's... in the beginning mostly US NTSC ones (have about 500 in my collection) but very soon after I'll be switching to PAL versions....

so... what should I go with?

BenQ 6200?

EsPro 727?

Dell 2300?


oh.. I'm rather biosed towards DLP... totally light controlled room.. plenty of space to the screen...


Thanks, Mike

 

[Chrismo]

I have a 6200 and watch only PAL DVDs. I have done a side by side comparison with a 4805 and, to be honest, there isn't an obvious improvement in resolution with the 6200. The SDE is better with the 6200, but color and RBE is better with the 4805.


The native vertical res of PAL is 576, but the actual res. is rarely better than 400 lines. The horizontal res is limited to 720 so the 6200 has to scale 720 to 1024. The 6200 scaler is OK but the deinterlacer is poor.


The reality is that "native" is not really that important. you can actually scale


The 4805 seems to scale PAL quite well and the deinterlacer is excellent. So, unless SDE is an issue and you know that all your sources will be progressive I'd probably opt for the 4805.


Another option is to wait for the 6210, or pick it up in Europe, but I'm not sure on all the specs.

 

[Chrismo]

I have a 6200 and watch only PAL DVDs. I have done a side by side comparison with a 4805 and, to be honest, there isn't an obvious improvement in resolution with the 6200. The SDE is better with the 6200, but color and RBE is better with the 4805.


The native vertical res of PAL is 576, but the actual res. is rarely better than 400 lines. So the vertical res doesn't suffer a lot with good scaling.


The 6200 scaler is OK, and in 16:9 it's "PAL native", but the deinterlacer is poor.


The 4805 seems to scale PAL quite well and the deinterlacer is excellent. So, unless SDE is an issue and you know that all your sources will be progressive, I'd probably opt for the 4805. The 4805 has a bit better contrast too.


Another option is to wait for the 6210, or pick it up in Europe (Benq-eu.com). Two advantages of the 6210 would be the video mode in economy and the fact it is quieter. But unless they've upgraded (or supplemented) the pixelworks you'll still need a PAL p'scan DVD player or an HTPC/external deinterlacer.

 

[mpilon]

I watch both PAL and NTSC on my X1 -- some of the more complete boxed sets come from amazon.co.uk ...


-- works great, excellent picture and I'm not troubled by the down-sampling of an anamorphic dvd. and the deinterlacer is the faroujda dcdi.


Mark

 

[mike_1972]

Hi Chrismo / mpilon


thanks for your input...

wow.. now I am quite surprised. Originally I wanted to go with the 4805 since it seemed just right.... on the other hand I was under the impression that PAL always had ~527 effective lines.... and the 4805 however can display only 480 lines.. well "only" might be pushing is a little bit it is only about 10% less


I visisted the British Forum and they seem to like the Panasonic 500's and the 700's as well as the Optoma H30's .... some even the PT-L500U

the 4805 does not seem to have quite as many fans over there than here.. and I thought that had to do with the native resolution difference between PAL and NTSC


Cheers Mike

 

[mpilon]

try to see as many of these as you can ... I bought my X1 strictly on the volume of enthusiasm here and haven't been disappointed. do what you need to do in order to be comfortable w/ your decision.


[ to be truthful I also went by the recommendations in 'recommended home theater projectors' @ http://www.projectorcentral.com


and there have been some knocks against that site for supposedly always saying something nice about each projector. you have to do that in order to get free demo units from manufacturers. you can still read between the lines to identify each PJ's shortcomings.


try some of the articles there -- they helped get me started.]



you might try to pay attention to reviews of each PJ -- especially in terms of screen door and color saturation and accuracy. it can be unhelpful to focus on one spec like resolution ... these things really are more than the sum of their parts and specs.


Mark

 

[harol]

I have a Z2 and play both NTSC and PAL discs. All i can say is that PAL disks DO HAVE 575 lines of resolution, it is neither more nor less. However in the past the PAL transfer wasn't always as good as the NTSC transfer, or the PAL version was based on the NTSC version. However of lately the quality on PAL version are on par with NTSC and then you get a better picture with PAL.


If the transfer to NTSC and PAL DVD are both based on HD master then the PAL version will be the better version all other things equal.

 

[mike_1972]

Hi Harol,

darn.. uppsie... I subtracted 50 lines from 575.. not from the 625 lines

anyhow... I am still concerned about the lower vertical resolution.. maybe I just create a prroblem that is not there...

However I could get a nice deal on a NEC LT240k that should solve all my problems.. a little more than the 4805.. but with screen and mount....

so currently I am leaning strongly towards the LT240k



Cheers Mike

 

[Chrismo]

Quote:

All i can say is that PAL discs DO HAVE 575 lines of resolution, it is neither more nor less.

Just to clarify things, I'm not saying there's not 576 lines, I'm just saying there's not 576 lines of detail that is actually resolved.


The number of lines (625), the number containing picture information (576) and the actual number of lines that are resolved (about 405) are three different things.


I can say this because I have done the tests, e.g. spacial frequency analysis of broadcast quality PAL material. The reason that not all the vertical res. is actually used is due to anti-flicker filtering of material intended to be displayed on interlaced monitors. Similarly, NTSC contains only about 330 lines of resolved vertical res.


Where I think people get confused is that they equate DVD picture resolution with computer resolutions. You cannot equate the effect of scaling a desktop with the effect on a picture that derives from film.


It's true that scaling errors do affect resolution, but so does other processing (i.e. de-interlacing). It's also true that a native 576 display is good for PAL, (ideally we'd have a native 576x720 display with non-square pixels). The point I am making is that you shouldn't write off the 4805, with all its benefits, just because it doesn't have 576 vertical pixels.


Oh, and sorry about the earlier posts, I don't know how I ended up posting twice.

 

[mike_1972]

Hi Chrismo,

wow.. that is weird....

I thought the PAL picture is actually split in 2 half pictures (exactly 1/2) split with the one line difference (for interlacing)..... over all the 575 lines... I had no idea that there was such a thing as "regular picture lines" and "resolved picture lines"...


question though.. after all there are 575 lines.. are you saying that only about 405 actually contain picture information.. the others are "tools" for the de-interlacing?

If that is so.. how would the projector know? In other words.. would not the projector use ALL 575 lines and scale the down.. rather than "just picking 405 lines" and scaling them up to 480????


Does this apply only for broadcast or for DVD as well (I don't watch cable / broadcast)....


since you are reading this already.. do you honsetly believe the 4805 is better than the PE7800 / L240k ...??


Thanks mate


Mike

 

[Chrismo]

Quote:

question though.. after all there are 575 lines.. are you saying that only about 405 actually contain picture information the others are "tools" for the de-interlacing?

No, you're on the wrong track.


The 576 lines are the result of deinterlacing the two fields. For most film based DVD sources this a simple weave with PAL.


All 576 lines contain picture information. By "resolved" lines I mean the actual sharpness of the image, as opposed to how many lines are used to display it. The affect of scaling is determined by the actual resolution of the image, not the theoretical resolution.


Resolution is hard to explain, so I'll use the example of a test chart. A TV resolution chart has a series of alternate black and white lines as part of the test pattern. The lines are arranged so they gradually get closer together. The "closeness" of the lines is defined by how many equal width alternate black and white lines can fit in the height of the picture. The greater the number of lines resolved the better the resolution.


If you take a picture of a resolution test chart with a PAL TV camera you see that no more than about 400 lines per picture height are actually resolved. Once you get over 400 lines it blurs into grey. One of the reasons the vertical resolution is not as good as it could be is that high vertical res causes flicker on an interlaced TV. As a result, not much detail actually resides on a single line. Most fine details, edges etc. are blurred across two or more lines.


Another way to think of it is to imagine your DVD/broadcast original as a slightly soft digital still. If a digital picture doesn't contain high detail you can scale it to a lower res and not really lose much detail. This what happens to a PAL picture on a 480 pixel display.


Now, (before I get flamed), you cannot scale 576 to 480 without losses. The question is, do you lose more by scaling than you gain from better color, contrast, deinterlacing or inputs (DVI etc.)?

 

[mike_1972]

I can see clearly noe the rain is gone.....



your reference with the test patterns 400 lines of resolution did the trick

males sense if you look at it that way....


coming to think of.... have you ever compared the specific PAL test patern with a 4805 (down converted to 480 lines) vs. a projector with higher resolution?? Based on what you are saying, the 4805 can resolve ~405 lines.. thus the 400 line PAL test picture shouls show fine.. correct?


Very interesting point you are making


Cheers Mike

 

[mpilon]

I said, 'these things really are more than the sum of their parts and specs'.


Mike, I think you're trying a bit hard. try to go out and see one of these things -- you'll get a better idea of what you want by 5 minutes of watching an NTSC DVD than hours of discussion and speculation about PAL.


your budget will dictate the technology you end up with -- FWIW there's little concern here about watching HDTV on a projector @ the native HDTV resolution: those projectors are $10K - $20K. -- yet many report a truly great HDTV picture from $1K - $2K projectors.


that down-sampling is the responsibility of the on-board scaler in the PJ and it either works well or not. you can get that info (whether downsampling PAL or HDTV) from the reviews.


If you want to sweat one detail, sweat the scaler -- PJs usually have square pixels and NTSC pixels are rectangular. so, at a minimum, a light scale is applied to the horizontal axis, even when such projectors operate in 'native' mode.


one more thing to worry about -- stressing native resolution is misplaced. a scaled-up picture will look better than one displayed native, provided the scaler is a good one.


And you won't be able to evaluate the scaler from the spec sheet -- you'll have to see the PJ in action.


[ and I'm not advocating attention to just one detail -- you'll want rich, saturated colors too. and most would want a 1'st -rate deinterlacer ...]


stop counting pixels !


Mark

 

[mike_1972]

Hi milon,

lol.. I know you are right....

BTW.. I would use a PAL progressive DVD player..... since I am going to move to Munich very soon.....


Regarding the "low end projectors"... I am not necessarely fixiated on pure picel count (if I would be my choices would be different)....

also I will never be watching HDTV (at least not as long as I have the projector).. the only thing is again.. that most my DVD's will be PAL (in the very near future) and I don't want to pay ~2k now to figure out I would need to change in a year or so...

On the other hand.. there might really be very little difference between i.e. a 6200 , 7800 or a L240k.. I have no way to actually view a projector at all (way east Tennessee.. back in the woods ) ...

so I have to go by a whole bunch of posts (here and avforums as well as projector central)...

plus I am getting tired on looking (have been looking for a pj since ~3 month now, ordered a 4805 originally and got screwed over by ebay, that thing never came)... so now I have this super deal for a L240k + motorized 100" screen... it is hard to pass.... the only thing is that the special from for the 7800 is about the same price and has DVI input..... on the other hands I might just go with a progressive scan DVD .. maybe even an upscaler of the older generation so I can use the component inputs....





Cheers, Mike

 

[mpilon]

Mike,


I live in eastern Montana -- no chance either to view a projector. I bought purely on recommendations here, and at projectorcentra.com.


I'd suggest tryng an X1 from infocus on their 2-week free trial basis and play w/ it. not an x1a or an x2 but an x1.


-- I've watched PAL and NTSC DVDs on my X1 and love it. @ $999 it's a great value.


UPDATE: I checked their web site and it's still available under products - business projectors -- @ $899. ::
http://www.infocus.com/products/prod...=1&prod=x1&c=4


[ and it's got a 4000 hour lamp; really, this thing is a good enough deal that you could consider it a good first step / experiment to get your feet wet w/ a small investment. and I don't think you'll find it a mistake. try it by projecting on a wall.]


if they've officially discontinued it, try one of their approved online retailers and find one w/ a reasonable restocking fee. $75 or so seems like cheap insurance and

an inexpensive way to preview a projector. also, you won't be out anything if you do like it.


you could do likewise w/ a 4805 ... the 1 caveat w/ the X1 is it's a bit of a long-throw projector: w/ the lense 11' 3" from the screen, fully zoomed in, I get a 75" x 57" image which suits me fine -- 95" diag. 4:3. add ~ 18" for the body of the PJ and room to plug the cables ...


how many hours left on that L240k's bulb? if not many you might mentally add in the cost of the bulb to your purchase price.


whatever components you end up with, make sure they work on the AC volage/frequency available in munich.


good luck,


Mark

 

[Bidda]

Hi


I have a 6100 and a friend of mine have 4805. 4805 have no problems with PAL, it gives great pictures. I have now ordred a 5120 and looking forward to see the diference 6100, 4805 and 5120.

 

[Chrismo]

Quote:

coming to think of.... have you ever compared the specific PAL test patern with a 4805 (down converted to 480 lines) vs. a projector with higher resolution?? Based on what you are saying, the 4805 can resolve ~405 lines.. thus the 400 line PAL test picture shouls show fine.. correct?

I haven't tried it on a 4805, but I have on another 480x854 PJ and it resolved the resolution of a test chart shot with a PAL Digital Betacam OK.


I did do a side by side between a 6200 and 4805. I fed the 4805 from the interlaced component feed of a PAL Philips Q50 P.Scan DVD player and the 6200 from the Faroudja deinterlaced component output of the same player. The test was done using PAL "Nemo" and "Saving Private Ryan". No-one watching could pick better resolution on the 6200, but there was slightly less SDE. The consensus was that the 4805 was the better PJ for DVD, due to its advantages of better color, less RBE, accurate D6500 etc.


I'm still happy with the 6200 I've got because I watch HD as well.

 

[mike_1972]

Hi Chrismo

now you did it.. the 4805 is back in my consideration..

one thing you wrote though...

you feed the 4805 an interlaced signal

and the 6200 a deinterlaced signal.. is that because the 6200 does not have a good inboard de-interlacer?

also.. did you feed an upconverted (line doubled) signal or the straight progressive PAL signal??


cheers Mike