AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 70 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,428 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Finally happy with my XG110, the small deflection spots on the blue tube aside. Fosus & colours look great these days.


Question for all of you, I have some great feedback from Paul B in Ontario already. I run the PJ at 720P, but can see lots of scnalines from 10 ft back (picture attached).


Do I go for the 1080P holy grail, and see what happens? I know many say it can't be done, but from those who say it can, would you do it? Any tips?


Thx K./
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,088 Posts
Ken,


from what I recall 720P looked great...scan lines are only really visible when you put up a windows desktop...active video looks smooth to me. Take my 21" monitor....when I feed 1080i the desktop looks horrible, but movies look unreal! I think 1080P might be a little too risky with your fan mod...but that's just my opinion.


Ben
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,079 Posts
or 816p, 824p, or 864p.


Just measure your screen height (or just check the amplitude value), then squish the vertical size down until the scanlines just touch. Measure the height again.


Divide old height/new height x 720 = ???


This will give you the res at which you scanlines close up. Then you can create that in Powerstrip- saves lots of mucking around.


Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,038 Posts
Can I ask you guys a simple question?

When you run 720P, do you squeeze that resolution at the projector to get to 16:9 aspect ratio?


I am running a 4:3 resolution from anamorphic DVD (1024 X 768) BUT on a 16:9 screen. That means I have to reduce my vertical amplitude (25%) to get that 1024 X 768 4:3 resolution to fit my 16:9 aspect ratio screen. I can still see scanlines running my XG like this.


When I do the math, is what I am running the equivalent of running a 1024 X 960 4:3 resolution and not squeezing???


Thanks,

Brad
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,398 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradad
Can I ask you guys a simple question?

When you run 720P, do you squeeze that resolution at the projector to get to 16:9 aspect ratio?


I am running a 4:3 resolution from anamorphic DVD (1024 X 768) BUT on a 16:9 screen. That means I have to reduce my vertical amplitude (25%) to get that 1024 X 768 4:3 resolution to fit my 16:9 aspect ratio screen. I can still see scanlines running my XG like this.


When I do the math, is what I am running the equivalent of running a 1024 X 960 4:3 resolution and not squeezing???


Thanks,

Brad
If you're running 960 and want to squeeze the vertical (it's actually about 33%), then you should use 1280x960 (or 1280x720 without squeezing).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,503 Posts
Um, can I ask something? Is it me, or can you NOT possibly see scanning lines at 10' at 720p on an 8" set? What I see in that second shot are interference lines, definitely not scan lines....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,428 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
No, I had the PJ looked at by others and they are scanlines, I can see the scanlines from far back, agreed I went into the other room to be sure ,and itis closer to 6ft not 10ft, your on the money their Curt. I took out the tape measure this time at 720P. Take a look at the screen shot, the picture is phenomenal. I spent 4 days alone doing just Astig. I was a fast learner.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,398 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by YONEXSP
Why dont you run 1280X1024?
For 1024, if you're going to run 4:3 it would be 1365x1024 (like the D'ILA resolution). ;)


Actually, you can run any combination you want on a CRT since you can adjust it for the proper aspect ratio by adjusting the raster size.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
20,735 Posts
why 1280!!!! 1440 is the horizontal resolution you want to use for an even multiple!


If you have a raster squeeze, then set your HTPC for 1440x720. If your projector is normal 4:3, then use 1440x960, and you'll have black bars output.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,428 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
I guess 1440x 960 is perfect for lined doubled DVD, then use the raster squeeze to get the aspext ration correct. But what if you run HDTV material as well, will you be able to adjust it so it loosk ok at 1440x960p?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
20,735 Posts
no you would use 1440x720 if you were doing a raster squeeze, or a bit higher if you wanted to further minimize scanlines, as you should be able to resolve 720p in 16:9 frame with an EM 8 incher. That would be 1440x960 if you *weren't* doing a raster squeeze.


yes HD looks great.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,398 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles
why 1280!!!! 1440 is the horizontal resolution you want to use for an even multiple!


If you have a raster squeeze, then set your HTPC for 1440x720. If your projector is normal 4:3, then use 1440x960, and you'll have black bars output.


Hey, you can run ANY resolution you want and I'm not endorsing any particular resolution, I was stating the correct 4:3 combinations. Did you want to discuss artifacts? :)


P.S. 1440 is probably too much for that projector, unless you want a REALLY soft "film look".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,079 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by YONEXSP
The result using your method = 920.93


Wow that's high, I was expecting ~864.


It's Robro's method originally I think, not mine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,398 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark_A_W
Wow that's high, I was expecting ~864.


It's Robro's method originally I think, not mine.
It is high, isn't it. :confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,398 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles
no you would use 1440x720 if you were doing a raster squeeze, or a bit higher if you wanted to further minimize scanlines, as you should be able to resolve 720p in 16:9 frame with an EM 8 incher. That would be 1440x960 if you *weren't* doing a raster squeeze.


yes HD looks great.
Who do you know that runs 1440x720? I hope this isn't a "slow night" for you. :D


btw- If you run 1440x960 "without" any raster manipulation, you'll be running a distorted AR.
 
1 - 20 of 70 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top