AVS Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
513 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Is there a scaler out there in the market that can take advantage of the full 2048x1536 (or close to it) resolution of the QX1 via its DVI interface, or even its analog interface?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,092 Posts
HTPC is the only that comes to my mind.


I think the QX1 does have some sort of DVI-in but honestly I don't know its current configuration. All of my brochures are a year old on the projector.


JVC loves to show 1080p pixeled mapped 1 to 1 in the QXGA imager (i.e. black bars all the way around)


Kodak's the one that is trying to go anamorphic route with the projector. God-speed to them.


-Mr. Wigggles
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,525 Posts
From what I understand, Kodak has had material mastered at native 2048x1536 rez. for demonstration purposes. And I thought it was tough to find 1080i HD material!


I'm with Wiggles...the only thing I can think of that could handle it is a custom-built PC with a video card that supports resolutions that high.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,720 Posts
Mark is correct.


As I recall from Tom Stites posts, when JVC demos the QX-1, the source is a custom-built PC.


The material is preformatted on the hard drives of the PC


You sure aren't going to get the most out of a QX-1 by taking a 640x480i feed out of a DVD and scaling to 2048x1536.


The phrase, "gilding a lilly" comes to mind.


Dr. Gregory Greenman

Physicist
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,772 Posts
"Kodak's the one that is trying to go anamorphic route with the projector. God-speed to them. "


IMO, the coming higher res digital projector's provide an opportunity to eliminate anamorphic lenses for good.


It is well understood that all anamorphic lenses introduce optical distortions.


The whole point of digital projection is to minimize visual distortions in the distribution anjd display chain for mass audiences.


Why do we want to bypass the scalers in our HT digital projectors? To eliminate scaler distortions ("artifacts") and reduced sharpness.


Anamorphic lenses just add analog-domain optical artifacts ("distortions").


If 1080p digital Cinema projectors don't provide enough resolution for 2.35 or greater AR movies, then wait for quad HD projectors and letterbox the 2.35+ movies on them. Just eliminate all scaling- either digital-domain or analog (image-distorting lenses at capture or exhibition).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,769 Posts
Why would Kodak even waste their time with anamorphic lenses?


If going horizontal: 2048 - 1920 = 128 pixels or 6% more?

if compressing vertical: 1536 - 1080 = 456 pixels or 42% more


Based on these numbers it would be a total wast of time to do anything anamorphical horizontal. In fact I suspect It likely have have a negative gain.


Vertical on the other hand MAY improve things. Picking up 42% mor pixels MIGHT make a noticably visual difference. BUT... It still may not overrule the peace and serenity that would come along with just perfectly matching 1920 x1080 material pixel for pixel. If anything an anamorphic lens may help in the contrast area.


We'll see, I doubt they're talking to the panamorph people so if they are going to use a anamorphic lense they are likely working on their own.


I suspect they have other things to perfect before introducing anamorphic options.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
774 Posts
We've been using the Teranex processor for demoing DVD sourced material on the QX1. Likely we'll be showing with one at InfoComm in a few weeks.


We run SDI out of a DVD player into the Teranex and output either 1080p24sf or 1080i60 into the HD-SDI input of the QX1. Results are really quite good.


You could use a Faroudja or other processor that will output 1080i60 analog RGBHV or YPbPr and do almost as well but you would have additional DA/AD conversions.


Regards,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,092 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Tryg
Why would Kodak even waste their time with anamorphic lenses?


If going horizontal: 2048 - 1920 = 128 pixels or 6% more?

if compressing vertical: 1536 - 1080 = 456 pixels or 42% more


Based on these numbers it would be a total wast of time to do anything anamorphical horizontal. In fact I suspect It likely have have a negative gain.


Vertical on the other hand MAY improve things. Picking up 42% mor pixels MIGHT make a noticably visual difference. BUT... It still may not overrule the peace and serenity that would come along with just perfectly matching 1920 x1080 material pixel for pixel. If anything an anamorphic lens may help in the contrast area.


We'll see, I doubt they're talking to the panamorph people so if they are going to use a anamorphic lense they are likely working on their own.


I suspect they have other things to perfect before introducing anamorphic options.
Tryg,


The reason that Kodak's doing it is the reason we all have been trying it: making a 1.33:1 projector project at 1.77:1 or wider.


Even if you exceed the maximum resolution of the program material it is nice to have more active pixels on the viewing surface. For 2.35:1 movies there would be either 1920*817 pixels active or 2048*1536 active when stretched at a 1.77:1 ratio (which is less than DLP's 1.9:1 BTW) about a 2:1 pixel number increase.


Regardless, D-ila stands to have 2X+ more pixels than TI's equivalent. That should shut the resolution critiques up for a while longer.


-Mr. Wigggles
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,772 Posts
I thought I read somewhere that anamorphic lenses for cinematography and exhibition use were adopted in the 1950s as basically a kludge- to shoehorn a widescreen image into the narrow legacy film stock in wide distribution and firmly entrenched by that time.


Theater owners wouldn't spend the money on updated "wide-track" projectors, so the cinematographer engineers settled on image-distorting anamorphics to accomplish the crowd-drawing widescreen presentation for the masses (helping to draw back customers enamored with the then-new TV, which used the previous theater standard AR of 4:3).


If new Dila's have 2x more pixels, why not just pixel-map the image to the imaging device?


If the imaging device is 4:3, shame on the device maker. Just make higher pixel-count 16:9 panels and letterbox AR's greater than 1.78. For any argument to use anamorphics to fill a panel and then optically image-correct, a just-as-valid argument could be made to simply wait for even higher-pixel count 1.78 panels and letterbox the 2.0, 2.35 or greater AR's. You'd have pixel density equivalent to a previous generation 4:3 device+ anamorphic lens solution.


Digital pixel-to-pixel mapping will have that sharpness and detail that many prefer.


The digital projector forums are flooded with hobbyists trying to achieve perfect pixel timings. Distorting an image you worked to perfect seems counter-productive.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,963 Posts
Tom welcome back:)


Im currently using the Teranex at 1080sf and love it.


Teranex is also working on the next higher platform in resolution (2000 by ?) so they are ready for the next generation projectors.Chris Stephens has been playing with this stuff for awhile, that lucky stiff.


Im sure they are working close with JVC behind the scene.


Tom alot of us would like your job having a higher up tell us to go into that room and play with the Teranex and that 2k projector and get paid for it:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
340 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Alan Gouger
Tom alot of us would like your job having a higher up tell us to go into that room and play with the Teranex and that 2k projector and get paid for it:)
2k? Only if you're referring to how many $100 bills it costs :)


- Chris
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
513 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
What's the approx. cost of a Teranex processor for this application?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,201 Posts
RGB,


From a signal and timing perspective, 1080p24sf is identical to an 1080i48 interlaced format. In other words, the 1080 lines of resolution are split into two fields, with 540 lines sent out every 1/48th of a second: odd lines, then even lines, then odd lines, etc.


However, the difference between the two is critical. With 1080p24sf, the two 540-line fields come from the same instant in time. That means you can reconstruct a perfect 1080p24 image simply by weaving the two fields together, with no motion compensation. It's kind of like a film-based DVD with proper 3:2 telecine: all the information is available to do perfect deinterlacing with minimal effort.


On the other hand, with 1080i48, each 540-line field is separated in time by 1/48th of a second. So without effective motion compensation, any deinterlaced image would exhibit combing artifacts.


So basically, 1080p24sf is a way to shoehorn a high-definition progressive-scan signal into a processing chain that is accustomed to interlaced signals.


Someone please correct me if I'm wrong here...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
395 Posts
Here's a blurb on 24 PsF from a JVC announcement:


The new 24 Progressive Segmented Frames (24PsF) is a video format that exactly replicates the image motion of 24-frame film. The format, 24PsF, allows movie like imagery to be accurately displayed on the DLA-QX1G, DLA-M5000SC and DLA-G150CL models. To highlight JVC's new enhancements, Miramax Films will provide selected Academy Award nominated 24PsF telecine footage at ShoWest. This is the second year Miramax and JVC have collaborated at ShoWest. Miramax has also selected JVC's DLA-G150CL to view dailies on location for their upcoming movie, "Spy Kids II."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
602 Posts
Tom is correct ( of course ) its all 1080P24 Although I thought the Teranex was set to 1080P24 not sf at NAB but hey I didn't look carefully. Either way the QX1 LOVES HD-SDI in at 1080sf24.


This combo produces a killer digital picture.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top