Jump to content

MLXXX

Does a 4K projector need "pixel perfect" resolution if the source material is a 4K animation?

Recommended Posts

Yesterday, in the 2019 projectors releases thread, a brief comment was made to the effect that a native 4K projector was advantageous (over a 2K with-pixel-shift 4K projector) if the source was a 4K pc desktop, a 4K computer game, or a 4K animation, because these were "pixel perfect". The comment and my response to it have disappeared from that thread (apparently being considered too off-topic), so I am re-raising the issue here.

 

I think it's important to understand the limitations of even computer generated images when choosing a 4K pj. For the sake of simplicity in this discussion, I'm using 4K to refer to the UHD format 3840 x 2160 pixels.

 

1. A pc desktop

Lines and text on a pc desktop set  to 2160p will tend to result in hard boundaries at the pixel level. That effect can be reduced where the application generating the lines and text is feeding a resizeable window. This may involve use of anti-aliased text. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Font_rasterization

 

If using a spreadsheet full-screen on a 2160p desktop and choosing a very small font size for the cell content, a native 4K projector could indeed be an advantage as it could make the very small font legible when a 2K plus pixel shift pj might make some of the small font characters impossible to make out. (It would be necessary to view the pj screen from an unusually short distance.)

 

For general web surfing using a 2160p destop it should be possible to select a larger font size for text.  As for 4K video displayed using a 2160p computer desktop it will rarely if ever contain hard pixel boundaries. (This is to avoid aliases; see discussion below on animation as to why hard pixel boundaries are undesirable.)  

 

2. Pc gaming

In the past, games involving rapid movement were often played at 720p in preference to 1080p in order to achieve an acceptable game frame rate.  Even with expensive  graphics cards today it it can be challenging to achieve fast performance if the desktop is set to 2160p.

Because some parts of the game frame may be relatively static, e.g. game statistics, it is possible hard pixel boundaries will be generated by the gaming app. Also because anti-aliasing of movement in a game can use up precious processing resources, and because games typically don't aim for cinematic realism anyway, a game with fast movement may well generate non anti-aliased video, with hard pixel boundaries. In these circumstances a native 4K projector could provide a distinctly sharper look (if in fact the game is run at 2160p).

There are strategy games that don't involve fast movement. If such a game aims to create realistic, true to life looking video, it will need to avoid generating hard pixel boundaries. It would be counter-productive for the strategy game app to generate pixel perfect hard edges (unless it was intended that the frames would be subsequently rescaled or otherwise anti-aliased).

3. Animations

The closer a computer generated animation comes to looking realistic, the less likely it is to have hard pixel boundaries. It has become common for animations to be integrated into real life camera footage. For example in Avatar (2009) we could see human beings in the same scene as N'avi, the tall blue-skinned CGI generated inhabitants of Panadora.

 

Realistic looking animations are not "pixel perfect". Rather one pixel will bleed into the next. There are no hard boundaries between pixels. This applies whether the animation is hand drawn and photographed in the manner of a mid-20th century Walt Disney cartoon, or computer generated as in the 2018 movie, 
Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom.

 

There should be little difference in appearance between a native 4K pj rendering a high quality 4K animation, and a 2K with pixel shift pj rendering the animation because animations are necessarily "soft" at pixel boundaries (to avoid looking artificial with moiré patterns or other aliasing artefacts).

 

So my suggested answer to the question posed in the thread topic is, "No".

 

The following comments made earlier this year on another forum by "Aaron Estrada, C.G. Supe. 20 years in VFX & Animation. DWA, R&H, Imageworks" are relevant. From  https://www.quora.com/What-resolution-is-CGI-for-movies-usually-rendered-at :-

 



Before the advent of Digital Cinema most film scan and film VFX were done at “2k” resolution. The exact raster of “2k” depended on the particular film format and aspect ratio. (Anamorphic 2.35, flat 1.85, or whatever) It was never perfectly standardized so various shops would sometime use slightly different numbers. Typically it was somewhere in the window of 2048x1556 (which would be what a “full app” scan of four perf silent 35mm would be) Often the actual working resolution would be smaller than that since the post house doing the scanning would keep the scanner calibrated for full-app and just extract the section of the scan you were interested in. Or they would just scan it full-app and provide the whole image. It really just depended on the particular workflow in use.

 

Now that nearly everything is shot on digital, the working resolution for CG and VFX will usually be the resolution of the target Digital Cinema Package format the film is meant to be delivered in. So, anywhere from 1998 × 1080 to 4096 × 2160, depending on the intended display aspect ratio.

 

In almost no case will the work ever be done at a HIGHER resolution than the intended exhibition format, except for very special occasions when there is a good technical reason for it. For example, in the case of the Queen of Hearts in Alice, the places for the queen were shot at 4k to accommodate the manipulations for making her head look bigger without stretching the pixels larger than they would be in the final output images. (the film was delivered at 2k)

 

For cartoon style full CG animation, the output resolution is sometimes rendered at a LOWER resolution than the intended output target. This is because CG tends to be too sharp looking anyway, and the render times for a given image are heavily dependent on the number of pixels that need to be rendered. Rendering at a lower resolution allows the render time saved by rendering at a lower res to be applied to other features where it is more valuable, like improved motion blur and antialiasing. Better motion blur and antialiasing make the rendered image look more natural and are often considered a better trade off than a poorer anti-aliased, higher resolution representation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For data and big room presentation I believe it needs to be, particularly if the source benefits from having the greater resolution.  For example, when new movies, games, technologies or magnification of detailed scenarios like medical research come out requiring the demonstration of improved picture quality then you certainly need the right tools to do that.  For actual desktop usage I can't see how projectors can be a viable option for desktop users or gamers for prolong use (neck strains and whathaveyou).  For graphic and developers, they would prefer something where they don't have to put up with jaggies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from slightly different perspective...

PPI density combined with viewing distance and software algorithm (smoothing) where dark pixel gradually becomes light pixel (what you might be calling hard edges?)

simple math for this purpose, perceived visual effect of PPI density when you looking at 100" 8Mp (UHD) screen from 3 meters distance should be the same as 50" 4Mp (2K) screen from 1.5 meters or opposite 50" screen watched from 3 meters should appear the same as 100" from 6 meters (give or take, there should be exact formula somewhere on the net) 

There is plenty of info on the net about human's eye ability to capture pixel per inch density vs. distance and screen size but we are nowhere near that figure at the moment (in terms of projecting HW) so anything less than equal of humans eye ability will lead to visual side effects

additional conditions comes to play, quality of projecting unit (PJ/TV/Monitor) , lightning condition in the room and of course source (movie) quality (4K master, remaster, upscaled etc.)

 

On ‎14‎/‎09‎/‎2018 at 12:19 PM, MLXXX said:

The closer a computer generated animation comes to looking realistic, the less likely it is to have hard pixel boundaries. It has become common for animations to be integrated into real life camera footage. For example in Avatar (2009) we could see human beings in the same scene as N'avi, the tall blue-skinned CGI generated inhabitants of Panadora.

 

Realistic looking animations are not "pixel perfect". Rather one pixel will bleed into the next. There are no hard boundaries between pixels. 

in my view yes and no, from simple pixel perspective the picture will be pixel perfect, but as stated in your quote from Aaron Estrada, producer might consider different techniques so that the image looks as realistic as possible on every screen in every resolution and doesn't require additional hours of processing and HW, secondly there's no perfect recording or visual device so producers have to overcome side effects such as moiré, aliasing, posterization etc, now we also have to consider that 4K isn't native/standard resolution these days (yet) for home usage so if they have to please all of us than they have to find the middle road.

But there's no reason 4K master even if CGI generated can't look good if (again) mastering, final screen size and watching distance stays within intended boundaries

 

so the answer is yes if above mentioned would be achieved... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic was posted in response to my comments in another thread. This is silly. I have actually looked at this in the real world.

 

It is folly to state a pixel shifting 3k image is fine when the source image is in fact 4k input resolution, forget the content MTF, think about 1:1 pixel mapping. It is ridiculous fundamentally to display 4k pixels at 3k. There is simple degradation there, end of story.

 

As for weather eshift can display all the MTF that is there in 4K UHD films. It simply CANNOT. End of story. I have seen it with my own eyes.
 

Here:

 

4K Lucy. Look at the fibres in his suit on the right at 100%, zoom in, do whatever you need to do. This information is NOT there in the 2K image.

 

yABpYUJ.jpg

 

2K Image

 

tNuVQme.png

 

Here is MadVR NGU Sharp up-scaling to 4K. Better but the detail is still not there.

 

ttKxaUG.jpg

 

Even the very best up-scaling does not restore this information.

 

Now you might say that the 4k image on an eshift machine renders the detail just fine if you use the UHD source (I thought everyone on here thinks UHD is BS?), well, sorry, I have looked at this with eshift 4 and eshift 5, it does not render the fibres still. Add to that, there is moire on the very fine fibers in his suit going in the wrong direction, and the detail is completely blurred away. 4K resolution displays the fibers exactly as they are present in the source. The fact is, the detail present in this frame at anything lower than a 4k native display cannot be rendered faithfully. This is not even animation!

 

Here is how the X9500 renders the UHD shot. Almost there, but a lot of detail is truncated. I dont have the 9900 shot handy, but its the same deal,. those extra fine fibers are missing or severely truncated.

 

c6STQW8.jpg

 

Case closed, sorry guys.

 

If you want to present me with actual source frames and real world experience to the contrary above, I am all ears. All I am reading is postulation and theory and no experience.

Edited by Javs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Javs said:

Case closed, sorry guys.

 

If you want to present me with actual source frames and real world experience to the contrary above, I am all ears.

 

I have had difficulty photographing UHD images that appear on a flat panel TV screen. What I've seen with my eyes has not always revealed by the camera. One way towards overcoming that is to set up the camera so that it captures only a portion of the screen, and then downscale the captured image of that portion. That technique may not overcome colour balance issues (because camera sensors will typically not have the same spectral response as the subpixel colours emitted by the display device) but may facilitate visible resolution being evaluated subjectively.

 

Javs, I can see that the original 4K frame (a rip from a disc?) has much richer colour overall, and much better detail for the pattern in the suit coat, than the screen photograph of the faux 4K projector.
 

Would you have a good quality screen photograph of what a native 4K projector does with that particular frame so we could see a real world A and B comparison?  Ideally two projectors under comparison would have been set up side by side and the same camera would have been used to capture the projector screen images.

[I have some remarks to make regarding visible resolution typically found on Blu-ray discs but will leave that till I have more time to post.] 

Edited by MLXXX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Javs is spot on.  Just  take a look and you can easily see the differences. No need to theorise because the argument can be settled in the real world.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


41 minutes ago, MLXXX said:

 

I have had difficulty photographing UHD images that appear on a flat panel TV screen. What I've seen with my eyes has not always revealed by the camera. One way towards overcoming that is to set up the camera so that it captures only a portion of the screen, and then downscale the captured image of that portion. That technique may not overcome colour balance issues (because camera sensors will typically not have the same spectral response as the subpixel colours emitted by the display device) but may facilitate visible resolution being evaluated subjectively.

 

Javs, I can see that the original 4K frame (a rip from a disc?) has much richer colour overall, and much better detail for the pattern in the suit coat, than the screen photograph of the faux 4K projector.
 

Would you have a good quality screen photograph of what native 4K projector does with that particular frame so we could see a real world A and B comparison?  Ideally two projectors under comparison would have been set up side by side and the same camera would have been used to capture the projector screen images.

[I have some remarks to make regarding visible resolution typically found on Blu-ray discs but will leave that till I have more time to post.] 

Please ignore colours. We are focusing on a grey suit right now anyway, the HDR image is tone mapping to Rec709 so its completely not the colour you see in projection at P3.

 

I want to stress before I post this, comparisons as you say need to be photographed in person at the same time. But, I do have a pretty good camera, Canon 7D Mark II and good lenses. When my images are in focus, (the ones I posted are) the resulting image is very close to what I see in person.

 

So in saying that, here is the 760ES with the same shot. I cannot get close to this image on my JVC's and I have looked at this shot on 4 different JVC's so I am very familiar with it. The 760 (colour aside obviously) is closer to the source in this shot (in terms of actual resolution visible) than the JVC hands down.

 

760ES:

 

WfJG8VF.jpg

Edited by Javs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
57 minutes ago, Javs said:

Please ignore colours. We are focusing on a grey suit right now anyway, the HDR image is tone mapping to Rec709 so its completely not the colour you see in projection at P3.

 

I want to stress before I post this, comparisons as you say need to be photographed in person at the same time. But, I do have a pretty good camera, Canon 7D Mark II and good lenses. When my images are in focus, (the ones I posted are) the resulting image is very close to what I see in person.

 

So in saying that, here is the 760ES with the same shot. I cannot get close to this image on my JVC's and I have looked at this shot on 4 different JVC's so I am very familiar with it. The 760 (colour aside obviously) is closer to the source in this shot (in terms of actual resolution visible) than the JVC hands down.

 

760ES:

 

WfJG8VF.jpg

I actually see a lot more detail and texture in the guys face in the jvc shot ?. this one lookslots more pasty detail smoothened over ?  like its out of focus ? different camera ? different lens ? different distance. i find in taking shots always good to take from viewing distance and using 50mm equivalent as it best approximates what human eye can see :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Javs said:

 

Case closed, sorry guys.

 

If you want to present me with actual source frames and real world experience to the contrary above, I am all ears. All I am reading is postulation and theory and no experience.

Who are you?  There's no need to get all high and almighty posting a few photos to prove your point, I think we all know 2K isn't going to be 4K and upscaling isn't going to make it better either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, :) al said:

I actually see a lot more detail and texture in the guys face in the jvc shot ?. this one lookslots more pasty detail smoothened over ?  like its out of focus ? different camera ? different lens ? different distance. i find in taking shots always good to take from viewing distance and using 50mm equivalent as it best approximates what human eye can see :)

Look at his suit bottom right.... The 760ES obviously needs to be calibrated since it was not at the time. But calibration does not change resolution. There are details in his suit the JVC didnt resolve, simple as that.

 

28mm from 1.6 crop camera same thing... ~44mm full frame. I take them from about 3.2m.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, GAARA said:

Who are you?  There's no need to get all high and almighty posting a few photos to prove your point,

I am Javs, who are you?

 

Quote

I think we all know 2K isn't going to be 4K and upscaling isn't going to make it better either.

Have you actually read this thread and the others around here? Tell that to people like Owen btw.

 

I have seen this in real time with stacked projectors, others have not and decide to post to the contrary from behind their keyboards. Its rubbish honestly.

Edited by Javs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Javs said:

I am Javs, who are you?

 

Tell that to people like Owen btw.

 

I have seen this in real time with stacked projectors, others have not and decide to post to the contrary from behind their keyboards. Its rubbish honestly.

Look, people are going to defend their products based on the choices they make, not everyone can justify paying thousands to get real 4K considering that there are cheaper alternatives.

 

Secondly, if you're going to post pictures don't edit them, I want to see EXIF info.  People have often cheated and altered their findings by editing their shots to prove a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


17 minutes ago, GAARA said:

Look, people are going to defend their products based on the choices they make, not everyone can justify paying thousands to get real 4K considering that there are cheaper alternatives.

I have no skin in the game in regards to justifying a purchase.This thread, and others is about the idea that 4k is even worthy at all since there is 'no resolution in film above 3k' and as such eshift is more than enough. Well I have data and experience to show otherwise.

 

Quote

Secondly, if you're going to post pictures don't edit them, I want to see EXIF info.  People have often cheated and altered their findings by editing their shots to prove a point.

I am not posting EXIF. I totally could, but I have nothing to prove to you, the suggestion I edit my photos is absolutely preposterous if you know my history on forums. I cut right through the BS and I am proud of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have done the same comparisons as  @Javs and the only reason that we are even having this discussion is that not enough people have witnessed first hand what true 4K projectors can do. Javs is 100% correct and photos simply dont do justice to the real life differences. These differences  are not subtle and are magnified even further with bigger screens and cine-zooming .

 

This is  just part of what "Widescreen Review" had to say on the matter in their June 2018 edition:

 

Quote

The wide 2.35 screen let me use the lens position memory of the 885ES for constant image height presentation without an anamorphic lens. This allows you to zoom 2.35:1 movies with just one menu selection to fill the 2.35:1 screen with an image, while the black bars at the top and bottom fall off the top and bottom of the projection screen. Doing that with a projector having 1920x1080 imagers using “pixel shift” to display every pixel in each frame of 3840x2160 video looks very soft compared to the same images displayed with Sony’s 4K SXRD imagers.

 

The 1920x1080 pixel-shift projectors have pixels four times larger than the pixels in 3840x2160 imagers, and at best they can only show about 4.15 million pixels of each 8.3-million pixel UHD frame. That’s why pixel-shift 1080p projectors produce softer-than- real-UHD images.

 

 

 

    When the new JVC's are released,  sit back and wait for the shock and awe of discovery the new owners will make. 

Edited by Tasso

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should add that I have done the comparisons using genuine 4K material not 2k upscales. 2K can look better with native 4K panels too but that is another story 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator

[moderator post]a couple of posts removed. Please don't make it personal guys, stick to discussing the topic rather than the person [end moderator post]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I think its important to distinguish between Lycos E-shift used by JVC and Epson and the DLP  4K chip.  The DLP chip isn't actually shifted , but rather each pixel is flashed twice ( 0.66" chip)  and combined to produce a 3840X2160 image.  I haven't seen them in action first hand but by all reports the resolution is better than the 2K panel shifters and it apparently qualifies as "native 4K" .    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/09/2018 at 2:53 PM, GAARA said:

For data and big room presentation I believe it needs to be, particularly if the source benefits from having the greater resolution.  For example, when new movies, games, technologies or magnification of detailed scenarios like medical research come out requiring the demonstration of improved picture quality then you certainly need the right tools to do that.  For actual desktop usage I can't see how projectors can be a viable option for desktop users or gamers for prolong use (neck strains and whathaveyou).  For graphic and developers, they would prefer something where they don't have to put up with jaggies.

Agreed.

 

On 17/09/2018 at 7:19 PM, kukynas said:

There is plenty of info on the net about human's eye ability to capture pixel per inch density vs. distance and screen size but we are nowhere near that figure at the moment (in terms of projecting HW) so anything less than equal of humans eye ability will lead to visual side effects

additional conditions comes to play, quality of projecting unit (PJ/TV/Monitor) , lightning condition in the room and of course source (movie) quality (4K master, remaster, upscaled etc.)

My own visual acuity is such that I find that a 3840x2160 pixel display leaves a little to be desired in terms of matching up to the detail I can see in real life. I'd probably prefer 8K for a feeling of looking through a window onto a real life scene.

However the authoring of Blu-ray discs often seems not to achieve the full visual resolution available. This can be noticed with even Full HD (1920 x 1080 pixel) material. I have extracted frames from Blu-ray discs and been surprised how soft they can be. I recall that certain frames from near static scenes in Life of Pi could be downscaled to around 1440x810 and then rescaled to 1920x1080, without any loss in visible detail.

 

With Avatar 3D, I could pause 3D frames when viewing on a 1920x1080 film-type patterned display, losing every other horizontal line for the Left and Right images when viewing with passive glasses but I really struggled to identify any feature visible on a 3840x2160 film-type patterned display showing the same frame in 3D that was missing from the lesser resolution screen. It is simply the case that much of the Avatar 3D Blu-ray has been authored with a visible resolution rather less than what the 1920x1080 Full HD format is capable off.

Turning to 3840 x 2160 pixel material, I find that the visible detail varies quite a bit. Some of the best detail I've seen has been - surprising though this may be - on Netflix, despite the very modest bitrate (around 10Mbps). My jaw has dropped at times in response to remarkable picture detail in certain scenes in the Netflix series Grace & Frankie.  As I couldn't  rip frames from Netflix I resorted to taking photos of the television screen at very short range. If I resampled the photo down to a resolution corresponding to Full HD, detail disappeared that was visible on the UHD screen, and the photo of the UHD screen. 

Some of the 3840 x 2160 Blu-ray discs I've acquired have left me less than impressed with their visible detail. This is not at all surprising if the digital intermediate was at "2K". 

Even if the cameras used supported a 4K resolution, and the DI was at 4K, there is still the question of how much smoothing will be used in authoring a 3840x2160 UHD Blu-ray disc.

I would have a distinct preference for a true 4K projector if the source material were a computer desktop at 2160p used to display a spreadsheet with very small font.

However I would hesitate if the source material were video from real life, or an anti-aliased animation.  I think you would need to assess the particular authored source material on a case by case basis.

The frame that @Javs has supplied us includes a patterned suit jacket that has been rendered very clearly with a native 4K projector, and not very well at all by a pixel-shift projector.  Is this the type of frame detail that we would expect to come up on most 4K Blu-ray discs in at least one scene? Or it is only the occasional 4K disc that will include such a frame?

If there were little price difference between native 4K projectors and say a 3K equivalent pixel-shifted projector then we might not concern ourselves very much with the question I have just raised. But there has been a substantial price premium for native 4K projectors.

And of course as has often been mentioned, there are other performance attributes of a projector to be weighed up (not merely the ability to display very fine detail present in certain scenes, of certain UHD Blu-ray discs).

Edited by MLXXX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


22 hours ago, Javs said:

I am not posting EXIF. I totally could, but I have nothing to prove to you, the suggestion I edit my photos is absolutely preposterous if you know my history on forums. I cut right through the BS and I am proud of it.

I would agree @Javs that you have established a reputation on this forum for posting in good faith. 

 

*        *        *


I note one way around the issue of queries regarding the quality of the camera is to photograph only a small portion of the screen in such a way that the pixel count of the camera image greatly exceeds the pixel count of the portion of the screen being photographed. This can lead to a very clear view of the pixel structure in the image. There is no need for EXIF data as the actual screen pixels can be observed.  

 

I'm not sure the followed animated gif I created was totally convincing but it used the technique of photographing at a much higher resolution than the screen resolution (a 3840 x 2160 pixel LCD screen in this case):--

 

Car-resolutioncomparison3500mS_zpsh595db

Edited by MLXXX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MLXXX said:

My own visual acuity is such that I find that a 3840x2160 pixel display leaves a little to be desired in terms of matching up to the detail I can see in real life. I'd probably prefer 8K for a feeling of looking through a window onto a real life scene.

you aren't the only one :)

5 hours ago, MLXXX said:

However the authoring of Blu-ray discs often seems not to achieve the full visual resolution available. This can be noticed with even Full HD (1920 x 1080 pixel) material. I have extracted frames from Blu-ray discs and been surprised how soft they can be. I recall that certain frames from near static scenes in Life of Pi could be downscaled to around 1440x810 and then rescaled to 1920x1080, without any loss in visible detail.

 

With Avatar 3D, I could pause 3D frames when viewing on a 1920x1080 film-type patterned display, losing every other horizontal line for the Left and Right images when viewing with passive glasses but I really struggled to identify any feature visible on a 3840x2160 film-type patterned display showing the same frame in 3D that was missing from the lesser resolution screen. It is simply the case that much of the Avatar 3D Blu-ray has been authored with a visible resolution rather less than what the 1920x1080 Full HD format is capable off.

Turning to 3840 x 2160 pixel material, I find that the visible detail varies quite a bit. Some of the best detail I've seen has been - surprising though this may be - on Netflix, despite the very modest bitrate (around 10Mbps). My jaw has dropped at times in response to remarkable picture detail in certain scenes in the Netflix series Grace & Frankie.  As I couldn't  rip frames from Netflix I resorted to taking photos of the television screen at very short range. If I resampled the photo down to a resolution corresponding to Full HD, detail disappeared that was visible on the UHD screen, and the photo of the UHD screen. 

the best example of what's 4K (including HDR) capable of is Planet Earth II , some of the footage is shot by 6K camera (most probably downscaled) and is simply mind blowing 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kukynas said:

you aren't the only one :)

the best example of what's 4K (including HDR) capable of is Planet Earth II , some of the footage is shot by 6K camera (most probably downscaled) and is simply mind blowing 

Anything shot with the RED Weapon or the Arri Alexa 65 would be the best.

 

Planet Earth is nice, but it does have some source banding and noise in the image, I found it inconsistent at times, there are much better shots in films IMO.

 

 

8 hours ago, MLXXX said:

I would agree @Javs that you have established a reputation on this forum for posting in good faith. 

 

*        *        *


I note one way around the issue of queries regarding the quality of the camera is to photograph only a small portion of the screen in such a way that such that the pixel count of the camera image greatly exceeds the pixel count of the portion of the screen being photographed. This can lead to a very clear view of the pixel structure in the image. There is no need for EXIF data as the actual screen pixels can be observed.  

 

I'm not sure the followed animated gif I created was totally convincing but it used the technique of photographing at a much higher resolution than the screen resolution (a 3840 x 2160 pixel LED screen in this case):--

Yep I have done something similar before in the past. I have only shared a snippet of those past experiments here. Over on AVS I have been doing this for years.

 

I will be doing a pretty in depth comparison between my 9500 and the NX7 when it arrives. I will have both stacked and plan to use a $17k medium format Hassleblad digital camera which I have access to, to photograph the differences. If anything is going to put to bed the usefulness of a native 4k panel vs eshift, that will. Nothing like a bit of good empirical evidence.

 

Here is one example regarding eshift 4 showing 1080p input, 1080p with eshift and UHD input with eshift all of the same source footage.

 

This was my older X7000 btw. I will do this exact test again with the X9500 and the NX7 stacked and calibrated.

 

Here is the original master image.

 

T5at3Dp.jpg

 

Here is the same image photographed from my screen from just behind the main viewing position.

 

TSyBGse.jpg

 

Now here is a close up from that image, I moved right up to the screen for these, and the pixel grid is clearly visible in all modes. I will use these same 3 images on the new model to compare, along with some further back eye candy I will post below.

 

View them FULL SIZE to see the pixel grids. NO, my screen has zero texture, its a smooth surface, so any texture you see it pixel grid. Very clear to see when viewed full size :)

 

UHD (E-Shift)

 

gNTmArh.jpg

 

Here is 1080p E-Shift

 

2l33B4p.jpg

 

Here is 1080p

 

B1piXzM.jpg

 

And some more random shots of my screen. You wouldnt even think these are projector shots, but they are:

 

 

 


l3Z5Na8.jpg

qLQ5uLL.jpg

Ao4iYCO.jpg

gJuQQMq.jpg

VNdYpCT.jpg

MgfdePz.jpg

aExzSFu.jpg

HixFHil.jpg

fBKLUnN.jpg

ZdmCScm.jpg

e5OMJId.jpg

5acQwrs.jpg

KsTrxnS.jpg

WaY97V6.jpg

 

 

Edited by Javs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, kukynas said:

the best example of what's 4K (including HDR) capable of is Planet Earth II , some of the footage is shot by 6K camera (most probably downscaled) and is simply mind blowing 

I was very impressed by Planet Earth II, not least because of the HDR effect highlighting glistening water or sunlight filtering through a rainforest canopy. I made some comments last year:

On 11/05/2017 at 2:09 AM, MLXXX said:

However tonight I started watching a 4K Blu-ray of Planet Earth II and it was a revelation. Quite vivid colours, and some extremely bright highlights in the picture. (What many people would expect UHD HDR to look like, I think.) As regards colour saturation, if anything at times it looked slightly oversaturated, to my eyes.   

...

I haven't attempted to capture through still photography any of the scenes on the disc of animals, vegetation, or pools of still water, glistening in the sun. These scenes took advantage of the high dynamic range capability of the 4K UHD format. For my eyes these scenes had an additional realism arising from the glistening effect.

 

David Attenborough and his photographic teams have led the way with photography of the natural world. For example I was very impressed with Sir David's 3D Blu-ray programs covering the Galapagos Islands:

 

On 17/07/2016 at 10:14 PM, MLXXX said:

Galapagos 3D, written and presented by Sir David Attenborough, was released on Blu-ray in late 2013. (I've only seen it myself very recently.) There are three episodes that run one after the other on the Blu-ray: Origin, Adapation, and Evolution. Wikipedia describes the Galapagos 3D episodes in detail here.

There is the trademark David Attenborough combination of intelligent commentary and cutting-edge photography.

This is a delightful series of nature documentaries captured in 3D, not converted from 2D. 3D is used to good effect at various distances with different spacing (inter-axial distance) of the two camera lenses:  ...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Javs said:

Yep I have done something similar before in the past. I have only shared a snippet of those past experiments here. Over on AVS I have been doing this for years.

 

I will be doing a pretty in depth comparison between my 9500 and the NX7 when it arrives. I will have both stacked and plan to use a $17k medium format Hassleblad digital camera which I have access to, to photograph the differences. If anything is going to put to bed the usefulness of a native 4k panel vs eshift, that will. Nothing like a bit of good empirical evidence.

I look forward to your comparison between a 9500 and an NX7. It sounds like it will be a very well controlled comparison!

[I can recall seeing some of your comparison shots before, including the one of the white vehicle, number plate "PEBBLE", parked near a jetty.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Javs said:

If anything is going to put to bed the usefulness of a native 4k panel vs eshift, that will. Nothing like a bit of good empirical evidence.

 

I suspect that after  the new JVC's are released the number of people who will have  witnessed  the differences first hand will reach the point when  native 4K superiority won't be questioned.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


1 hour ago, Tasso said:

 

I suspect that after  the new JVC's are released the number of people who will have  witnessed  the differences first hand will reach the point when  native 4K superiority won't be questioned.  

I've actually put 2000 hours on a native 4k Sony. So I know its benefits. But on THOSE models the lens was really bad, and there was too much processing and degradation to the incoming signal. I moved to JVC because the contrast improvement was absolutely COLOSSAL and it negated the small but obvious differences I could see on the screen on that unit when pixel peeping, the lens was stellar, uniformity was excellent and to be frank, its calibration control system is completely unmatched in projectors.

 

I will remind the forum that this is the first time that a native 4k projector has become available with ANYTHING north of 20k:1 contrast and 4K panels. In the case of the NX7 with its 80k:1 and Dynamic most likely in the 300,000:1+ category, it should make for a killer combination and tremendous image balance.

 

The force has been unbalanced until recently that's for sure. We should make the distinction that those who lobbied for JVC (me firmly in that camp) did so because the overall image BALANCE was not all about resolution solely.

 

NOW, I also dont buy, and dont like, when people outright refuse to address the benefits to 4K as a resolution and technology. As I said, its utterly ridiculous to use a 3k eshifting technology to display an image composed of 8 million pixels and only be able to show 4 million of them at best... There IS going to be information missing if you know where to look for it. I have only shared one example, I can share more if you like, and I have the photos to prove it. With a very old Sony 320ES to boot, still the detail was there if you know where to look.

 

This kind of thing goes beyond brands and enters the realm of common sense.

 

In saying that, there is always another side to that coin, If you have an absolutely velvet treated bat cave like I do, you may place a very high importance on contrast. I did, I do, and I haven't been ready to go backwards at all until the scales are at least partially balanced as they seem to be now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   2 members

×