Well actually BBB dont panic
I am using a screened power cable not the best but ok for a long run with a ms hd pure copper plug which has a ms hd fuse already to power the pj.
Then it's powered off an evo 3 isotek mira for specific conditioning for displays
Sure you will sleep better tonight knowing that
I am using a screened power cable not the best but ok for a long run with a ms hd pure copper plug which has a ms hd fuse already to power the pj.
Then it's powered off an evo 3 isotek mira for specific conditioning for displays
Sure you will sleep better tonight knowing that
Just been watching San Andreas and you can see on this film where there really is a need for 4 effects finishing
It's awesome work what they have done here but when you blow it up more resolution would be so much better
Don't think we will see the best of these 4k pj's for a long time yet
It's awesome work what they have done here but when you blow it up more resolution would be so much better
Don't think we will see the best of these 4k pj's for a long time yet
ellisdj said:
UHD blu rays that were shot in native 4k and mastered in that resolution. only a couple are that.
most of them just upscaled 2k content. sicario for example is mastered in 4k, which should look a LOT better, others including the amazing spider-man 2, and most of the sony ones being released.
Series1boy
Well-known member
nugget2014 said:
you do not know what you are talking about.
most films, if not all are and have been shot in 4K for years and they have been down scaled to dvd and 1080p BD because because tvs until now, have nor been able to display 4K.
Do your research first!
link as follows:
http://4k.com/news/20-years-movie-titles-filmed-4k-nobody-bothered-save/
Series1boy
Well-known member
Series1boy said:
yes...i know that!! i am simply saying to make proper use of the 4k projector like ellis said a uhd blu ray that is mastered in 4k should be used to get maximum picture quality possible. instead of a disc that uses a upscaled 2k DI
theres a list on avforums that lists which uhd blu rays are mastered in 4k, and others that are upscaled 2k.
http://ultrahd.highdefdigest.com/reviews.html
if you look at those reviews, such as the martian you will see upscaled 2k doesn't look as good, and noise/artifacts etc can plague the image. which is why i am wanting to view a proper 4k blu ray to see what the format can offer, and my first will be sicario.
also series1boy
for some odd reason, quite a few films these days are still shot using arri alexa, which is a 2.7k resolution sensor. one of the newer ones being fantastic four reboot.
for some odd reason, quite a few films these days are still shot using arri alexa, which is a 2.7k resolution sensor. one of the newer ones being fantastic four reboot.
He is right. But even the movies with higher resolution filming still have the computer effects made / finished at 2k by all accounts.
So for the majority of movies now days that use computer generated effects it's going to be a while I guess until they are true 4k.
So even with the latest UHD player and discs it's going to be a while until you see the best from the format I think.
Blu ray was the same purely because the quality of what's being made is much higher now than 5 years ago
So for the majority of movies now days that use computer generated effects it's going to be a while I guess until they are true 4k.
So even with the latest UHD player and discs it's going to be a while until you see the best from the format I think.
Blu ray was the same purely because the quality of what's being made is much higher now than 5 years ago
Series1boy
Well-known member
My point is this: most films were shot in 4K and then dummed down to work with current home entertainment hardware.
nugget didn't say this in the first instance and only explained himself after my post.
nugget didn't say this in the first instance and only explained himself after my post.
Series1boy said:
Hi series 1 boy I don't think they all are quite a few are shot well short of 4K res.
The effects which can be 90% of a modern movie is all 2k.
It makes perfect sense to me why the cinema never looks that great quality of the content that's blown up huge shows it up.
Small at home gets away with it better
Hi ellisdj,
Thanks for your post re: Sony VPL-VW520ES.
What I would say is that context matters; buying a 4K projector (of whatever quality) now is more justifiable now than it was twelve months ago because of the amount of 4K material available, so we have to work that into our decision when considering how it fares, right then and there, against other rivals. Also, it depends what rivals are on the market at the time... our (former reference) Pana fared better in some areas and was a third of the price.
While HDR helped its case for futureproofing, especially now it's part of the 4K Blu-ray spec, the VW520ES didn't get an extra star for it.
We only say what we find the best set-up is in our room, to offer suggestions, but hope people will experiment for themselves. We'd love a bigger screen too, but rest assured the room we test projectors in is pitch black/lights off - no light even seeps through the door!
Thanks again for your comments.
Becky
Staff Writer, What Hi-Fi?
Thanks for your post re: Sony VPL-VW520ES.
What I would say is that context matters; buying a 4K projector (of whatever quality) now is more justifiable now than it was twelve months ago because of the amount of 4K material available, so we have to work that into our decision when considering how it fares, right then and there, against other rivals. Also, it depends what rivals are on the market at the time... our (former reference) Pana fared better in some areas and was a third of the price.
While HDR helped its case for futureproofing, especially now it's part of the 4K Blu-ray spec, the VW520ES didn't get an extra star for it.
We only say what we find the best set-up is in our room, to offer suggestions, but hope people will experiment for themselves. We'd love a bigger screen too, but rest assured the room we test projectors in is pitch black/lights off - no light even seeps through the door!
Thanks again for your comments.
Becky
Staff Writer, What Hi-Fi?
Hi Becky
Thanks very much for your feedback, I did not expect anyone from the site to answer this.
I appreciate you review a lot of kit, limited PJ's and dont have huge time per product so please take from this as you will.
Having a pitch black room is only really pitch black if its still pitch black when the PJ is on and you have a full 100% white field pattern or similar on the screen. i.e maximum light reflection in the room
I am 99% sure last time I was in the PJ demo room at WHF towers it was only dark and not pitch black with the PJ on
To get true pitch black you need Black velour or certain materials, (possibly paint not sure how it fares) on every surface so that no light is reflected at all, then a black carpet or similar - Tomb Dark.
Maybe this is how it is in there, I dont remember it being like it hence the comment, the first time I experienced it was much more recently than my last visit to WHF. That is really the best platform for PJ Picture quality that I have seen and therefore the fairest to assess PQ charactersitics such as Black Levels, otherwise just for example the brighter projector will have more natural ambient light and possibly worse black levels in those conditions making it an unfair test compared to a less bright projector
But back to the review - I appreciate the comments on it and thats the basis for the score fair play
The 100inch screen is very limiting for testing - these PJ's are capable of 3+ metre wide images - would blu ray still had looked better on the Pana over the Sony at that size, ? Would it have had the brightness at that size to compete with the Sony? Good information for people.
I am guessing the average size screen out there is smaller than 3 metres - however with improved resolution and video bit rates I think peoiple are going to be installing larger and larger screen sizes so maybe its time to look at a much bigger screen for testing purposes
Also I am pretty sure you are viewing on a 16:9 screen from memory - do you use a scope screen as well to test. Testing the PJ's ability to produce a much larger image, scope style zoomed to have no black bars top and bottom - pure cinema; but shown on the same size screen at the same viewing distance is again a test that might seperate PJ's performance and is good feedback for readers.
EDIT - logic behind my comments a 100" 16:9 Screen only gives less than a 90" 2.35:1 Size image or even smaller for 2.40:1. So not much bigger than a large TV and nothing like the capability of these PJ's on test.
Thanks again
All the best
Thanks very much for your feedback, I did not expect anyone from the site to answer this.
I appreciate you review a lot of kit, limited PJ's and dont have huge time per product so please take from this as you will.
Having a pitch black room is only really pitch black if its still pitch black when the PJ is on and you have a full 100% white field pattern or similar on the screen. i.e maximum light reflection in the room
I am 99% sure last time I was in the PJ demo room at WHF towers it was only dark and not pitch black with the PJ on
To get true pitch black you need Black velour or certain materials, (possibly paint not sure how it fares) on every surface so that no light is reflected at all, then a black carpet or similar - Tomb Dark.
Maybe this is how it is in there, I dont remember it being like it hence the comment, the first time I experienced it was much more recently than my last visit to WHF. That is really the best platform for PJ Picture quality that I have seen and therefore the fairest to assess PQ charactersitics such as Black Levels, otherwise just for example the brighter projector will have more natural ambient light and possibly worse black levels in those conditions making it an unfair test compared to a less bright projector
But back to the review - I appreciate the comments on it and thats the basis for the score fair play
The 100inch screen is very limiting for testing - these PJ's are capable of 3+ metre wide images - would blu ray still had looked better on the Pana over the Sony at that size, ? Would it have had the brightness at that size to compete with the Sony? Good information for people.
I am guessing the average size screen out there is smaller than 3 metres - however with improved resolution and video bit rates I think peoiple are going to be installing larger and larger screen sizes so maybe its time to look at a much bigger screen for testing purposes
Also I am pretty sure you are viewing on a 16:9 screen from memory - do you use a scope screen as well to test. Testing the PJ's ability to produce a much larger image, scope style zoomed to have no black bars top and bottom - pure cinema; but shown on the same size screen at the same viewing distance is again a test that might seperate PJ's performance and is good feedback for readers.
EDIT - logic behind my comments a 100" 16:9 Screen only gives less than a 90" 2.35:1 Size image or even smaller for 2.40:1. So not much bigger than a large TV and nothing like the capability of these PJ's on test.
Thanks again
All the best
Ellis,
Please let's not get into a "how black is black" debate, it's not like any of us is actually going to be watching movies at the bottom of an old coal mine, with the lights turned out, during new moons only, etc. etc. or turn our media rooms totally black. It would be like WHF only testing steeo kit in some sort of high tech anechoic chamber with old egg boxes or foam spikes glued to every surface.
Rather, it would be better to test the PJs in a neutral environment more representative of what we punters are likely to use the PJs in, e.g. neutral tones, no windows, doors closed or even living room with the curtains drawn.
4K PJs are going to make a lot more sense in 2016 and beyond, as Texas Instruments is poised to enter the market with 4K DLP units that should help to break Sony's current monopoly in the 4K PJ market.
As for me, having just broken a 55 inch 4K TV's screen last week, US$1000 down the toilet as a result, I'm seriously looking at using a 4K PJ with a 138 ish inch 21:9 screen for my media room. Wouldn't want to break the screen on another TV, let alone the $10K plus a really big 4K TV is likely to cost. And then there's the issue of carrying the thing up the stairs to begin with, making sure I've got a wall mount (and wall) strong enough for the weight, the electricity consumption....
Please let's not get into a "how black is black" debate, it's not like any of us is actually going to be watching movies at the bottom of an old coal mine, with the lights turned out, during new moons only, etc. etc. or turn our media rooms totally black. It would be like WHF only testing steeo kit in some sort of high tech anechoic chamber with old egg boxes or foam spikes glued to every surface.
Rather, it would be better to test the PJs in a neutral environment more representative of what we punters are likely to use the PJs in, e.g. neutral tones, no windows, doors closed or even living room with the curtains drawn.
4K PJs are going to make a lot more sense in 2016 and beyond, as Texas Instruments is poised to enter the market with 4K DLP units that should help to break Sony's current monopoly in the 4K PJ market.
As for me, having just broken a 55 inch 4K TV's screen last week, US$1000 down the toilet as a result, I'm seriously looking at using a 4K PJ with a 138 ish inch 21:9 screen for my media room. Wouldn't want to break the screen on another TV, let alone the $10K plus a really big 4K TV is likely to cost. And then there's the issue of carrying the thing up the stairs to begin with, making sure I've got a wall mount (and wall) strong enough for the weight, the electricity consumption....
Your wrong and your totally wrong again and I knew someone would say something like this.
WHF do test hifi in rooms like anacheic chambers funny enough - but there are no egg cartons
Obviously they are not anacheic chambers as such - but they are acoustically treated rooms
Why do they do this?? - to reduce the impact of Sound Quality's largest influencer - The Room
So all kit is tested fairly and on equal terms without that influence - and that is the only way to test equipment for sound quality imo.
So how is removing the effects of the room for Projector Picture quality any different to this - Its Not.
Why is it wrong to expect this level of testing from them for Projector Picture Quality - Its Not
So to answer your comments clearly;
Projectors are completely different to TV's everything is an influence - screen material, size, colour, gain and design. Throw distance, angle, seating distance and angle. Ambient Light is a Huge Factor for the most important aspect of perceived image quality - Contrast Ratio.
To test all Projectors fairly - all these factors need to be addressed.
Some are easy - colour neutral screen - even gain 1.0 in reality not on spec, acceptable size and acceptable throw distance - This is different for all PJ's because of brightness. A longer throw will mean less brightness but better blacks.
However all that aside - the ambient light will be the killer to black levels, and the ambient light will be increased with a Brighter Projector. Therefore in a non controlled light environment the brighter projector will actually be penalised in this setup - now how is that a fair test
Factoring in WHF dont test absolute black with a meter, its all done by eye this is even more important.
How do you solve this issue and level the testing playing field - remove the effect from the equation and properly black out the room. Then there arre the other issues to look at as well
ALSO
If you think people dont completely black out media rooms for projectors - your very very wrong, loads of people do. Loads of people bat cave their rooms, or go to lengths like having curtains that will cover the walls and windows to have a similar effect for the film then be normal for the rest of the time
In fact the new Flagship Cinema in Leciester Square London, which has just had a dual laser Projector upgrade and refurb apparently have completely blacked out this cinema - why because you need to do to maintain full picture contrast, otherwise what was the point in putting the laser projectors in there in the first place (I have only been told this not seen it myself.)
If you look at the photos I posted a page or so back that highlights the actual in room difference, imagine the effect its having all the time on image contrast and gamme curves - its huge
WHF do test hifi in rooms like anacheic chambers funny enough - but there are no egg cartons
Obviously they are not anacheic chambers as such - but they are acoustically treated rooms
Why do they do this?? - to reduce the impact of Sound Quality's largest influencer - The Room
So all kit is tested fairly and on equal terms without that influence - and that is the only way to test equipment for sound quality imo.
So how is removing the effects of the room for Projector Picture quality any different to this - Its Not.
Why is it wrong to expect this level of testing from them for Projector Picture Quality - Its Not
So to answer your comments clearly;
Projectors are completely different to TV's everything is an influence - screen material, size, colour, gain and design. Throw distance, angle, seating distance and angle. Ambient Light is a Huge Factor for the most important aspect of perceived image quality - Contrast Ratio.
To test all Projectors fairly - all these factors need to be addressed.
Some are easy - colour neutral screen - even gain 1.0 in reality not on spec, acceptable size and acceptable throw distance - This is different for all PJ's because of brightness. A longer throw will mean less brightness but better blacks.
However all that aside - the ambient light will be the killer to black levels, and the ambient light will be increased with a Brighter Projector. Therefore in a non controlled light environment the brighter projector will actually be penalised in this setup - now how is that a fair test
Factoring in WHF dont test absolute black with a meter, its all done by eye this is even more important.
How do you solve this issue and level the testing playing field - remove the effect from the equation and properly black out the room. Then there arre the other issues to look at as well
ALSO
If you think people dont completely black out media rooms for projectors - your very very wrong, loads of people do. Loads of people bat cave their rooms, or go to lengths like having curtains that will cover the walls and windows to have a similar effect for the film then be normal for the rest of the time
In fact the new Flagship Cinema in Leciester Square London, which has just had a dual laser Projector upgrade and refurb apparently have completely blacked out this cinema - why because you need to do to maintain full picture contrast, otherwise what was the point in putting the laser projectors in there in the first place (I have only been told this not seen it myself.)
If you look at the photos I posted a page or so back that highlights the actual in room difference, imagine the effect its having all the time on image contrast and gamme curves - its huge
ellisdj said:
FYI, some of the test rooms in our old building were acoustically treated but they most certainly weren't anechoic chambers! But you are right in that the reason we test in a dedicated suite of listening rooms is so that everything is tested in the same acoustic environment, so it's a level playing field.
We moved to new office premises last November and after four months of construction our new test rooms are now complete. The home cinema room, where we test projectors, has no windows, black painted ceilings and a sealed door to ensure no light can leak into the room when we are testing. We use an 8ft Stewart projector screen.
Hi Andy, thanks for the repsonse
I didnt know you had moved premises, so have not seen the new rooms, but I am not mad as people think I am in why I am commenting. I also wasnt trying to be an ass.
Noone would do listening tests in an anacheic room - but I took that as an extreme example comment from someone who probably thinks the rooms are just average rooms and went with that for purposes of starting the counter arguement and addressed it in the next sentence.
I cant applaud enough the mag for doing fair testing as it does, that was the thing that stuck with me the most from my visit.
However since then I have first hand seen the impact of the room on PJ quality image quality and once you see it you cant un see it, its one of those things.
I have also seen just how big and still awesome these projectors can go - its honestly incredible.
I didnt know you had moved premises, so have not seen the new rooms, but I am not mad as people think I am in why I am commenting. I also wasnt trying to be an ass.
Noone would do listening tests in an anacheic room - but I took that as an extreme example comment from someone who probably thinks the rooms are just average rooms and went with that for purposes of starting the counter arguement and addressed it in the next sentence.
I cant applaud enough the mag for doing fair testing as it does, that was the thing that stuck with me the most from my visit.
However since then I have first hand seen the impact of the room on PJ quality image quality and once you see it you cant un see it, its one of those things.
I have also seen just how big and still awesome these projectors can go - its honestly incredible.
Similar threads
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram