1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

As promised, new CRT pics!

Discussion in 'Projectors, Screens & Video Processors' started by Paul D, Nov 26, 2001.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Paul D

    Paul D
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2000
    Messages:
    2,620
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Manchester
    Ratings:
    +391
    After a bit of banter between myself and Douglas Quaid about picture quality of CRTs. I taken some new screen shots after it was fully setup.

    First of all, no screen shot can show you the detail on offer. This is because i have to pause the shot, plus i hand held the camera.
    The camera is a normal 35mm instant type. The film then went to Max Spielmanns. I then scanned the pictures into my Umax flatbed scanner. They are then compressed into Jpegs!.

    What the pictures can show is the subtle shades and the vivid colour/contrast etc. The contrast and brightness were not altered in any way between shots.

    First up
    Dinosaur. This shot shows the vast contrast on offer, from total black to bright white. The blood shot eye looks more bloodier on the real screen.

    [​IMG]

    Second up.
    Dinosaur. This shot has more shadow detail than shown on this shot. But it still shows the velvet black level and pure white.

    [​IMG]

    Third up.
    Gladiator. This is to show how much detail is lost in the "normal" type "screen shot". Look under Russells hand, his thumb area, notice it appears to have no detail?. Then look at the next shot!.

    [​IMG]

    Fourth up.
    Gladiator. Notice as i near the screen, how much detail is really on show from a CRT.

    [​IMG]

    Fifth up.
    Gladiator. Now you can see the full detail under the hand. The flash tones and detail are all there. This is visable from the seating position. Normal screen shots miss this.

    [​IMG]

    Sixth up
    Another subtle shot. again some detail is missing from the screen shot. But look at the flesh tones and blue cloak.

    [​IMG]

    This shot is just to show my new DVD shelves i've just installed. Plus it shows how the screen looks from my seating position etc.

    [​IMG]

    I've added this shot to try to show the detail under the log, but there is to much camera shake!. Never mind!

    [​IMG]
     
  2. Gordon @ Convergent AV

    Gordon @ Convergent AV
    Distinguished Member AVForums Sponsor

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    14,011
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Living in Surrey, covering UK!
    Ratings:
    +2,808
  3. Paul D

    Paul D
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2000
    Messages:
    2,620
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Manchester
    Ratings:
    +391
    Anybody getting the links to work?
     
  4. Roland @ B4

    Roland @ B4
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2001
    Messages:
    2,238
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Reading.
    Ratings:
    +32
    Hey I know how good it looked!

    Gordon Why does my machine keep going ock?
     
  5. Timh

    Timh
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2000
    Messages:
    4,821
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Altair-4
    Ratings:
    +140
    Links will not work for me either, try here instead.
    The last shot of crowe in his helmit looks amazing.
     
  6. Paul D

    Paul D
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2000
    Messages:
    2,620
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Manchester
    Ratings:
    +391
  7. Paul D

    Paul D
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2000
    Messages:
    2,620
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Manchester
    Ratings:
    +391
    Right! i think i have sorted it....
    Let me know.
     
  8. Jeff

    Jeff
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    5,489
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Basingstoke
    Ratings:
    +256
    Not to be too picky, but on the second Gladiator hand pic the contrast looks a tad high to me, not much detail on the top side of the hand and less than the other photo.

    Jeff
     
  9. Paul D

    Paul D
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2000
    Messages:
    2,620
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Manchester
    Ratings:
    +391
    Jeff. You are not being picky, i agree it does look like No2 shot of the hand is "whiting" out. But that is a camera issue only.
    All three "hand" shots were taken from the same paused shot. Without altering any brightness or contrast levels.
    If you look at the first hand shot, you can see more detail, but the real screen shows even far more detail than this. As i moved closer to the screen, to show more of the underside of the hand. The camera sees less light, and lengthens the exposure. Meaning the lighter part of the hand(the top), over exposes etc.

    So the detail you see in the first shot on the top of the hand, is there as well as what you see on the last shot etc. Remember i pointed out that these pictures, although quite good still do not show how great the real picture is!.

    That's why i pointed out at the start, as to why i zoomed in. As knew the first hand shot proberly wouldn't bring out the subtle detail under the hand. All the detail and more is there.

    To be honest i'm suprised with the whole process involved to get these screen shots here, more detail hasn't been lost!. :D

    What i need to do maybe, is use faster film speed in the camera. A tripod for less shake. And then use a film scanner for the negatives.

    On second thoughts why bother? i'm totally happy that i have a superb picture. I've seen what all other "type" of PJs have to offer, after spending a year looking!. So i will leave people to make up there own minds what "type" of PJ to go for. I know there is only one "type", "I" was finally happy with. That isn't to say that other "types" aren't worth bothering with, There are some very good PJs out there etc. But i picked what was right for me.
     
  10. Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Aah...........the joys of reciprocity law failure!

    It's a shame that instead of commenting on the outcome of Roland's work, we're now discussing the pros and cons of screenshots and their exposure conditions.

    Gordon, perhaps we could have a "screenshot" clinic at Event2?

    Bruce
     
  11. Roland @ B4

    Roland @ B4
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2001
    Messages:
    2,238
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Reading.
    Ratings:
    +32
    Screen shots will never be an acurate indiction of picture quality.

    • chemical film deveolping
    • chemical print devolping
    • optics of both
    • colour change whilst scanning
    • file compression
    • brightness / contrast settings of viewers monitor
    • colour settings and depth of viewers monitor
    • resoloution of viewers computer
     
  12. Paul D

    Paul D
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2000
    Messages:
    2,620
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Manchester
    Ratings:
    +391
    Good one Bruce!!!:D


    I have to be careful about commenting on Rolands work on this forum. Some people have been upset by my bias etc.

    I will add though he performed a mini miracle, on my 4.3 image brightness.
    Before his final tweak, the difference between 4.3 and my 16.9 screen size was like night and day. With the 4.3 image looking washed out and dull. Switching to 16.9 was like switching on the light.
    But after the second visit, 4.3 size is just sooo vibrant. All the colours are now there. Yet contrast and brightness are spot on. This is on a non gain matt white (dulux) 100 inch diagonal screen.
    Making it so good to watch normal 4.3 TV. It even makes watching NTL digital bearable!.

    Right i better stop this post now before i set off world war three!.(all the other installers are now loading their guns!):D
     
  13. Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Nice one mate.

    That is some projector.........

    Makes me want to change my mind about buying a Sony VW11 !

    Cheers

    Paul
     
  14. Phil Hinton

    Phil Hinton
    Editor Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,785
    Products Owned:
    3
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    AVForums
    Ratings:
    +7,186
    Paul,

    That looks very good, and i cant wait to see it in person as i am sure the photos just dont do justice to it.

    Skyline,

    You could easily have the same PJ as paul for the same money as a vw11ht.
     
  15. Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Paul,
    Blacks are fabulous!..though on the Ollie Reed shot,I would say this;-
    Face too red,cloak too blue..The colour saturation is too high-not realistic.(..I also have a tendency to ramp the colour up,looks bolder.)
    Also on Ollie`s face the lines are not apparent in your pic-still a little soft I think.
    As I said,I know we all have our own interpretation of what a perfect picture looks like-but Ollie looks like he belongs to the sioux tribe!
    But the contrast ratio looks good-and though difficult to tell from the photos,I would personaly have the brightness up a tad and the contrast down a tad-granted the blacks would not be as deep-but again-I think more fine detail would be apparent in the darker parts of the picture.
    But your pretty close!!
    Doug
     
  16. Paul D

    Paul D
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2000
    Messages:
    2,620
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Manchester
    Ratings:
    +391
    I've just looked at the thread whilst at work.
    Jesus it takes time to load all them Pics!.
    I'm connected at about 33,600 at work and Broadband at home. So when i posted them at home it only takes a few seconds for them to appear!. Sorry about that!.
    So thank you to anybody who had the patiance etc!.

    And anybody else willing to post some screen shots?. Without altering the PJ just so it looks good on the photos, and crap on screen!.

    Funny, nobody mentioned the lack of scan lines or pixels etc.

    As for the colour and contrast, well as said before it's spot on as per "Avia". And the colour temp is 6500k across the board. So any change will be down to the tranfer from picture to PC etc.
     
  17. Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    BTW Paul what projector is it ??

    Cheers

    paul
     
  18. Paul D

    Paul D
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2000
    Messages:
    2,620
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Manchester
    Ratings:
    +391
    Its a BarcoData 808s(Iris2).
    Fed with a Quadscan Elite and a HTPC(using a ATI 8500 VGA and WinDVD).
     
  19. Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Thanks for that mate.

    May I ask approx costs ??

    Cheers

    Paul
     
  20. Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Paul,
    I would say this,6500k is great for ntsc-but ive never thought it was optimum for pal.(
    With crt-especially a good -un like you have,scan lines and the like should not be apparent-but a traditional tradeoff for this smoothness has been -even with the best setup crt`s-is a slight softness(especially in background shots).
    My wife prefers the picture on my lcd to my crt(708) because its brighter/bolder colours and sharper.(but if you stand 3 ft away from the screen you see pixels).
    Though she acknowledges that the crt has a smoother picture and more natural colours-though not so vibrant.
    I am leaning away from monolithic crts and their convergence pains now-though I still accept they can(under the best conditions and setup)produce the best pictures-still-just..
    But i`m hoping to post pictures from the Hitachi soon and i think it will elicit some surprises!
    Doug
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...