AVS Forum banner

1381 - 1400 of 1423 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,688 Posts
Having looked at the geobox manual, they call it 2x2 corner adjustment, which is the equivalent of a horizontal and vertical keystone.

I dont see why you need a warping box personally unless the projectors you are using have shocking variance between their lenses. I would have thought 2 projectors can be aligned over the top of each other using no keystone and just slight lens shift to a high level. Of course, whether they stay aligned over time is a completely different matter, but that can't be helped by a warp box either.

Generally if you're having to use warping and / or keystone adjustment you're "losing" - they're things you should nearly never need in a domestic setting. I'd probably level that at A-lenses needing corrections. too, though I see the Envy has added pincushion correction recently seemingly to a high standard, and I'm in danger of incurring the wrath of the A-lens crowd :)
Which geobox did you look at it? The model I have has a ton of stuff in the manual, let me post. I dont even know what it all means exactly. Geobox g-602 image alignment and warp aka geometry correction.JPG Geobox g-602 warping #3.JPG geobox g-602 warping info from manual.JPG geobox g-602 warping info from manual #2.JPG

Why did I get it? I read all 120 pages of the Ultimate 3D thread on avs, and for most the thread everyone was saying the same thing. It's digital manipulation of the image, which creates some artifacts and lowers resolution. You want to avoid it if you can, just use lens shift. In 3D, both eyes arent seeing the same thing anyway, so if your alignment is 1 pixel off, that's only bad for 2D, but in 3D with the glasses, your brain interprets where things are supposed to be, so it's no problem, and digital manipulation of the image would just make it look worse without helping.

But no one had actually tried it. With all my reading, I only found two people who tried it. One of them was the creator of the Omega 3D system, so quite knowledgeable. The other was an end user. All their comments they left about it were completely clearcut. They didn't know what they had been missing. Whatever small dip in resolution it caused, being able to align everything down to the exact pixel made a significant improvement. First there is the convenience of being able to align things more quickly, but second, the problem is no matter how long you are willing to work at it manually with lens shift, you will never get it 100% perfect, especially the corners. Which again, you don't need to, they still said it works well without it, but it does, they said, make a big improvement.

But like a lot of the A/V stuff I'm interested in, there is not a lot of info about it, there are not a lot of posts about it, and there are not a lot of current posters who I can ask about it (since 3D lost a lot of popularity since 2010 and most users from then left the forum). So a lot of it is stuff I sort of have to get my hands on and see for myself. Which from a $ perspective, is a very bad situation to be in, lol. But I bought a lot of stuff used so hopefully that will help "insure" my project if it ends up that I have to get rid of half of it. Unfortunately 3D stuff is so unpopular, a lot of that is hard to find used, and a lot of that is the stuff I most cannot find info about whether I should get it or not. But I think this, even with little information to go off, is pretty clear cut if you can budget it and you are doing passive 3D. It will make things a lot easier, and it will improve the quality too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,688 Posts
Having looked at the geobox manual, they call it 2x2 corner adjustment, which is the equivalent of a horizontal and vertical keystone.

I dont see why you need a warping box personally unless the projectors you are using have shocking variance between their lenses. I would have thought 2 projectors can be aligned over the top of each other using no keystone and just slight lens shift to a high level. Of course, whether they stay aligned over time is a completely different matter, but that can't be helped by a warp box either.

Generally if you're having to use warping and / or keystone adjustment you're "losing" - they're things you should nearly never need in a domestic setting. I'd probably level that at A-lenses needing corrections. too, though I see the Envy has added pincushion correction recently seemingly to a high standard, and I'm in danger of incurring the wrath of the A-lens crowd :)
There is more than one manual type document for it so maybe I missed something. Here:

Advanced warp technology is embedded in G-602. User can use front panel keypad, IR controller or PC to perform edge blending and sophisticated geometry alignment up to 9x5 grids through remote controller and 17x17 grids through Gwarp PC tool. It can perform color and white balance adjustment in individual projector. Edge blending region color uniformity and non-edge blending area black level uplift are also standard function in G-602. Users can see real time geometry and colour adjustment to get optimized result.
All I know is the maker of Omega 3D system, who designed professional Panavision system, was in love with his geobox 10 years ago, and it was a previous less powerful model (which would have been cheaper now but is no longer available new. But maybe it is for the best I ended up with this). So I think this should be able to do some pretty powerful warping. See I thought it was just about can it do it or not, but apparently the processing power or algorithm can also affect the quality of the image or how little artifacts there are when it's doing it. And I am sensitive to that stuff so that's why I say maybe it worked out for the best that I could only find the newer more expensive model. It might not bother me where maybe the prior one would have, who knows. This one can also do 4K up to 30fps (but not HDR) so it's a little more future proofed.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
808 Posts
Keystone correction is just moving the 4 corner points of the image to adjust for a projector not in a correct angle to the screen.
Warping is adjusting the image to a more complex (curved) surface - for instance pillars in a commercial installation or a curved screen.

Depending on the projector, i´d try to avoid a built-in warping functionality since that is usually of low quality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,846 Posts
Which geobox did you look at it? The model I have has a ton of stuff in the manual, let me post. I dont even know what it all means exactly. View attachment 3136421 View attachment 3136419 View attachment 3136417 View attachment 3136418

Why did I get it? I read all 120 pages of the Ultimate 3D thread on avs, and for most the thread everyone was saying the same thing. It's digital manipulation of the image, which creates some artifacts and lowers resolution. You want to avoid it if you can, just use lens shift. In 3D, both eyes arent seeing the same thing anyway, so if your alignment is 1 pixel off, that's only bad for 2D, but in 3D with the glasses, your brain interprets where things are supposed to be, so it's no problem, and digital manipulation of the image would just make it look worse without helping.

But no one had actually tried it. With all my reading, I only found two people who tried it. One of them was the creator of the Omega 3D system, so quite knowledgeable. The other was an end user. All their comments they left about it were completely clearcut. They didn't know what they had been missing. Whatever small dip in resolution it caused, being able to align everything down to the exact pixel made a significant improvement. First there is the convenience of being able to align things more quickly, but second, the problem is no matter how long you are willing to work at it manually with lens shift, you will never get it 100% perfect, especially the corners. Which again, you don't need to, they still said it works well without it, but it does, they said, make a big improvement.

But like a lot of the A/V stuff I'm interested in, there is not a lot of info about it, there are not a lot of posts about it, and there are not a lot of current posters who I can ask about it (since 3D lost a lot of popularity since 2010 and most users from then left the forum). So a lot of it is stuff I sort of have to get my hands on and see for myself. Which from a $ perspective, is a very bad situation to be in, lol. But I bought a lot of stuff used so hopefully that will help "insure" my project if it ends up that I have to get rid of half of it. Unfortunately 3D stuff is so unpopular, a lot of that is hard to find used, and a lot of that is the stuff I most cannot find info about whether I should get it or not. But I think this, even with little information to go off, is pretty clear cut if you can budget it and you are doing passive 3D. It will make things a lot easier, and it will improve the quality too.
What projectors are you using?

I have done multiple Sony 5000ES stacks.

It is impossible to align two projectors, even the same model, without some sort of electronic convergence. Every panel and lens has minor differences.

All the Sony 4K projectors have this ability built-in and it is accessible with their Projector Pro software.

While 3D doesn’t have to be perfectly aligned exactly pixel for pixel, 2D does.

With the Sony Projector Pro software you can get all 8.8 mill pixels aligned perfectly, but with this level of accuracy, it does require regular touch-ups.

The smallest things will cause drift. Room temperature, lens temperature, and any sort of room vibration, etc.

Perfectly aligning two projectors for 2D content is no small task. With 3D it’s significantly less critical because the left eye only sees one projector while the right eye only sees the other.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
  • Like
Reactions: Technology3456

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,688 Posts
What projectors are you using?

I have done multiple Sony 5000ES stacks.

It is impossible to align two projectors, even the same model, without some sort of electronic convergence. Every panel and lens has minor differences.

All the Sony 4K projectors have this ability built-in and it is accessible with their Projector Pro software.

While 3D doesn’t have to be perfectly aligned exactly pixel for pixel, 2D does.

With the Sony Projector Pro software you can get all 8.8 mill pixels aligned perfectly, but with this level of accuracy, it does require regular touch-ups.

The smallest things will cause drift. Room temperature, lens temperature, and any sort of room vibration, etc.

Perfectly aligning two projectors for 2D content is no small task. With 3D it’s significantly less critical because the left eye only sees one projector while the right eye only sees the other.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Not sure what projectors I will be using yet. Most likely none with built in warping. I plan to use the geobox for that. Agree with everything you said. I am not attempting double stack for 2D but if I did definitely only with warping. For 3D I said it is still better with warping but unlike 2D, it will still work without it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,688 Posts
Has anyone written a review of the Lumagen Radiance Pro compared to the MadVR Envy? Everything I've read, both are fantastic products, but curious how they compare.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
103 Posts
Has anyone written a review of the Lumagen Radiance Pro compared to the MadVR Envy? Everything I've read, both are fantastic products, but curious how they compare.
Both are great. Lumagen still has the edge in HDR tone mapping but MadVR made some big advancements.

Lumagens upscaling now as good as MadVR.

Lumagen has less noise in the image compared to MadVR.

Both are great products though. Can’t go wrong with either.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,484 Posts
Has anyone written a review of the Lumagen Radiance Pro compared to the MadVR Envy? Everything I've read, both are fantastic products, but curious how they compare.
I owned both the madVR Envy Extreme and Pro... i "still" have a high end HTPC running a RTX 3090 and follow the Beta DTM development....

My Choice for a VP nowadays is my Lumagen 5348...

I personally think madVR is falling further and further behind the Lumagen .

IF your after the 'Cleanest" "Purist" image ...then the Lumagen is the correct choice! :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,688 Posts
Both are great. Lumagen still has the edge in HDR tone mapping but MadVR made some big advancements.

Lumagens upscaling now as good as MadVR.

Lumagen has less noise in the image compared to MadVR.

Both are great products though. Can’t go wrong with either.
I owned both the madVR Envy Extreme and Pro... i "still" have a high end HTPC running a RTX 3090 and follow the Beta DTM development....

My Choice for a VP nowadays is my Lumagen 5348...

I personally think madVR is falling further and further behind the Lumagen .

IF your after the 'Cleanest" "Purist" image ...then the Lumagen is the correct choice! :)
Thanks for sharing. Do you think madvr has any dynamic tonemapping advantage not overall, which both of you have already said Lumagen is better in that area or overall, but specifically for tonemapping 4K HDR into 1080p SDR signal? For doing HDR on a 1080p display? Or still the Lumagen?

Does madvr Envy have any pros to recommend it? Apparently geometry correction was recently added but that's all I am aware of. Just trying to learn more details, but I would be lucky to have either of these products, truly top of the line.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
808 Posts
You won´t get any unbiased and/or up-to-date comparison her in this thread or in this forum.
Concepts vary a lot and that seems to force people to either love or hate one or the other.
Both VPs receive constant updates and have improved significantly over the last couple of months.
I suggest to download both devices manuals and study them to get a feeling about the concepts.
Best would be you get a demo at a dealer or a demo unit to play with in your own environment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,688 Posts
You won´t get any unbiased and/or up-to-date comparison her in this thread or in this forum.
Concepts vary a lot and that seems to force people to either love or hate one or the other.
Both VPs receive constant updates and have improved significantly over the last couple of months.
I suggest to download both devices manuals and study them to get a feeling about the concepts.
Best would be you get a demo at a dealer or a demo unit to play with in your own environment.
Thanks for weighin in and for the advice. So far it seems pretty unanimous in this thread at least that the Lumagen is better. I'll compare manuals and features though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,908 Posts
Thanks for weighin in and for the advice. So far it seems pretty unanimous in this thread at least that the Lumagen is better. I'll compare manuals and features though.
There are several well-informed, well-experienced posters here who have expressed their opinions that the Lumagen provides better DTM than the Envy, along with other aspects of picture quality. I am not in a position to disagree with them, as I have never had a Lumagen in my theater. But there are others who hold a different opinion, so personally I don't think it has been definitively 'proven' that the Lumagen is better overall.

And more importantly, as @Die Zwei has indicated, both products are constantly evolving regularly via firmware updates, so any comparison that was done even a few months ago is not really valid in terms of deciding which is 'better.' And each room is different, each person has different preferences and biases.

It is my impression that at one point a number of months ago, some did identify problems they saw with the Envy's DTM. But not too long after that, there was a major firmware update that changed how the Envy did DTM. I suspect that this narrowed the gap, or eliminated the differences. Similarly, at one point the Envy was considered to have better upscaling, but following a Lumagen update, this gap had perhaps narrowed or been eliminated.

It s my understanding that the Envy has some features the Lumagen doesn't have, with respect to facile treatment of subtitles present within or straddling the black bar area of scope content. I am happy to be corrected if this is not the case, but I was told this by someone who does have both units. And I don't know if the Lumagen provides the Geometry Correction option, which I recently implemented in my theater to correct the barrel distortion of my DCR Lens.

The Envy also has what I think is an ingenious system to quite easily configure different settings for different inputs, types of content, or however you want to handle things. This 'Profile' system is really rather clever. Perhaps the Lumagen has a similar capability, but I can't speak to that.

Both are excellent products. There is no need for one to badmouth the other. And because there is competition, each product changes over time, resulting in a stream of improvements on both sides. It's like a horse race that never ends, with one being in the lead at one point, the other taking the lead a few minutes later, and so forth. The end-user is the clear winner here!

Die Zwei's suggestion to download manuals is a good one, because it will give you at least some feel for some aspects of how they are the same, and how they differ. It is possible that one product might meet needs someone's needs and preferences better than the other, while someone else, with different needs and preferences, might choose the other.

Ideally a Dealer could provide an opportunity to see them both in action, so you can see for yourself. But depending on where you are, this might not be possible.

Just wanting to provide some hopefully useful perspective on a topic where discussion often results in more heat than light.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,688 Posts
There are several well-informed, well-experienced posters here who have expressed their opinions that the Lumagen provides better DTM than the Envy, along with other aspects of picture quality. I am not in a position to disagree with them, as I have never had a Lumagen in my theater. But there are others who hold a different opinion, so personally I don't think it has been definitively 'proven' that the Lumagen is better overall.

And more importantly, as @Die Zwei has indicated, both products are constantly evolving regularly via firmware updates, so any comparison that was done even a few months ago is not really valid in terms of deciding which is 'better.' And each room is different, each person has different preferences and biases.

It is my impression that at one point a number of months ago, some did identify problems they saw with the Envy's DTM. But not too long after that, there was a major firmware update that changed how the Envy did DTM. I suspect that this narrowed the gap, or eliminated the differences. Similarly, at one point the Envy was considered to have better upscaling, but following a Lumagen update, this gap had perhaps narrowed or been eliminated.

It s my understanding that the Envy has some features the Lumagen doesn't have, with respect to facile treatment of subtitles present within or straddling the black bar area of scope content. I am happy to be corrected if this is not the case, but I was told this by someone who does have both units. And I don't know if the Lumagen provides the Geometry Correction option, which I recently implemented in my theater to correct the barrel distortion of my DCR Lens.

The Envy also has what I think is an ingenious system to quite easily configure different settings for different inputs, types of content, or however you want to handle things. This 'Profile' system is really rather clever. Perhaps the Lumagen has a similar capability, but I can't speak to that.

Both are excellent products. There is no need for one to badmouth the other. And because there is competition, each product changes over time, resulting in a stream of improvements on both sides. It's like a horse race that never ends, with one being in the lead at one point, the other taking the lead a few minutes later, and so forth. The end-user is the clear winner here!

Die Zwei's suggestion to download manuals is a good one, because it will give you at least some feel for some aspects of how they are the same, and how they differ. It is possible that one product might meet needs someone's needs and preferences better than the other, while someone else, with different needs and preferences, might choose the other.

Ideally a Dealer could provide an opportunity to see them both in action, so you can see for yourself. But depending on where you are, this might not be possible.

Just wanting to provide some hopefully useful perspective on a topic where discussion often results in more heat than light.
You did exactly that, this is a great post, and very even keeled. Up until a certain point on avs, before I really knew much about either, I had just remembered off hand seeing a few comments saying madvr's dynamic tonemapping was better than the Lumagen's, but upon further reflection I realized, a lot of those comments were in the old high end DLP thread, or from old high end DLP users, and they are mostly using 1080p projectors. That's why I wanted to remember to ask, whichever processor has better dynamic tonemapping overall, can that conclusion be equally applied to dynamic tonemapping downscaled into a 1080p SDR signal, or is that a separate category? So maybe it could be true, just for example, that the Lumagen has better dynamic tonemapping onto 4K HDR displays, but madvr has better dynamic tonemapping onto 1080p displays? Or vice versa, etc.

Or, would whichever is better at one also be better than the other? For posterity's sake let me also say, I also reflected that either all, or mostly all, the people I saw making these comments had only ever used madvr on PC, and had never owned a Lumagen (or madvr Envy).

Either way, it makes it very hard to weigh one vs the other if they are changing features constantly. The competition here sounds great for consumers though, and the constant updates. Heck probably the biggest Lumagen feature to a lot of people it sounds like was added as a free update. So that is really cool. I'm just at a loss how to weigh these two products if so much is changing all the time. Even if I were able to demo them both at home for a month, and find the best one for me at that time, a week later something new could drop. It would be good to get some idea of the longterm plans for both or a roadmap or predictions of what they will each look like not just now, but two years from now.
 

·
Super Moderator
JVC RS4500 | ST130 G4 135" | MRX 720 | MC303 MC152 | 6.1.4: B&W 802D3, 805D3, 702S2 | 4x15 IB Subs
Joined
·
10,897 Posts
You did exactly that, this is a great post, and very even keeled. Up until a certain point on avs, before I really knew much about either, I had just remembered off hand seeing a few comments saying madvr's dynamic tonemapping was better than the Lumagen's, but upon further reflection I realized, a lot of those comments were in the old high end DLP thread, or from old high end DLP users, and they are mostly using 1080p projectors. That's why I wanted to remember to ask, whichever processor has better dynamic tonemapping overall, can that conclusion be equally applied to dynamic tonemapping downscaled into a 1080p SDR signal, or is that a separate category? So maybe it could be true, just for example, that the Lumagen has better dynamic tonemapping onto 4K HDR displays, but madvr has better dynamic tonemapping onto 1080p displays? Or vice versa, etc.

Or, would whichever is better at one also be better than the other? For posterity's sake let me also say, I also reflected that either all, or mostly all, the people I saw making these comments had only ever used madvr on PC, and had never owned a Lumagen (or madvr Envy).

Either way, it makes it very hard to weigh one vs the other if they are changing features constantly. The competition here sounds great for consumers though, and the constant updates. Heck probably the biggest Lumagen feature to a lot of people it sounds like was added as a free update. So that is really cool. I'm just at a loss how to weigh these two products if so much is changing all the time. Even if I were able to demo them both at home for a month, and find the best one for me at that time, a week later something new could drop. It would be good to get some idea of the longterm plans for both or a roadmap or predictions of what they will each look like not just now, but two years from now.
The resolution of the display is irrelevant to tone mapping HDR.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Technology3456

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
808 Posts
Either way, it makes it very hard to weigh one vs the other if they are changing features constantly. The competition here sounds great for consumers though, and the constant updates. Heck probably the biggest Lumagen feature to a lot of people it sounds like was added as a free update. So that is really cool. I'm just at a loss how to weigh these two products if so much is changing all the time. Even if I were able to demo them both at home for a month, and find the best one for me at that time, a week later something new could drop. It would be good to get some idea of the longterm plans for both or a roadmap or predictions of what they will each look like not just now, but two years from now.
Yes, totally understand that.
The Envy got IP Control, virtual inputs, profile management, geometry correction, DTM upgrade during the last couple of months. Currently NLS and reenabling 3D (which got lost with the move to the RTX3xxx GPU) is in the making. Next major feature on the roadmap is Frame Interpolation.
I´m not following the Lumagen development that closely, perhaps somebody from the Lumagen crowd can chime in what´s going on there.
After all, it´s a bet into the future which platform will provide the features that you want in the future.
 

·
aka jfinnie
Joined
·
5,445 Posts
Either way, it makes it very hard to weigh one vs the other if they are changing features constantly. The competition here sounds great for consumers though, and the constant updates. Heck probably the biggest Lumagen feature to a lot of people it sounds like was added as a free update. So that is really cool. I'm just at a loss how to weigh these two products if so much is changing all the time. Even if I were able to demo them both at home for a month, and find the best one for me at that time, a week later something new could drop. It would be good to get some idea of the longterm plans for both or a roadmap or predictions of what they will each look like not just now, but two years from now.
I don't think you'll find anyone sensible divulging their plans so far into the future. Lumagen have given details of some of what their nearer horizon coming up features / improvements are (you can find some details in the Lumagen thread, at the moment the headlines are pipeline precision enhancement and PIP / POP for 444x units - but they do surprise sometimes also, with nice things like the sharpness feature recently, and the 5348 product, too). I don't follow the Envy quite so closely, but I think their spec sheet has a list of stuff which is penned for future availability, too (or at least it did last time I looked).

In all cases, even with excellent track records of delivery of new features, I think I'd advise you buy on the basis of what it can do for you today predominantly, with anything you get in the future being a bonus. DTM didn't even figure when I got my Lumagen - though it has been a VERY nice bonus, for me they were really about colour / gamma correction via 3DLUT and all the aspect ratio features.

One thing you should be aware of is that with respect to your "ultimate 3D rig" aspirations; the Envy HDMI output is free-running vs the input, with sync adjustment being dealt with by frames being added or removed in scene transitions. You've previously discussed systems with two Lumagens locked to the output of a single player with the Lumagen doing the eye-isolation and calibration; that isn't possible with the Envy as they would each be free-running relative to the source and each other, and may need different amounts of frames being added / removed etc, which could cause offset between eyes. I can't see how you can fix this really as you said you need separate 3DLUTs for each projector / eye (I'm not sure if it is the projector, or the passive lens you are correcting, or both).

To fix it I think you'd need Envy to support dual 3DLUTs for 3D content (ie it would apply one 3DLUT to one eye, and the other to the other eye) and then you'd have to do the eye-splitting after the Envy. Or for the Envy to support eye-splitting itself, with output of one eye to one port, and the other eye to the other port (again with different 3DLUTs on each port). At the moment I think only one output port is supported on Envy. With 3D being so niche that might never happen. You can always ask, though...

Edit: I totally forgot that 3D is broken at the mo on Envy with the newer 3xxx cards... but it looks like it is being worked on so maybe that is a temp setback...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,688 Posts
I don't think you'll find anyone sensible divulging their plans so far into the future. Lumagen have given details of some of what their nearer horizon coming up features / improvements are (you can find some details in the Lumagen thread, at the moment the headlines are pipeline precision enhancement and PIP / POP for 444x units - but they do surprise sometimes also, with nice things like the sharpness feature recently, and the 5348 product, too). I don't follow the Envy quite so closely, but I think their spec sheet has a list of stuff which is penned for future availability, too (or at least it did last time I looked).

In all cases, even with excellent track records of delivery of new features, I think I'd advise you buy on the basis of what it can do for you today predominantly, with anything you get in the future being a bonus. DTM didn't even figure when I got my Lumagen - though it has been a VERY nice bonus, for me they were really about colour / gamma correction via 3DLUT and all the aspect ratio features.

One thing you should be aware of is that with respect to your "ultimate 3D rig" aspirations; the Envy HDMI output is free-running vs the input, with sync adjustment being dealt with by frames being added or removed in scene transitions. You've previously discussed systems with two Lumagens locked to the output of a single player with the Lumagen doing the eye-isolation and calibration; that isn't possible with the Envy as they would each be free-running relative to the source and each other, and may need different amounts of frames being added / removed etc, which could cause offset between eyes. I can't see how you can fix this really as you said you need separate 3DLUTs for each projector / eye (I'm not sure if it is the projector, or the passive lens you are correcting, or both).

To fix it I think you'd need Envy to support dual 3DLUTs for 3D content (ie it would apply one 3DLUT to one eye, and the other to the other eye) and then you'd have to do the eye-splitting after the Envy. Or for the Envy to support eye-splitting itself, with output of one eye to one port, and the other eye to the other port (again with different 3DLUTs on each port). At the moment I think only one output port is supported on Envy. With 3D being so niche that might never happen. You can always ask, though...

Edit: I totally forgot that 3D is broken at the mo on Envy with the newer 3xxx cards... but it looks like it is being worked on so maybe that is a temp setback...
Basically madvr can't do genlock like the Lumagen, do I understand that correctly?

3D luts are apparently great for a projector in 2D regardless, but for passive 3D it would be correcting different filters on each lens. I thought the Sim2 calibration software would be enough, and maybe it is, but another owner of my projector model with that software told me it makes the colors at 100% perfect but not at 25%, 50%, 75%, different shades or something like a 3D lut would. I haven't calibrated yet because my batcave is a white-dovecave right now. Not that doves live in white caves but... doves are white... ahh forget it :D

If I could buy one this second, I would definitely lean Lumagen. It can do what I'm looking for full stop. Sounds like with the Envy a lot of that is up in the air and may never be included. But it's still helpful, not to mention interesting, hearing how they compare. They are the two best processors I know of on the market. If I could get 3D demuxing to two projectors from the same unit, and two separate 3D luts outputted from the same unit to each projector too, and advanced warping and geometry alignment, then that would definitely make it an easy choice for whichever could do that. I could sell the geobox and replace its functionality completely with either one Lumagen or one Envy. I dont think either can do the first two though, and while the Envy can do geometry alignment I dont know how well. And without 3D demuxing to two projectors, it might create an uneven situation to use it as a separate processor, after the geobox, just to warp one projector to the other, but not have the other projector running through the same box. One signal would be delayed.

I wondered about some other inexpensive little processor or something that all it does is delay the signal. Like if one projector lags the other by 0.0004 ms, you just plug this in for the other projector, tell it to delay the signal 0.0004ms, and it fixes it, but maybe that doesn't exist.
 

·
aka jfinnie
Joined
·
5,445 Posts
Basically madvr can't do genlock like the Lumagen, do I understand that correctly?
Yes, Envy maintains sync by dropping / adding frames when required, timing of which would vary between two Envy units as the amount of drift each output experiences is dependent on the relationship between the source clock and the HDMI output clock. If you plotted the sync offset it would vary over time by (I believe) +/- 0.5 frame times at least. That means you can't correct by adding a constant delay to one signal.
I thought the Sim2 calibration software would be enough, and maybe it is, but another owner of my projector model with that software told me it makes the colors at 100% perfect but not at 25%, 50%, 75%, different shades or something like a 3D lut would.
This is commonplace, because often CMS software in a projector is very basic, and the projector response isn't linear throughout the whole gamut.
If I could buy one this second, I would definitely lean Lumagen. It can do what I'm looking for full stop
For 2 LUTs and / or eye splitting direct out of the processor you'll need 2 Lumagens, one won't be enough.
Sounds like with the Envy a lot of that is up in the air and may never be included. But it's still helpful, not to mention interesting, hearing how they compare. They are the two best processors I know of on the market. If I could get 3D demuxing to two projectors from the same unit, and two separate 3D luts outputted from the same unit to each projector too, and advanced warping and geometry alignment, then that would definitely make it an easy choice for whichever could do that. I could sell the geobox and replace its functionality completely with either one Lumagen or one Envy. I dont think either can do the first two though, and while the Envy can do geometry alignment I dont know how well. And without 3D demuxing to two projectors, it might create an uneven situation to use it as a separate processor, after the geobox, just to warp one projector to the other, but not have the other projector running through the same box. One signal would be delayed.

I wondered about some other inexpensive little processor or something that all it does is delay the signal. Like if one projector lags the other by 0.0004 ms, you just plug this in for the other projector, tell it to delay the signal 0.0004ms, and it fixes it, but maybe that doesn't exist.
See above. You can't do this because the sync offset isn't a constant delay in an Envy, it varies over time by at least +/-0.5 frame times; the trigger for the frame to be added or deleted causes a big sync offset jump at the time the frame is added / removed, and the rest of the time it is slowly drifting until the next jump. It sounds like field reports indicate it works well enough with a single Envy for most normal use. 1917 was the one title I think mentioned that was perhaps problematic with, due its unique "seamless" visual style, I'm not sure if that is still the case or not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,688 Posts
Yes, Envy maintains sync by dropping / adding frames when required, timing of which would vary between two Envy units as the amount of drift each output experiences is dependent on the relationship between the source clock and the HDMI output clock. If you plotted the sync offset it would vary over time by (I believe) +/- 0.5 frame times at least. That means you can't correct by adding a constant delay to one signal.

This is commonplace, because often CMS software in a projector is very basic, and the projector response isn't linear throughout the whole gamut.

For 2 LUTs and / or eye splitting direct out of the processor you'll need 2 Lumagens, one won't be enough.

See above. You can't do this because the sync offset isn't a constant delay in an Envy, it varies over time by at least +/-0.5 frame times; the trigger for the frame to be added or deleted causes a big sync offset jump at the time the frame is added / removed, and the rest of the time it is slowly drifting until the next jump. It sounds like field reports indicate it works well enough with a single Envy for most normal use. 1917 was the one title I think mentioned that was perhaps problematic with, due its unique "seamless" visual style, I'm not sure if that is still the case or not.
All makes sense. Thank you very much for explaining about it, especially some specific important details to my set up. It's really appreciated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,623 Posts
I guess the Lumagen hardware architecture is better suited to exact frame rate generation than the pc architecture. Frame drops to me is more objectionable, even if the Envy is able to tonemap 2 frames slightly better in that the Meg movie.
 
1381 - 1400 of 1423 Posts
Top