# Screenshot War CRT vs Digital 2015-2016



## Dj Dee

*Screenshot CRT or Digital 2015-201?*

Screenshots are usually just bull, but CRT vs Digital will show differences clearly. 




Thread rules:
So, adhere to these please:

1. *No Bickering.*
2. Use an upload site that keeps Exif data intact to check no software processing being used. image.org for example.
3. Minimum size 16/9 2999x2000/ 235:1 2999x1000 res to make a comparison.
4. For comparing to see more side by side without a lot of black, remove top and bottom in picture. Because they will and have to be removed to get the pictures close for comparison.
5. The shots should be posted one on top of the other to avoid degrading them by either shrinking or scaling up. Both can break up the structure of the image after it' initial resizing. Screencap can be used to illustrate if originals are posted. 

http://postimg.org/image/61r5d61wf/full/
http://postimg.org/image/61r5d61wf/full/http://postimg.org/image/61r5d61wf/full/

http://postimg.org/image/6fshcrlzz/full/
http://postimg.org/image/6fshcrlzz/full/http://postimg.org/image/6fshcrlzz/full/

http://postimg.org/image/c58px2s67/full/
http://postimg.org/image/c58px2s67/full/http://postimg.org/image/c58px2s67/full/

http://postimg.org/image/g2vzmhezj/full/
http://postimg.org/image/g2vzmhezj/full/http://postimg.org/image/g2vzmhezj/full/

http://postimg.org/image/t8bhsl8v3/full/
http://postimg.org/image/t8bhsl8v3/full/http://postimg.org/image/t8bhsl8v3/full/


----------



## dzseki

Those pictures are not even 1080p cutouts, instead 1366x768...


----------



## Dj Dee

dzseki said:


> Those pictures are not even 1080p cutouts, instead 1366x768...


I cut away blackbars quality is the same. and also converted to jpg
size to big.

Between digital projectors the difference is small shown in screenshots.
But CRT is so far from quality HD that you see the difference even on a iPhone or a ipad. Then detail sharpness, debt, clearness, lifelike.
Seen together side by side like I have done many times is just hilarious. But if someone manages to get a screenshot close to the digital I will be impressed. Here a Sony and a JVC dont remember what is who.


----------



## Kevin 3000

JVC Compared to CRT Newest Modded 
4 years ago I compared the Tech is this as good as its got?
Show me better if you think this is unrepresentative - 
Will not reply to the usual suspects only interested in the best picture.


----------



## Ericglo

I guess the JVC is on top.


----------



## Kevin 3000

*JVC samples from Samsara if any CRT owners would like a challenge.....*


----------



## ElTopo

Kevin 3000 said:


> JVC Compared to CRT Newest Modded
> 4 years ago I compared the Tech is this as good as its got?
> Show me better if you think this is unrepresentative -
> Will not reply to the usual suspects only interested in the best picture.



The JVC seems some kind of over sharpened ?!


----------



## redfox001

Just one 
Oh Michone 

IMG_0369 by Radio Head, on Flickr

IMG_0371 by Radio Head, on Flickr

Tv series 1800MB canon powershot 8 MPix


----------



## redfox001

ElTopo said:


> The JVC seems some kind of over sharpened ?!


Unreal. Look like someone got an algorithm to draw colours in a wild mosaic but has so little to do with the world scene that it is supposed to reproduce.


----------



## Kevin 3000

No Samsara takers? Perhaps the Digital set the Bar too high will look at Baraka tonight and select some scenes your CRTs can cope with


----------



## ElTopo

redfox001 said:


> Just one
> Oh Michone
> 
> IMG_0369 by Radio Head, on Flickr
> 
> IMG_0371 by Radio Head, on Flickr
> 
> Tv series 1800MB canon powershot 8 MPix



This is a DIGITAL (CINE9) projector, right ? :wink:


----------



## redfox001

Nope but has the HFQ900 lenses and my Cine 9 looks exactly the same. I just improved on the typical CRT look that comes with simplicity in the video chain and tubes and some more stuff. But if you can not get it simple you have to do something else. One day I am going to mod a digital again. My Hd350 was not bad too after some changes.


----------



## Kevin 3000

X90 Full JPG Quality Baraka samples - New Free Nikon Image Space
Click on Slideshow - Mute that Music - Cropped in camera - Exif Data Intact. 

https://nis.nikonimagespace.com/htm...kE9z9suJXLpYUQazX-CYzaiNob0wBQGthpZ1uGCesxVXM

No code to preview full quality here. May test later.


I will add (as this is a CRT vs Digital screenshot War thread) 
Any Super Modded Triple wammy CRT think they got me beat post same


----------



## DrDon

Good-natured ribbing is one thing. But there's a line where that becomes insulting. To that point, posts have been removed and infractions issued. No more bickering at all.

If this is going to be a screenshot thread, then post the screenshots along with the technical information related to that screenshot.


----------



## DrDon

Thread rolled back to my prior post and reopened.


----------



## Kevin 3000

JVC X90 sample from Baraka


----------



## Kevin 3000

JVC X90 a CRT favourite around the net - may grab some and compare if no CRT owners are willing to share the look of their Modded Machines.


----------



## draganm

well I could care less about the CRT vs. digital debate that's been going on since before I joined years ago but , if you really want my honest opinion the second picture looks a little flat with less contrast and lower color saturation



Dj Dee said:


> Here screencap so you can find the right frame in the film.
> Screenshots are usually just bull, but CRT vs Digital will show differences clearly.





Dj Dee said:


> Here shots from the JVC x500 with Canon EOS 450D


----------



## Kevin 3000

JVC X90 Baraka sample.


----------



## Kevin 3000

JVC X90 Lucy










JVC X90









CRT VDC Marquee 9553LC Ultra, Moome V3 MP mods Sourced off AVforums. 









JVC X90


----------



## Kevin 3000

Close up of the above....


----------



## Ericglo

The CRT looks a lot better than I would have thought in comparison to the JVC. I wonder if the CRT was calibrated.


----------



## Kevin 3000

CRT same as above
















JVC X90


----------



## aj1221

Is moome still offering cards for CRT. I bought a few from him years for my CRT which I have not turned on in years. One of these days I will have to fire it up again to see if it still works. Nothing touches CRT today except in terms of brightness. JVC and Sony is getting very close and close enough for many.


----------



## aj1221

Forgot to mention I have a Marquee 9"


----------



## aj1221

Is moome still offering CRT mods. I bought a few cards from him years ago I have a Marquee I have not fired up in years. Im scared to turn it on but it worked last time I used it.


----------



## Curt Palme

All the cards are available on my site below.


----------



## aj1221

Thank you Curt it is good to see CRT is still alive.


----------



## KM987654

The thing that I have noticed over time watching digital projection as opposed to my CRT projector is I believe I am watching the sharpness as if its feature like color or color depth. This is something I certainly don't do with my CRT projector. Don't get me wrong I want my CRT as sharp as I can get it but that sharpness is not part of the viewing experience. With digital I find I am looking at the edges of abjects constantly perhaps its because those edges are so sharp compared to whatever is behind the object.


----------



## tanwn1

With a jvc x500/700 and all processing defeated. It is very very natural and clearly more defined and detailed compared to a crt. No hint of artificial sharpness at all.


----------



## cmjohnson

I have no screenshots to contribute, just some observations.

Last evening I visited a good friend's house and we watched Frozen (Hey, I'd never seen it!) in his very nice home theater, which he designed and built by hand, featuring a JVC D-ILA RS40 projector and TWO Contrabass subwoofers and a curved Stewart screen in the 140" class. 

He uses an anamorphic lens to make full use of all available pixels.

It looked fantastic, probably as good as you ever see in a good cinema with state of the art digital projection equipment. 

So, today I went out and bought a few Blu-Ray movies, Frozen being one of them. 

And I watched it again, tonight, on my own system, which is much more basic but features an MP modded Marquee 9500LC and it's in need of a maintenance cycle. There are some floaters in the glycol and the blue tube's glycol is getting a bit of the murk so it's time for a flush, clean, and refill. 

I'm sure looking forward to completing the overhaul cycle and having the PJ in absolutely top condition. Incidentally, my tubes are still totally minty, with under 500 hours on them. I reserve the projector only for movie nights, and don't put hours on it with TV content. 

Input is straight from the Sony blu-ray player to the Moome HDMI input card, with nothing in between but an inexpensive 20 foot HDMI cable.

My projector isn't even fully and properly aligned right now. I've been having trouble getting the astig just right, and there may even be a problem with the astig system. 

That being said, I watched a better looking movie tonight. The Marquee has a depth to the image, and a saturated quality to the image that goes beyond mere color saturation, that is hard to explain but easy to see.

It's like the visual equivalent of changing from a mono sound system to a stereo system. Not a lot changes, but it changes it a lot. 

Digital wins for brightness and screen size and convenience, but the total picture quality throne is still occupied by the mighty cathode ray tube, as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Kevin 3000

VDC Marquee 9553LC Ultra, Moome V3 MP mods sourced AVForum.
















JVC sourced from a French review site (forgot to mention)


----------



## Verge2

Stridsvognen said:


> I been looking on these last shots, and can see that some of my screenshots has been used as comparison, compressed, and exif files is no longer presented.
> 
> There is no doubt what pics i think looks the best, but i think it would be a good idea with a set of rules for a competition like this.
> 
> I see that there is some using lots and lots of processing/ enhancement, noticed Tom Cruise have been digitaly shaved, and some breakfast addet to his chin.
> 
> So ill like to know whats the main idea is about this competition, do we need to tweak the image to how we would like it to look like using enhancement and image manipulation, or are we trying to produce images showing as much of the source material as natural/ untouched as possible.?
> 
> Also wonder why this thread is located in the CRT section, as its started by someone representing digital, maybe it should be moved.?



Yea those images aren't a fair comparison.


----------



## Dj Dee

greg1292 said:


> Looks like the JVC has color issues and the picture/exposure is all wrong as it is severly blown out/neon green? Proper
> exposure and the image will collapse even more. Just the nature of JVC screenshots as Kurt has shown on AVF. page 38
> for reference.


 
You are right here Greg1292 watching both pictures the CRT picture win big time in my eyes. The JVC picture look fake and everything looks wrong.
I have taken the same and post it here, looks better and more fair.
But we like what we like, and nothing can change that. One thing for shore Crt with the MP mod you use looks great, and to me it looks like a great improvement to the marquee, And your guys pictures look very nice. 
Here we can say what picture we like best, and that will be different from person to person. 
Would be fun if someone took the same pictures I put out when I started the thread. Use what upload you like, just make shore you get god quality. This because if someone zoom in the size of megapixels used matter. My camera manages max 4272x2848. 


Here the picture form JVC RS600 The CRT first



Marquee picture.



JVC RS600

Together zoomed inn the same Marquee on the left and RS600 on the right.







http://postimg.org/image/ipc3rd0nz/full/
http://postimg.org/image/ipc3rd0nz/full/http://postimg.org/image/ipc3rd0nz/full/
http://postimg.org/image/x9t6m6vmn/full/
http://postimg.org/image/x9t6m6vmn/full/http://postimg.org/image/x9t6m6vmn/full/


----------



## Kevin 3000

VDC Marquee 9553LC Ultra, Moome V3 MP mods
Exif reports sharpness HARD saturation LOW.











upload picture


JVC X90
Exif intact.


----------



## Dj Dee

ElTopo said:


> The JVC seems some kind of over sharpened ?!


 Jepp way to over sharpened, and the CRT looked more correct to me. Then post 5
I think I have that form the X500 I have a look and post it.


----------



## Dj Dee

Kevin 3000 said:


> VDC Marquee 9553LC Ultra, Moome V3 MP mods
> Exif reports sharpness HARD saturation LOW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JVC X90
> Exif all NORMAL
> 
> 
> Link to EXIF data......
> https://nis.nikonimagespace.com/htm...JC9z9suJXLpYUQazX-CYzaiNob0wBQGthpZ1uGCesxVXM




Use Postimage goodnd easy


----------



## Dj Dee

Kevin 3000 said:


> VDC Marquee 9553LC Ultra, Moome V3 MP mods
> Exif reports sharpness HARD saturation LOW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here form the X500 also from November. Also included with and without e-shift. Main picture with E-shift


----------



## Dj Dee

@Kevin 3000
Have you had some sort of calibrating on your X90?


----------



## Kevin 3000

Dj Dee said:


> @*Kevin 3000*
> Have you had some sort of calibrating on your X90?


 
Spyder 4 JVCs Auto Calibration.

@*Stridsvognen*
Exif data intact click on image save/properties - Luck alignment - You are the calibrator with the latest CRT Mods, partisipate or accept my judgements.


----------



## Dj Dee

In here we post our best pictures, every picture in here can be used for compartment for fun. 
And pictures does not show what projector is the best at all. Only who have the best picture.
Here there is a lot of different opinions, and there is no correct answer only what each of us like and prefferanses.
People that want to start discussions can freely leave this thread. 
This is for fun and a friendlyScreenshot war and will prove nothing else how god you are behind camera.
And get the BEST CRT pictures shown to keep it alive  Better or Not, does not matter HAVE FUN we like what we like


----------



## DrDon

Bickering removed, infractions issued, this time. Thread bans if it keeps up.


----------



## Dj Dee

greg1292 said:


> You actually should post shots with the RS600 I have this shot waiting for you at least 3mb file size should be good. Since you started this
> thread I want to see your best so I can post my best. You may have the better shot or not by not trying you will never know. But you will
> need to be 50% better than what you posted. Crt can do this shot.


Bring it 
The X500 is a really god shot and natural . Give it a go, you have a great CRT


----------



## Dj Dee

Here the RS600 
Not a big difference form the X500 on photo I think. But specs better and visual Eye candy for shore. 



Newly calibrated D65 REC 709 HDTV
MPC setting 5,2,0,0 E-shift ON
Clair black LOW
16-235 Video level
Low lamp Iris -10 measure 14,7FL Contrast 101000:1
Gamma 2,4
Enjoy


----------



## Dj Dee

greg1292 said:


> Your thread in the Crt section so you are the one that should be
> bringing it. My turf not yours so you should move this to the digital
> section if you want me to bring it.



Remember that I have been a CRT guy for a loooooong time.  




By the way Camera i use is my Canon Eos 450D normal following lens have noting else


----------



## Dj Dee

greg1292 said:


> You actually should post shots with the RS600 I have this shot waiting for you at least 3mb file size should be good. Since you started this
> thread I want to see your best so I can post my best. You may have the better shot or not by not trying you will never know. But you will
> need to be 50% better than what you posted. Crt can do this shot. Oh and I am sure you will get the colors right with your calibration
> skills.


My calibration skills wont help me with screenshots to bad because calibration on it is great. Camera not calibrated and so on  we all know that.


50% better im not there at all, need to have the film it in full 4K 
:smile:


----------



## Dj Dee

The first compartment of shots, if some want to change to a better CRT/Digital screenshot of the same shot I will change. just let me know. 


Again this is screen shot friendly war """"""*screenshot."""""" * 
What we like best in our home theatre based of projector or type is up to each end every one of us. Here we discuss the pictures all other stuff leave it.


JVC and 9 inc CRT with mod

Picture 1 JVC, picture 2 CRT


----------



## Dj Dee

Like the eye ball on the CRTpicture some fairytale cool look, but way to much green and other color get greenish. Feel like TV mode Dynamic sort of way.
But naturalness, detail, the rest and how I feel things look and closer to real shown in the photo clearly the JVC.
My opinion. Must be seen on a monitor.


----------



## Andreas21

Dj Dee said:


> My calibration skills wont help me with screenshots to bad because calibration on it is great. Camera not calibrated and so on  we all know that.
> 
> 
> 50% better im not there at all, need to have the film it in full 4K
> :smile:


You will not get a 50% better screenshot if you have the movie in full 4K, I doubt you will se much of a difference due to the limitations in the camera.

When it is hard to see the difference between a HW55 and X500 with screenshots it demonstrates how worthless a screenshot actually is as the difference seen on screen with these two is big.

Other than that you guys can compare screenshots until the end of time, the only way to actually do this is to see the projectors side by side.


----------



## DrDon

Dj Dee said:


> The first compartment of shots...


I believe the word you're looking for is "comparison." "Compartment" is that place in your car where you keep the manual, spare ketchup packets and sometimes gloves. 

I only bring it up because you used it in a number of PMs to me and I had a difficult time figuring out what you meant.


----------



## tanwn1

Great Job DJ DEE!!!, couldn't agree more. I too have been a Barco cinemax owner for a long long time and still am. I now have a jvc x700 and the CRT requires color element just to filter out certain color to get it right. But the JVC indeed does a better job and cleaner. By the way, most CRT employ a sort of peaking or CRT drive mode which boost certain white in the contrast and should definitely be turned off or like my cinemax switch to ECO mode. I will be getting another JVC x750 this afternoon.


----------



## Dj Dee

DrDon said:


> I believe the word you're looking for is "comparison." "Compartment" is that place in your car where you keep the manual, spare ketchup packets and sometimes gloves.
> 
> 
> I only bring it up because you used it in a number of PMs to me and I had a difficult time figuring out what you meant.


One word Norwegian  Did I write that hehe """comparison""" then I understand hehe Thanx ayway for info also.


----------



## Dj Dee

Look at this found this at another forum, 
Here the differences between the 2 identical marquees. Amazing

Look at the sharpness differences, look at the colors, almost look identical to the screen cap to be a CRT today this is fantastic wow. Almost don't believe what I see, it just a fantastic shot of crt. (((ITS NOT A CRT)))







Here the screencap from the film then captured (NOT a photo of screen)




Here a Marquee 9500 LC the same as the other one.







CRT VS CRT same projector sam mods about the same








CRT VS Screencap



Here CRT picture VS screencap





And below



Also here against the with JVC fantastic to manage this sharpness on a crtshot with about 30% MTF at 1080P with the lenses used today against the JVCs almost 100% MTF at 1080P.
Specially if you check the same marquee. Fantastic shot


----------



## Kevin 3000

Thanks DJ Dee...Your understanding of CRTs is critical to cut through all the HYPE and propaganda floating around duping people into believing CRTs have made great advancements in recent times.


----------



## Dj Dee

Dj Dee said:


> Look at this found this at another forum,
> Here the differences between the 2 identical marquees. Amazing
> 
> Look at the sharpness differences, look at the colors, almost look identical to the screen cap to be a CRT today this is fantastic wow. Almost don't believe what I see, it just a fantastic shot of crt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here the screencap from the film then captured (NOT a photo of screen)
> http://postimg.org/image/74jw6s49r/full/
> 
> 
> 
> Here a Marquee 9500 LC the same as the other one taken from net.
> 
> 
> 
> This the photo from Greg1292 Same Picture form same marquee but huge differenses
> http://postimg.org/image/goeprgexr/full/
> 
> 
> CRT Greg1292 VS CRT better photo same projector same mods about the same
> http://postimg.org/image/lhdc53o9r/full/
> 
> 
> Here CRT picture VS screencap
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And below
> 
> 
> http://postimg.org/image/hjq2fp1gf/full/
> Also here against the with JVC fantastic to manage this sharpness on a crtshot with about 30% MTF at 1080P with the lenses used today against the JVCs almost 100% MTF at 1080P.
> Specially if you check the same marquee. Fantastic shot


 


This have to be a huge revolution in 2016, think new lenses that manages more than about 20-30 % Mtf it will be mind-blowing 
If picture don't show press the X


----------



## Stridsvognen

Those Marquee your comparing is actually quite different, but they look very alike, the main difference is the camera and camera settings, i have the advantage of a calibrated UHD monitor to evaluate my pictures, so can more or less set focus exposure and color balance to match any reference, as well as a camera allow.

You picked the one of my shot who had a bit of processing/ enhancement addet, i made a direct comparison between processed, and non processed, where you will see the noise the processing adds, just like whats seen in the JVC shots.

I can see they are a bit overexposed in comparison to the screen cap.

My marquee run with LCP tubes and some other lenses, its slightly defocused to hide scanlines and stair stepping on edges, running 1080P 72hz 178Mhz.

I can add any amount of processing i like, to make it look like a JVC, or even more, and make it look like a SONY, its quite funny thinking about this thing was designed, and came out over 20 years ago, most of them is still running, and still will when this generation of digital projectors are dead and gone.

I started with a standard Vidikron Vision One some years ago now, all standard, with dirty glycol, and a old DVDO VP50,
And back then i prefered the standard CRT over the JVC X7, now today the CRT projector is in a hole different condition, in wich im confident it will even carry on and outshine any comming generations of 4K projectors, as long as its used within its limitations of screen size. There is still a few things that can be done to improve performance, if needet, something that has never been possible on a digital, where only solution is to add a external processor, and tweake enhancement and calibration, with whatever loss and distortion that adds to the image. Its a hole different ball game.


----------



## Kevin 3000

4k CRT Mods with these new proven in a screenshot high MTF lenses upgrades is now possible NOT..


----------



## Stridsvognen

Kevin 3000 said:


> Thanks DJ Dee...Your understanding of CRTs is critical to cut through all the HYPE and propaganda floating around duping people into believing CRTs have made great advancements in recent times.


Or maybe lack of understanding, and the fact none of you have seen what we doo with CRT today, other than on screenshots.
CRT is dead, its a old tech, you cant buy a new one, there is no hype or propaganda, there is a few entusiasts, who play and tweak, and have made huge advancements in recent time, wich dont account for CRT in general.

There is great hype and propaganda on the digital market, new models, new features, greater than ever, and tomorow nothing worth talking about, som like to run along with the propaganda of new tech, well for now its mostly old tech in new clothes, and processing tuned to the general liking from consumers.

So as i have posted before, how do you like it, and ill make it look like it, just adding some of the same processing to the CRT source, as is precented in every digital projector today, thats the main diference in changing how the image look from model to model using the same old tech like SONY and JVC do.


----------



## Dj Dee

Kevin 3000 said:


> 4k CRT Mods with these new proven in a screenshot high MTF lenses upgrades is now possible NOT..


 I dont think so no, but who knows in the future.


----------



## Andreas21

Stridsvognen said:


> Those Marquee your comparing is actually quite different, but they look very alike, the main difference is the camera and camera settings, i have the advantage of a calibrated UHD monitor to evaluate my pictures, so can more or less set focus exposure and color balance to match any reference, as well as a camera allow.
> 
> *You picked the one of my shot who had a bit of processing/ enhancement addet, i made a direct comparison between processed, and non processed, where you will see the noise the processing adds, just like whats seen in the JVC shots.
> *
> I can see they are a bit overexposed in comparison to the screen cap.
> 
> My marquee run with LCP tubes and some other lenses, its slightly defocused to hide scanlines and stair stepping on edges, running 1080P 72hz 178Mhz.
> 
> I can add any amount of processing i like, to make it look like a JVC, or even more, and make it look like a SONY, its quite funny thinking about this thing was designed, and came out over 20 years ago, most of them is still running, and still will when this generation of digital projectors are dead and gone.
> 
> I started with a standard Vidikron Vision One some years ago now, all standard, with dirty glycol, and a old DVDO VP50,
> And back then i prefered the standard CRT over the JVC X7, now today the CRT projector is in a hole different condition, in wich im confident it will even carry on and outshine any comming generations of 4K projectors, as long as its used within its limitations of screen size. There is still a few things that can be done to improve performance, if needet, something that has never been possible on a digital, where only solution is to add a external processor, and tweake enhancement and calibration, with whatever loss and distortion that adds to the image. Its a hole different ball game.


The noise you are talking about is also present in the other CRT picture, the JVC actually has less of it.


----------



## Stridsvognen

Kevin 3000 said:


> 4k CRT Mods with these new proven in a screenshot high MTF lenses upgrades is now possible NOT..


The reson to display 4K is to get a sofer and smoother image, specialy on larger screens, we dont have that need with CRT, so therefore we dont have to run 4K, we can always take advantage of a potential higher native framerate, wich will add more to image sharpness and clarity than anything else, and we can use the 1080P croma resolution, and hopfully less noise and compression from the source, wich is the main shortcommings of Blu Ray on a reference CRT.

I have a feeling that a lot of new movies relesed in UHD will be getting the SONY enhancement treatment, bumping up details and sharpness, loosing the natural fine detail possible with UHD, time will show, and most will be happy if they do so, as they add it in the videochain later anyway.

You can say by going 4K the market today is trying to get rid of some of that hard MTF, and those ugly square pixels with hard corners, trying to get a bit more CRT alike image. 
You can also just go defocus your projector a bit, and you will hide the pixels and pixel grid a bit and get a more natural and pleasant image, lowering your MTF.


----------



## Andreas21

Stridsvognen said:


> Or maybe lack of understanding, and the fact none of you have seen what we doo with CRT today, other than on screenshots.
> CRT is dead, its a old tech, you cant buy a new one, there is no hype or propaganda, there is a few entusiasts, who play and tweak, and have made huge advancements in recent time, wich dont account for CRT in general.
> 
> There is great hype and propaganda on the digital market, new models, new features, greater than ever, and tomorow nothing worth talking about, som like to run along with the propaganda of new tech, well for now its mostly old tech in new clothes, and processing tuned to the general liking from consumers.
> 
> So as i have posted before, how do you like it, and ill make it look like it, just adding some of the same processing to the CRT source, as is precented in every digital projector today, thats the main diference in changing how the image look from model to model using the same old tech like SONY and JVC do.


What external processor do you use with this image as it seems to be unbelievably good and I would like to get a hold of one?


----------



## Stridsvognen

Andreas21 said:


> What external processor do you use with this image as it seems to be unbelievably good and I would like to get a hold of one?


I just use HDMI 1 out of the OPPO 103D, about 25% Darbee, and some detail and edge enhancement, but it looks dfferent on a digital as you then get the projectors build in enhancement on top of the enhancement, and you adds croma loss on top of reduced bit resolution, for fine and complex images it even looks bad on the CRT, simply just artificial to me, but you might like it.

I have made a Oblivion shot and a Lucy shot with processing, looking like a SONY projector, even made some heavy enhancement, and trowing the HUE off to make it look like Kevins.


----------



## Dj Dee

This is the normal experience I have with CRT pictures and this is from the same page same projectors. 
Impressive how the same machine can reproduce over 500% the sharpness, by something. 
Anyway impressive and WOW


----------



## Kevin 3000

CRT untouched in the RAW WOW!! Wait for it I guess 3 Excuses coming...
the camera or lens used or operator error in any or all combinations


----------



## Dj Dee

The same here, full images zoomed in on
Then in the future get some real shots up here


----------



## Dj Dee

Kevin 3000 said:


> CRT untouched in the RAW WOW!! Wait for it I guess 3 Excuses coming...
> the camera or lens used or operator error in any or all combinations


 Picture can be very different, but the enormous sharpness lift I don't understand.


----------



## Stridsvognen

We have posted 40 pages of good bad and very bad screenshots with different cameras lenses, while playing with the CRT setup and sources.
We shoot post shoot post, teach some in the process, about camera, projector, and source, i have my JVC to play with as well to see how that look with the same setup.

I think everybody know the agenda in this thread started by some that have dedikated a lot of time for some years to promote thair hate to CRT, and promotion of whatever Digital they have at the moment.

There is a history of those people digging around for some out of focus, or maybe not very lucky screenshots of CRT projectors, wich we posted for the fun and education of it, and dragging it into a comparison thread.

The fact is that we are 2 different grup of people, wanting very different thing from our image, we are not into sharper brighter, but as i have told you guys, ill be happy to produce images to please your taste, and compete on your conditions where there is no rules, and all sorts of processing and manipulation is allowed, something we dont alow ourselves normaly as we find it god awfull and artificial.

Ill expect that some will complain, and ill get refractions or getting banned again for defending those images of mine posted here by others, and standing up explaining what CRT is about, so that those that dont own or like what we have and do, can get room to rule in the CRT section, continue it to be a place where no CRT owner desire to declare the love for what they have without having to put up with people that is scared that CRT tech will come back and take over the market, and potentially ruin thair or AVS advertising income.

To those people ill just like to say.
Dont worry, CRT wont come back, so you can safely let us enjoy our hobby without trashing it, and keep your market share intact.


----------



## greg1292

Stridsvognen said:


> We have posted 40 pages of good bad and very bad screenshots with different cameras lenses, while playing with the CRT setup and sources.
> We shoot post shoot post, teach some in the process, about camera, projector, and source, i have my JVC to play with as well to see how that look with the same setup.
> 
> I think everybody know the agenda in this thread started by some that have dedikated a lot of time for some years to promote thair hate to CRT, and promotion of whatever Digital they have at the moment.
> 
> There is a history of those people digging around for some out of focus, or maybe not very lucky screenshots of CRT projectors, wich we posted for the fun and education of it, and dragging it into a comparison thread.
> 
> The fact is that we are 2 different grup of people, wanting very different thing from our image, we are not into sharper brighter, but as i have told you guys, ill be happy to produce images to please your taste, and compete on your conditions where there is no rules, and all sorts of processing and manipulation is allowed, something we dont alow ourselves normaly as we find it god awfull and artificial.
> 
> Ill expect that some will complain, and ill get refractions or getting banned again for defending those images of mine posted here by others, and standing up explaining what CRT is about, so that those that dont own or like what we have and do, can get room to rule in the CRT section, continue it to be a place where no CRT owner desire to declare the love for what they have without having to put up with people that is scared that CRT tech will come back and take over the market, and potentially ruin thair or AVS advertising income.
> 
> To those people ill just like to say.
> Dont worry, CRT wont come back, so you can safely let us enjoy our hobby without trashing it, and keep your market share intact.


I agree with what you have posted 100%


----------



## Dj Dee

This tread have no agenda to hate CRT, if someone believe that then wrong in any any way, discussion here not needed let the pictures speak. So far the last one I was impressed.
Some here have great camera skills and unbelievable god CRTs so please let us see.


----------



## Dj Dee

Here also a great CRT picture almost to good to be true just by some processing.
Also big color change and enormous sharpness lift. 
So here wtih and without processing.


http://postimg.org/image/xp91sy6xr/full/
Without any processing Marquee modded 9500lc


http://postimg.org/image/dftp0xuvz/full/
Here With processing only darbee and oppo and some detail enhancement Marquee modded 9500lc




Here a JVC/digital without darbee, and any enhancement
 

Here 
The same marquee just with darbee and some adjustments in oppo seen zoomed inn, no doubt better and extremely sharper not explainable but coooool 
http://postimg.org/image/lzhocfsm7/full/


----------



## Stridsvognen

Dj Dee said:


> Here also a great CRT picture almost to good to be true jus by some processing.
> So here wtih and without processing.
> 
> 
> 
> Without any processing Marquee modded 9500lc
> 
> 
> 
> Here With processing only darbee and oppo and some detail enhancement Marquee modded 9500lc
> 
> 
> 
> Here a JVC/digital without darbee, and any enhancement


Look at the top horizontal lines on the JVC, it has the edge enhancement signature roleoff.
The question is if its the projector or later image manipulation.

Try shoot a pic of that frame right now, post it in 5 min, uploadet like you did mine with all exif files intact. Ill recommend 10-16Mp and highest Jpeg quality direct from the camera.

Well thats if you like to take and post screenshots like we do.

If you look in the exif files from the 2 CRT shots, you will also see its from different cameras, with different resolutions, and settings. Kind of the reason its a mess when someone not understanding or knowing the context of the content they copy past and use as documentation for something.


----------



## Dj Dee

DrDon said:


> Bickering removed, infractions issued, this time. Thread bans if it keeps up.


Please remove off topic posts.


----------



## Andreas21

Stridsvognen said:


> I just use HDMI 1 out of the OPPO 103D, about 25% Darbee, and some detail and edge enhancement, but it looks dfferent on a digital as you then get the projectors build in enhancement on top of the enhancement, and you adds croma loss on top of reduced bit resolution, for fine and complex images it even looks bad on the CRT, simply just artificial to me, but you might like it.
> 
> I have made a Oblivion shot and a Lucy shot with processing, looking like a SONY projector, even made some heavy enhancement, and trowing the HUE off to make it look like Kevins.


It is impossible to make a CRT look like a high end digital by just adding 25% Darbee, it is simply impossible. I have much experience with Darbee as I have used it since the first external prosessor came to market and I used it with my VW1000, 1100, JVC X500 and now my Sony HW55, with the RS600 I don´t use Darbee anymore.

Detail and edge enhancement is something I never use and my RS600 has 0 edge enhancement and a very smooth yet sharp and crisp image without heavy enhancement and it is quite close to the BD source when calibrated and set up correctly.

But it is no problem making it look like **** with a lot of edge enhancement and artificial sharpness if you set it up wrong. Darbee set to high makes the image look like #$%t. When I used Darbee on my X500 I never used it over 20%, with the Sony HW55 I go a little higher as it has a very soft lens, but normally not over 30%.

What you say about chroma loss and reduced bit resolution just shows how little you know about video.

I also think this should stop now as this only results in bad things and people getting banned.


----------



## Dj Dee

I used darbee, but I use now HDMI 2 so darbee don't work in my oppo 
And after what I see the darbee don't get picture sharper it adds something positive for some and negative for others.
Detail and edge enhancement normally trashes the image for me, but here also adds something positive for some and negative for others.


----------



## Dj Dee

Dj Dee said:


> In here we post our best pictures, every picture in here can be used for compartment for fun.
> And pictures does not show what projector is the best at all. Only who have the best picture.
> Here there is a lot of different opinions, and there is no correct answer only what each of us like and prefferanses.
> People that want to start discussions can freely leave this thread.
> This is for fun and a *friendlyScreenshot war* and will prove nothing else how god you are behind camera.
> And get the BEST CRT pictures shown to keep it alive  Better or Not, does not matter HAVE FUN we like what we like




I repeat this post.


----------



## Andreas21

greg1292 said:


> So are you going to post shots or be worried that someone will have a better one compare
> away got 4250 more to post.


Do you have 4250 screenshots?? 

You should use your projector to watch movies not use it for screenshots. 

And actually none of your shots makes me want to own a CRT...


----------



## Dj Dee

Have other things to do to for now, but your friend can post some of yours, because you 2 have completely different pictures coming out of the same machine We can take the best


----------



## Andreas21

greg1292 said:


> Not until I post 4200 more shots. Pick away or not you will only counter punch it is in your DNA it is how you are wired. This one is just for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see you but don't hear you. Please wow me with a shot both crt and digital can show. It is a well know fact you only post shots you think crt can't do. Make me want to use a tripod and show you a better shot. Your claims don't inspire at the end of the day the only thing you can claim
> is pixel power and that has been shown that digital has limitations by the panel you cannot overcome. Another low rez pic just for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know you do not want to put hours on your lamp but you should at try to participate in your own thread with actual content from your
> camera and RS600.
> 
> At the end of the day you will like yours and I mine but why are you so guarded with your shots.


We have better things to do than take screenshots all day. I use my projector for what it is meant, watching movies...

None of your pictures look natural, close to real or the source by far, I am not impressed.

Have a nice day!


----------



## Andreas21

greg1292 said:


> I am not trying to impress there is no rules to what a good picture is why not show us so we can be on the same page. So looks like crt wins by default unless you want to show all of us your perfect rs600 screenshots. I am sure you will not post any only if you think its better which we all can be the judge of that one. I to watch some movies enjoy


I have said hundreds of times I think screenshots is just silly and it is just a waste of time, I took some pictures of my HW55 a while ago just to show you guys it is not difficult to make a HW55 look as good as a X500 even if it is far from it on screen. A CRT is very far on screenshots and much further on screen so I don´t understand why you bother, your shots look very bad most of the time with clipping whites, crushing blacks and waay off colors. And I don´t have to post any as DJ Dee does that and we have the same projectors and both is calibrated by me. I have much better camera equipment than him, but it is not a very deciding factor.

And I think it is time to quit now boys, enjoy your screenshot war!


----------



## Kevin 3000

X90 THX preset.


----------



## tanwn1

At the end of the day, a pure digital chain maintains more MTF than analog and its limitations. Nobody should argue that an analog signal is going to provide a purer signal unmolested. Most of the close up shots are concentrated on the centre, what about the extreme corner? I doubt any CRT is going to resolve well into the corner due to its limitation. Why do we use digital hdmi to pass video and not analog video? Because a digital chain is superior. There are only a handful of die hard CRT fellow left and what happens when the parts slowly die off or you can't find replacement?


----------



## Dj Dee

Kevin 3000 said:


> X90 THX preset.





Lets see if we get some CRT pictures of these pictures. Its not hard to see if some use DARBEE at around 25% and some other edge enhancement setting in your oppo. Then you change your CRT to another level with sharpness up to a digital, and drastic change of picture color and looks great on photo.
Good that we find things out ,then everybody gets happy.


----------



## Dj Dee

This is a great CRT shot, someone with digital can try this.
Also see the normal CRT look and CRT sharpness, even on a picture this closely taken. This is a great shot.


----------



## greg1292

Dj Dee said:


> This is a great CRT shot, someone with digital can try this.
> Also see the normal CRT look and CRT sharpness, even on a picture this closely taken. This is a great shot.


It should be you that does that. You have the calibration and top of the line projector non of us can compete with you and Kurt. I took Andreas advice and just going to watch movies and enjoy you two picking apart apples and oranges.


----------



## mp20748

The posted digital shots in this thread, still have that artificial or unnatural look to them. I'm sure at this place in time, digital has come a long ways in producing more film like and natural looking images, so it would be nice if someone could post some shots from one of the newer digital's with the more natural looking image.

Also, what would be a good comparison rule to use other than Sharpness?


----------



## Per Johnny

mp20748 said:


> The posted digital shots in this thread, still have that artificial or unnatural look to them. I'm sure at this place in time, digital has come a long ways in producing more film like and natural looking images, so it would be nice if someone could post some shots from one of the newer digital's with the more natural looking image.
> 
> Also, what would be a good comparison rule to use other than Sharpness?


I suggest that everyone turns of all processing possible before taking shots. HD doesnt need alteration of the signal. (Darbee, sharpness, dnr ...)


----------



## Dj Dee

greg1292 said:


> It should be you that does that. You have the calibration and top of the line projector non of us can compete with you and Kurt. I took Andreas advice and just going to watch movies and enjoy you two picking apart apples and oranges.


 I have other things to do than just take pictures, more film in the future, so others can participate.


----------



## Dj Dee

Per Johnny said:


> I suggest that everyone turns of all processing possible before taking shots. HD doesnt need alteration of the signal. (Darbee, sharpness, dnr ...)



Then I don't have to do nothing, I don't use darbee, have MPC as low as it shall be, IF someone mean that one of mine is wrong put a picture up from a CRT and compare so I see and agree or not. 
Right PJ


----------



## Dj Dee

mp20748 said:


> The posted digital shots in this thread, still have that artificial or unnatural look to them. I'm sure at this place in time, digital has come a long ways in producing more film like and natural looking images, so it would be nice if someone could post some shots from one of the newer digital's with the more natural looking image.
> 
> Also, what would be a good comparison rule to use other than Sharpness?


good comparison rule is to find what you like the best, and NO rules.
Something strange happened when trying to upload a picture lol
What I trid to fix was this



Here comparing 2 pictures digital picture 3547x1600 and the CRT picture 5917x2997


What will happen to the digital projector picture if you zoom?
Do anyone of us here think that we see it like this? Then edges, pixel structure. It is just in the picture because of this. What could be a comparison rule is that comparisons with pictures is, zooming in is only done if same megapixel use. Who does stand and watch movie in front of the screen? And every picture here is from different screen and projector. So will be different also with camera used and settings.


----------



## mp20748

DJ Dee, did you understand what I meant about Sharpness and have something other than sharpness is the Rule for comparison?

You last two shots is another more than another "which one is sharpest" comparison. The one on the left shows severe processing, while the one right next to it on the right, appears to be out of it's resolution range, and has the typical "not sharp" image you work so hard to demonstrate. But of course considering the posted resolution for both, the images make perfect sense. But the question then becomes, why use them for a Rule for image quality?


Also, and we have had this conversation many many times before... It really makes no sense to use different shots for comparison, when they are both using different cameras, lenses, screens, photo skill levels, etc. Not quite equal, but I would say it's like showing a comparison of different racing cars using different everything at two different locations.


----------



## Dj Dee

mp20748 said:


> DJ Dee, did you understand what I meant about Sharpness and have something other than sharpness is the Rule for comparison?
> 
> You last two shots is another more than another "which one is sharpest" comparison. The one on the left shows severe processing, while the one right next to it on the right, appears to be out of it's resolution range, and has the typical "not sharp" image you work so hard to demonstrate. But of course considering the posted resolution for both, the images make perfect sense. But the question then becomes, why use them for a Rule for image quality?
> 
> 
> Also, and we have had this conversation many many times before... It really makes no sense to use different shots for comparison, when they are both using different cameras, lenses, screens, photo skill levels, etc. Not quite equal, but I would say it's like showing a comparison of different racing cars using different everything at two different locations.


You are right the X500 that have some processing even if you turn all off but from sitting possession you cant see it.. 
But do you think it look like this on screen even on the X500 then like the picture? 
Because the answer is NO like I see it. 
I agree that the right side picture the marquee modded show out of it's resolution range and this because of the lenses crt uses today. And will never manage higher MTF with mod, its the lenses that is the problem. 
You can also read about this at curt palme.
And yes pictures are useless but fun for some. Also good so people learn how to take better screenshots before they put it online. 


You say: but I would say it's like showing a comparison of different racing cars using different everything at two different locations. Correct I agree. 
And my point is also: its impossible to say from a picture that it shows severe processing, because what you see is camera pixels not the projector pixels and other processing. The difference in this pictures are huge, and huge specially like I show in this post. Because of huge different camera pixel resolution.
And what you see I think is the resolution 1080P with MTF about 100%, So is that wrong or wrong because CRTs don't manages More than 20-30%MTF with the best lenses. And therefore wrong? 


So then what is right? and what is wrong? it have to be up to ourselves and not say IT IS like this, everybody have different opinions and see things different. 






And trust me I do not see it like this at all on my projector.


----------



## Dj Dee

Thanks for hinting me Kevin3000


I keep writing compartment all the time, I mean comparison / compare LOL


----------



## Frank D

Dj Dee said:


> Here the RS600
> Not a big difference form the X500 on photo I think. But specs better and visual Eye candy for shore.
> 
> 
> 
> Newly calibrated D65 REC 709 HDTV
> MPC setting 5,2,0,0 E-shift ON
> Clair black LOW
> 16-235 Video level
> Low lamp Iris -10 measure 14,7FL Contrast 101000:1
> Gamma 2,4
> Enjoy


Are these your preferred setting for the JVC RS600? 

So you prefer E-Shift on vs off for 1080p? Why?


----------



## Dj Dee

Frank D said:


> Are these your preferred setting for the JVC RS600?
> 
> So you prefer E-Shift on vs off for 1080p? Why?


My preferred setting.


D65 REC 709 HDTV
MPC setting 3,2,0,0/5,5,5,5 Not much visual difference.


"""So you prefer E-Shift on vs off for 1080p? Why?"""
E-shift ON/OFF "like both setting cant decide ON or OFF. 
But when taking pictures best on. 
And on JVC newer models the pixel grid is so tight that you cant se pixels even with e shift off. "Yes you see it close to screen but 2-3 meters away no."

Clair black LOW "On the new JVC models this have positive effect without making visual processing artifacts you can see this with TED light space disk sharpness pattern"

16-235 Video level if you don't have light to spare/Superwhite 16-255 if you need less light. But best contrast with standard 16-235.

Low lamp Iris -10 measure 14,7FL Contrast 101000:1 In my room 13-16FL perfect.
Also have one in high lamp mode with about the same FL then also better contrast. But you can hear the sound of the fan.

Gamma 2,4 switched to 2,5 like that better got *much *better dynamic visual.
like opening the window 
But that is what i like.


----------



## mp20748

So are you saying that shot from Baraka is from a fully calibrated projector?


----------



## Dj Dee

mp20748 said:


> So are you saying that shot from Baraka is from a fully calibrated projector?


Here you can post pictures comparing or leave, asking questions to start discussion will not be answered.


I don't see this as a discussion yet but her answer.


And yes my projector is calibrated as good as possible to REC 709 D65 HDTV standard. That is mastered in every Blu-ray today.
Calibrated
Greyscale DE 0,6
Colors DE 0.3 (Jvc colors REC 709 usually spot on in new JVC models) Custom modes
99,9% Linear gamma 2,5 and one with 2,41


1* My camera is not calibrated
2*My photo is not calibrated
3*My pc monitor is calibrated but not with reference equipment. 
4*and exposure in photo will be different seen on screen what shown here in the photo.


This is the same for you I guess?


----------



## Kevin 3000

X90 - Original Fifth Element


----------



## Dj Dee

Here another compartment. Good shots of both, also here what we like. Also see the clear analog CRT look on the picture.



Modded marquee 95**LC



Digital


Compare zoom..


----------



## Frank D

Kevin 3000 said:


> X90 - Original Fifth Element


What are your settings on the X90?


----------



## mp20748

I see DJ Dee, you're still searching for the worse CRT shots you can find anywhere and doing your zoom-in sharpness comparison test. But whoever said CRT was sharper than digital. And how can a comparison test be valid or considered valid when the person doing the comparison is a known CRT hater?

Also, how can any comparison be fair when, as you also admit whenever challenged the following:

DJ Dee:
"1* My camera is not calibrated
2*My photo is not calibrated
3*My pc monitor is calibrated but not with reference equipment. 
4*and exposure in photo will be different seen on screen what shown here in the photo.


This is the same for you I guess?"


You are a well known CRT hater that has always been bent on showing how much better Digital's are to CRT. So why would any comparison done by you be fair?

Would it be fair for me to also find the worse digital shots anywhere and post them in comparison to my best captures of what shows on my screen?

And again, how could any comparison be worthwhile when they are using two totally different, cameras, screens, setup experience and of course any shots once captured can easily be altered to look worse.


----------



## Andreas21

mp20748 said:


> I see DJ Dee, you're still searching for the worse CRT shots you can find anywhere and doing your zoom-in sharpness comparison test. But whoever said CRT was sharper than digital. And how can a comparison test be valid or considered valid when the person doing the comparison is a known CRT hater?
> 
> Also, how can any comparison be fair when, as you also admit whenever challenged the following:
> 
> DJ Dee:
> "1* My camera is not calibrated
> 2*My photo is not calibrated
> 3*My pc monitor is calibrated but not with reference equipment.
> 4*and exposure in photo will be different seen on screen what shown here in the photo.
> 
> 
> This is the same for you I guess?"
> 
> 
> You are a well known CRT hater that has always been bent on showing how much better Digital's are to CRT. So why would any comparison done by you be fair?
> 
> Would it be fair for me to also find the worse digital shots anywhere and post them in comparison to my best captures of what shows on my screen?
> 
> *And again, how could any comparison be worthwhile when they are using two totally different, cameras, screens, setup experience and of course any shots once captured can easily be altered to look worse.*



This is what I have said all the time, but you have always said you can tell almost anything about a projector by looking at a screenshot, even brightness and blacklevel...


----------



## mp20748




----------



## Dj Dee

Last time I say this. If any have problem with true picture compartment LEAVE. Don't need to call thread starter names personally that is rude and non respectfull and have nothing to do here in this thread. 

I take thepictures that I think look best from CRT and also put in new if someone send itup here or to me if from a CRT. This can easy be seen. 
I also don’t takeor use pictures that some say are CRT, visually is not CRT, to promote this caneasy bee seen. 
Everyone knowhow CRT is, and CRT have been something that including me have loved watchingday in and day out for many years. And even on CRT we have different reference ofhow picture shall look. And that is how it shall be, there is no right orwrong.
Some move onand some stay, This is totally up to each person. I am not telling anyone to godigital or to go Crt because that is the best. That’s up to yourselves what youprefer. 
And to somehere, I am not the one calming anything, I do not favor brand or tec in any way.

And I DO NOTHATE CRT IN ANY WAY. But want to see, since some clame that a CRT today will knock your socks off compared to any digital. Not some hallelujah mambo jumbo, just how itis.

There are badpictures of CRT out there and bad of Digitals.
And funny thatpeople don’t understand this still, that you cant read *anything* from a picture.
Specially blackand white, also in the fruit compared picture the digital picture have some tomuch shutter time and burn out color and white. And so fun to read that peoplestill say oooo then the CRT show more correct color there. J It’s the Photo/Camera that does this also *BASIC knowlidge.* Same with compared picture with differentsize, then you cant say look at the hard pixel structure and hard processing inthe digital picture. Because you canzoom in more, without the pixels to show in a picture with higher taken shotmegapixels. And since a Crt don’t have good enough lenses for todays HD materialthen resolution and MTF, you will never be able to get the same sharpness/HDfeeling as a Digital. 
*Basic knowlidge*
You get whitecrush/black crush, wrong contrast, brightness manipulated in camera with shuttertime. *Basic knowledge*

And that screenshots are worthless can also bee seen easy with a side by side compartment in-real with 2 digitals the sony HW55 and the JVC X500. The X500 is many timesbetter on screen than a Sony HW55 but on pictures the HW55 seems better. Soscreenshots are completely worthless, and even to show improvements worthless.The only way to try to show improvements with pictures is with testpatterns 1:1patterns 1080P and lower resolution before and after mods. 

Or have a sideby side test with a CRT best setup for HDTV vs digital and take pictures fromthe same screen with same camera brightness matched, same reference calibratedup to D65, same shutter time, same adjustments on camera. Then you will see the actual difference similarand closer to how it looks on screen, also how you see it in real side by side.But not like you see it at all, just a indication.

Some here in Norway want to make this happen with this modded marquee MP mods vs a new 2016 digital so we can make a real CRT vs Digital screenhot shootout “war” in a friendly way to put online. Who wins or loose does not matter, but to document this and how it is.
But the answer have been NO. Wonder why? J


Here also a new CRT picture of the jungle put out yesterday, this looks way better but overexposed so it look like winter zoomed.
And you see it’sa CRT picture because of the different sharpness all around in the picture andthe typical CRT convergence. 
Here together with a JVC


JVC on the *LEFT* and modded marquee on the *Right.*


----------



## mp20748

mp20748 said:


> *And again, how could any comparison be worthwhile when they are using two totally different, cameras, screens, setup experience and of course any shots once captured can easily be altered to look worse*







Andreas21 said:


> This is what I have said all the time, but you have always said you can tell almost anything about a projector by looking at a screenshot, even brightness and blacklevel...


DJ Dee, I will stay out of this screenshot thread from now on, because your method of doing comparisons I totally disagree with and it seems that Andreas also thinks the same about it, though I still disagree that you can tell almost anything. Only some things, but to think you can use screenshot as a rule for comparison purposes to determine which is better using almost everything different is not really possible.

So I'll stay away from this thread and let you have your fun..


----------



## Kevin 3000

Thanks DJ Dee good comparisons...


Also remember your camera/kit lens is well... basic compared to the posted comparisons camera/prime lens used in the last CRT shot.


Cameras dynamic range to name 1 advantage.




^^^CRT owners should write a book on EXCUSES


----------



## Dj Dee

Remember you can click on the images to get them bigger 
Also a bunch of photos from MP*.""" Suddenly deleted Suddenly Back """*
I got the good Crt feeling watching your shots, the black level and the picture I liked from CRT. Even if you have much much black crush. A lot of details disappear. 
And i know its no problem to get correct details on a CRT on photo. 
If someone want to compare go ahead. 
I take a break


----------



## Dj Dee

mp20748 said:


> [/B]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DJ Dee, I will stay out of this screenshot thread from now on, because your method of doing comparisons I totally disagree with and it seems that Andreas also thinks the same about it, though I still disagree that you can tell almost anything. Only some things, but to think you can use screenshot as a rule for comparison purposes to determine which is better using almost everything different is not really possible.
> 
> So I'll stay away from this thread and let you have your fun..



Take the time to read my posts MP then you also understand.


----------



## Dj Dee

Mp modded Marquee 
JVC RS 600
Scaled to about the same size to make this fair.
hope this works.
Just like I said extreme loss of detail, this is just your camera settings MP.


----------



## mp20748

Once again you scaled one of my shots?

Anyway, thanks for proven that you'll pick the worse shot rather than the best out of the bunch, And that you'll also "scale" the shot, which further degrades it. 


You proved my point when to posted one of my shots for comparison. You picked the one I knew you would (darkest), and you then tampered with it ("Scaled to about the same size to make this fair"). And everyone knows the more you scale any HD source you degrade it. Yet you say "to make this fair"

So scaling my shot to compare to your shot makes this fair... no need to answer that, because that's far from being true, and it supports what I've been saying all along and even Andreas agrees. Really, how can you have a fair comparison when you tampered with the material?


My shots are direct from Blu Ray player to Moome card in my Marquee. The settings in my Blu Ray player is: Normal. I do not add anything, no sharpening or processing.





Anyway, below is the same shot shown more correctly. It has already been scaled down during the image hosting process, since none of them are NATIVE anymore. So leave it alone!!


----------



## Andreas21

mp20748 said:


> Once again you scaled one of my shots?
> 
> Anyway, thanks for proven that you'll pick the worse shot rather than the best out of the bunch, And that you'll also "scale" the shot, which further degrades it.
> 
> 
> You proved my point when to posted one of my shots for comparison. You picked the one I knew you would (darkest), and you then tampered with it ("*Scaled to about the same size to make this fair*"). And everyone knows the more you scale any HD source you degrade it. Yet you say "to make this fair"
> 
> So scaling my shot to compare to your shot makes this fair... no need to answer that, because that's far from being true, and it supports what I've been saying all along and even Andreas agrees. Really, how can you have a fair comparison when you tampered with the material?
> 
> 
> My shots are direct from Blu Ray player to Moome card in my Marquee. The settings in my Blu Ray player is: Normal. I do not add anything, no sharpening or processing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, below is the same shot shown more correctly. It has already been scaled down during the image hosting process, since none of them are NATIVE anymore. So leave it alone!!


Is this close to what you see on screen?

And to comment the sentence in bold, he scaled down his picture to make it the same size as yours and he even made it smaller and more scaled down.

Anyway I stand by what I have always said, screenshots are worthless.


----------



## mp20748

Close would be a good word, though it's still different looking on the screen itself. But not bad for cheap Point and Shoot camera


----------



## Icaro

EPSON LS10000


----------



## mp20748

Andreas21 said:


> Is this close to what you see on screen?
> 
> *And to comment the sentence in bold, he scaled down his picture to make it the same size as yours and he even made it smaller and more scaled down.*
> 
> Anyway I stand by what I have always said, screenshots are worthless.





He also says that, but if you check the screen info (mouse pointer on image / right click), it's always different


Screen info on both:

My original: 
*
1,280px × 960px (scaled to 1,092px × 819px)*


The one he posted

*1,158px × 494px*


----------



## Dj Dee

mp20748 said:


> Once again you scaled one of my shots?
> 
> Anyway, thanks for proven that you'll pick the worse shot rather than the best out of the bunch, And that you'll also "scale" the shot, which further degrades it.
> 
> You proved my point when to posted one of my shots for comparison. You picked the one I knew you would (darkest), and you then tampered with it ("Scaled to about the same size to make this fair"). And everyone knows the more you scale any HD source you degrade it. Yet you say "to make this fair"
> 
> So scaling my shot to compare to your shot makes this fair... no need to answer that, because that's far from being true, and it supports what I've been saying all along and even Andreas agrees. Really, how can you have a fair comparison when you tampered with the material?
> 
> 
> My shots are direct from Blu Ray player to Moome card in my Marquee. The settings in my Blu Ray player is: Normal. I do not add anything, no sharpening or processing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, below is the same shot shown more correctly. It has already been scaled down during the image hosting process, since none of them are NATIVE anymore. So leave it alone!!





I will always pick the wrong one don't I after what CRT guys say. And you need to stop with the scaling talk. In your pictures that wont matter at all.
Your picture here is more correct yes. If you know, why do you keep posting pictures that are totally wrong after what is shown in your home?
And My picture is downscaled so much because I used what I had form you and cut away the black bars, and that don't make your picture any worse.


But your last picture look way better.


----------



## Dj Dee

Icaro said:


> EPSON LS10000


No problem with bad English, I write compartment when want to write compare spelling program issue hehe
What settings on your Epson?
Calibrated?
FL on screen?


----------



## Dj Dee

Let me in on what is degraded in your picture MP.


----------



## Kevin 3000

JVC X90 5th Element


----------



## mp20748

Hey Kevin, looks like you have a little too much processing going on there. The hair and edges on everything looks a bit un-natural (edge enhancement)


----------



## mp20748

Please guys, DO NOT TOUCH my shots....leave it where it is, like it is..


----------



## Andreas21

mp20748 said:


> Close would be a good word, though it's still different looking on the screen itself. But not bad for cheap Point and Shoot camera


If that is close to what you see on screen you have not set your brightness correct as you have so much black crush you loose all detail and this is not even a dark scene.

I actually guess it is not close to what you see on screen, but if it is you need to calibrate the basics your projector like brightness and contrast.


----------



## Dj Dee

Here we compare. Look what it says in the thread. 
Use 
http://postimg.org/ for showing your shots like they are, then I can download it full.
Or send it full image on mail, you have it.

We have your original photo here, so if someone want to see your original they can


----------



## Kevin 3000

A casual viewer would think left SD right HD.


----------



## mp20748

Kevin 3000 said:


> A casual viewer would think left SD right HD.


Well, you're not a casual viewer, so I guess I can also make an assessment....I would say the one on the right looks flat and overly compressed, while the left one dough dimmer, has an natural HD look.


But anyway, I agree that my image is too dark. It was taking this morning and there's too much light in the room, so I'll fix that later this evening..


----------



## Dj Dee

We like what we like, have different opinions and preference so we let the pictures speak, and yes I think you need to retake some shots MP. But you see that yourselves. CRT have its unique charm, I think its best we let it be like that. 


If we think logic, if you are used to CRT you don't know how HD shall look on it, because of the resolution problem caused by the lenses that only manages 50% MTF MAX then if you use the whole lens even in 720P the same. This you know. And normal on a 9" is about 20-30%MTF We talk 50-70% more MTF on digital Projectors today with higher Ansicontrast, high or higher ON/OFF contrast, and much brighter images. More correct colors, try saturation sweeps on your machine and send it up here. 

@Per Jonny you calibrated a hole bunch of CRTs how was the result? Then up to HDTV D65. I remember my 808 managed well D65 with the colored cooler stuff. Red and green. 


Not that a CRT cant manage the signal 1080P because it does fine also higher. But have big issues with the lenses, therefore you know the result. And pictures will never ever show your or mine projector, then how it is in on screen. 


CRT is soft yes, and softens out the HD, but that is why you guys still love it, does it matter? . Artifacts is covered, grain covered, scan lines almost invisible if you don't do things correct, sharpness artifacts not visible and so on . On my CRT you could see scan lines in 1080P great 50 cm from screen. But I wanted my Barco as sharp as possible. some don't like it that sharp. "Also got smother in 72Hz"
Some like oversaturated colors, some like black crush. Some like the mom, and some like the grandma. Nothing is wrong!. 


Everybody enjoy film this weekend  less screenshots Happy weekend


----------



## mp20748




----------



## mp20748

Dj Dee said:


> Here we compare. Look what it says in the thread.
> Use
> http://postimg.org/ for showing your shots like they are, then I can download it full.
> Or send it full image on mail, you have it.
> 
> We have your original photo here, so if someone want to see your original they can





> We have your original photo here, so if someone want to see your original they can


And if anyone want to see why I don't want you to touch my images, simply click on this and look closely at my image on the left... especially at her necklace and look at the ZAGGY lines that ARE NOT in my Original..


----------



## Dj Dee

mp20748 said:


> And if anyone want to see why I don't want you to touch my images, simply click on this and look closely at my image on the left... especially at her necklace and look at the ZAGGY lines that ARE NOT in my Original..


 

That happens when you post small image "different picture size when zooming" , I know its not in you original photo, we ALL know CRT don't have pixels .
Its the zooming because of your small photo compared to a bigger photo.
Also to prove that I was right when I wrote this before, because some still don't understand this. Also with exposure time just some longer, things can burn out I the photo. objects burn out and color burn out. Not what you see on screen.
Also the picture of the jungle compartment. The CRT picture don't look that white I hope. That is because of exposure time on camera and settings.


But here we compare, so post some bigger shots. use Postimage then I can download your image full, and you wont complain anymore. Or get use to pixels on your CRT.


----------



## Dj Dee

Here ok, but cant zoom in at all. Then the pixels come back on your CRT MP


----------



## mp20748

Hopefully these will not end up further resized and added zaggies


----------



## Dj Dee

mp20748 said:


> Hopefully these will not end up further resized and added zaggies


 
Hehe, this look more like how you see it I guess. And look fine.
Better than the others. 
If you don't like added zaggies post bigger photos or stop.


Happy Weekend


----------



## mp20748

Dj Dee said:


> ......If you don't like added zaggies post bigger photos or stop.....


No, you need to leave them alone, because I post them larger and you down-size them and that's what compromises them


----------



## Dj Dee

mp20748 said:


> No, you need to leave them alone, because I post them larger and you down-size them and that's what compromises them


If you want your pictures to be left alone *don't* post them here, pick some other place to post.

Like I have said before *Here we compare pictures*. 
Don't like it? You are free to leave any time you want. So far you have not added anything here, only to start discussion. 
Last time I say this to you.


----------



## Dj Dee

Found a much better shot from a CRT also a Marquee MP mod. and the JVC X90
Also here a new photo from the x90


Picture 1 Marquee MP mod
Picture 2 JVC X90 without e-shift
Picture 3 Marquee MP mod his own.


Put like this to see differences. 






picture sharehttp://postimg.org/image/wpocot40v/full/


This picture from this thread.





Compared with old picture of the x90.




image hosting over 5mb



image upload no compression



photo sharing websites


----------



## mp20748

Lol... you found shots from another modified Marquee, to compromise (down-rez) for your comparison project, but you don't want to use the one I posted yesterday.... hmmm.. I wonder why..


I'll continue to post in the other thread, while you continue to find lesser shots to post here.


----------



## Kevin 3000

mp20748 said:


> Lol... you found shots from another modified Marquee, to compromise (down-rez) for your comparison project, but you don't want to use the one I posted yesterday.... hmmm.. I wonder why..
> 
> 
> I'll continue to post in the other thread, while you continue to find lesser shots to post here.


Look above,,,Yours is there.


----------



## mp20748

You destroyed my shot again... just right click on the image and look at the Image Info..

*My original is: 1600X1200*

*The one you messed up is: 1,278px × 481..*

Do you not understand what happens when you down-rez the vertical resolution by more than half?

It's one thing to want to do something like this, but at some point if you down understand what's going on technically, maybe your shouldn't be doing it. Especially if you're making someones else work worse than it's original state.

But even technically showing and proving that you have more than cut my vertical resolution in half, my shot still looks better. Though it has all the defects of being further dowe-rezed. 


Do you understand what happens when you further down size an already resized image?

Maybe it would be fair to post the resolution with the shots. that way it will proved that you have not compromised a shot..

The X90 is not doing so well, Colors, sharpness and or detail..


----------



## mp20748

Here is my shot again. Just replace it in that same place where you have the down-rezzed shot


----------



## mp20748

One other thing I wanted to point out to you to notice in the shots. Look at the white in her teeth... are the teeth in both comparison shots white?



This one is free. After the hosting service resizes it, it should be just like the previous shot: *1600X1200*


----------



## DrDon

Reopening this after some requests and rule suggestions from Kevin and DJ.

So, adhere to these please:

1. No Bickering.
2. Use an upload site that keeps Exif data intact to check no software processing being used. image.org for example.
3. Minimum size 2999x2000 res to make a comparison.
4. For comparing to see more side by side without a lot of black, remove top and bottom in picture. Because they will and have to be removed to get the pictures close for comparison.
5. The shots should be posted one on top of the other to avoid degrading them by either shrinking or scaling up. Both can break up the structure of the image after it' initial resizing.


----------



## Dj Dee

Here a comparison 
Also the original pictures are here. 


CRT



Digital



Removed the comparison zoomed inn, that can be done with the original files without my help.


----------



## DrDon

Additional rule added. Not sure if the suggesting member wants credit, so I left that off.

All bans lifted.


----------



## Dj Dee

Here a comparison 
Also the original pictures are here. 2 CRTs because so different
CRT1





Digital



Click on the picture to get full size in 2 different windows, do side by side.


----------



## mp20748

All shots from *Planet Earth Blu Ray (disk 3) - Shot resolution: 3648X2736 hosted to: 1600X1200 -- do only top and bottom and keep at 1600X1200 (copy only).*


----------



## Dj Dee

Before posting read the new rules.


1. No Bickering.
2. Use an upload site that keeps Exif data intact to check no software processing being used. image.org for example.
3. Minimum size 2999x2000 res to make a comparison.
4. For comparing to see more side by side without a lot of black, remove top and bottom in picture. Because they will and have to be removed to get the pictures close for comparison.
5. The shots should be posted one on top of the other to avoid degrading them by either shrinking or scaling up. Both can break up the structure of the image after it' initial resizing. 

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/16-cr...enshot-war-crt-vs-digital-2015-2016-a-5.html#


----------



## Dj Dee

Here some good CRT vs digital shots 
Picture 1 CRT Moded

Picture 2 Digital

Picture 3 CRT 

Picture 4 Digital


----------



## Andreas21

Why are some of the sides and top of the CRT pictures gone?


----------



## mp20748

*Planet Earth Blu Ray (disk 3) - Shot resolution: 3648X2736 hosted to: 1600X1200 -- do only top and bottom and keep at 1600X1200 (copy only).*


----------



## Kevin 3000

^^Dj Dee has already reminded you of the RULES?
Images hosted @=>2999x2000 with Exif Data intact with boarders removed if a comparison is required (if Blu-Ray owned).


I have no objections just posting a few images in here if no comparisons required.
But it`s Dj Dee`s thread so he has the final say.


----------



## mp20748

Kevin 3000 said:


> ^^Dj Dee has already reminded you of the RULES?
> Images hosted @=>2999x2000 with Exif Data intact with boarders removed if a comparison is required (if Blu-Ray owned).
> 
> 
> I have no objections just posting a few images in here if no comparisons required.
> But it`s Dj Dee`s thread so he has the final say.


Here ya go, check out the resolution (http://exifdata.com/images/1460470913.75_DSCF2473.jpg)

Now, if I understand the rules the requirement is to use Files @ the minimum of 2999X2000 resolution. My shot is showing a file size of *3648X2736.* So I'm above the minimum. 

Also, it means that the rules are saying that you would have to use RAW files and not already resized files. That's the way the rules read to me, and it makes perfect sense because it deals with the original file in it's un-touched state.

Exif.com should be used to verify the resolution and to see if any processing is being done..

Best Rules possible for a screenshot thread..


----------



## Kevin 3000

The above size is as stated but previous page only linked to 1600x1200 ?
Someone else should test may be a fault here.


.JPGs straight off camera is the norm as .NEF or .TIF needs software editing off camera to post on free upload sites and they strip Exif Data..


----------



## Dj Dee

Kevin 3000 said:


> The above size is as stated but previous page only linked to 1600x1200 ?
> Someone else should test may be a fault here.
> 
> 
> .JPGs straight off camera is the norm as .NEF or .TIF needs software editing off camera to post on free upload sites and they strip Exif Data..


Found that out, if removing black bars, then strip Exif Data get removed. With the program I use Photopad editor. Never ever checked that before. I figure out how to show this anyway, test some different programs. For me most important is to remove black bars.


----------



## mp20748

Kevin 3000 said:


> *The above size is as stated but previous page only linked to 1600x1200* ?
> Someone else should test may be a fault here.
> 
> 
> .JPGs straight off camera is the norm as .NEF or .TIF needs software editing off camera to post on free upload sites and they strip Exif Data..


Yes, the above or my last single shot was above the minimum resolution. Some of the previous shots were 1600X1200

And all of DJ Dee's shot were below the minimum so far. So let's from now on post the data with the shots that was the requirement some time ago and would make sure we're going by the rules.

So we can't use posted shots, because they would definitely be below the minimum and far from being worthy of comparisons. I'd prefer to post mine like the last one, at the higher resolution for best quality!


----------



## Kevin 3000

With boarders removed size is obviously 2999x2000-boarders 2999x1200ish depending on Aspect Ratio.
Common sense - lets not get hung up on this - change rules if needed - leave boarders in place..


----------



## Dj Dee

Kevin 3000 said:


> With boarders removed size is obviously 2999x2000-boarders 2999x1200ish depending on Aspect Ratio.
> Common sense - lets not get hung up on this - change rules if needed - leave boarders in place..


I agree, Common sense on Aspect Ratio, found that out to .


----------



## mp20748

Dj Dee said:


> I agree, Common sense on Aspect Ratio.
> Here taken away black bars
> 
> If someone want to use for comparison.
> Click on the picture before downloading.
> Is the picture owner happy?


You take a *3648X2736* resolution image, and then change it to *1278X640.* And then you ask "is the picture owner happy"

Why can't you just follow the rules that was established for this thread yourself. That of course would remove all possibilities of bickering, because you would be honoring the Common Courtesy (stop down-rezing my shots), and you would be obeying the rules of this thread. 

I want my shots to remain the resolution I post them at. Also according to the rules, you have to post raw shots that are native from the camera.


----------



## Kevin 3000

OK upload to postimage.org
Click on pic until full size right click to properties - copy link - http:// etc etc paste here like this.












full size with exif data.


----------



## Dj Dee

mp20748 said:


> You take a *3648X2736* resolution image, and then change it to *1278X640.* And then you ask "is the picture owner happy"
> 
> Why can't you just follow the rules that was established for this thread yourself. That of course would remove all possibilities of bickering, because you would be honoring the Common Courtesy (stop down-rezing my shots), and you would be obeying the rules of this thread.
> 
> I want my shots to remain the resolution I post them at. Also according to the rules, you have to post raw shots that are native from the camera.


Click on the image. then see. But post the way you want MP no problem. 
That's why I deleted also. Picture is just with removed bars. But you have to click on it to get it in full 
But I leave your picks post as you like


----------



## Kevin 3000

Dj Dee said:


> Click on the image. then see



Try what I posted above a lot easier to see differences.


----------



## Andreas21

Why make it so complicated??

Just post the pictures the way you like according to the rules and if you want to side by side compare just post them untouched over and under. If all could use postimg.org it would make things much easier to see the full size side by side if you click on the picture.


----------



## Dj Dee

JVC


----------



## Dj Dee

Have now many hours with great picture to watch Planet earth wow 4 discs of blueray 9 hours 23 min, found it, have not seen it we speak


----------



## Dj Dee

Andreas21 said:


> There is something wrong with the CRT link as I can not see the picture when I click on it.


 

I don't know. Must be removed ??? Then I remove it when link does not work.
Delete your post. Andreas.


----------



## mp20748

Will you at some point follow the rules and make sure your shots are above the minimum resolution?


----------



## Dj Dee

mp20748 said:


> Will you at some point follow the rules and make sure your shots are above the minimum resolution?


Then start posting pictures that can be used. Or drop it 


Mine are 4272x2349


----------



## Dj Dee

I need a big break , everybody enjoy. 
We speak.


----------



## Kevin 3000

X90 Oblivion 6000x4000


----------



## Andreas21

mp20748 said:


> Will you at some point follow the rules and make sure your shots are above the minimum resolution?


As this is a screenshot tread where the shots are compared you need to post images that is usable to compare with or stop posting. Use postimg.org and your problems will be solved.


----------



## Andreas21

mp20748 said:


> You take a *3648X2736* resolution image, and then change it to *1278X640.* And then you ask "is the picture owner happy"
> 
> Why can't you just follow the rules that was established for this thread yourself. That of course would remove all possibilities of bickering, because you would be honoring the Common Courtesy (stop down-rezing my shots), and you would be obeying the rules of this thread.
> 
> I want my shots to remain the resolution I post them at. Also according to the rules, you have to post raw shots that are native from the camera.


If you click on the image you will see the resolution of Dj Dee´s repost was 3648x1826 and this is because of the black bars is removed and it is not breaking the rules. If you post images according to the rules things will work just fine.


----------



## Kevin 3000

OK message received - use *ignore* if someone is bugging you lets bring on the pics.


----------



## Kevin 3000

*JVC X90 *
*Keeping the thread ticking along - CRT bait *


----------



## Kevin 3000

*X90 - 5th Element - D7100 Custom White Balance.*


----------



## thewolfman

What's up with the deleted images?


----------



## Dj Dee

Kevin 3000 said:


> *X90 - 5th Element - D7100 Custom White Balance.*


Kevin use http://postimg.org/


----------



## Dj Dee

Kevin 3000 said:


> *JVC X90 *
> *Keeping the thread ticking along - CRT bait *


 

Use http://postimg.org/


*CRT bait ? *
*I take a pause.*
*
*


----------



## Kevin 3000

Dj Dee said:


> Use http://postimg.org/
> *CRT bait ? *
> *I take a pause.*
> http://postimg.org/image/v3xn46eu7/full/
> http://postimg.org/image/v3xn46eu7/full/http://postimg.org/image/v3xn46eu7/full/


Postimage.org is where I posted the images? 
Did they disappear for a bit?
CRT bait - you know, fishing for something to happen.


----------



## mp20748




----------



## Kevin 3000

X90 - All my recent pics uploaded within the new *rules* to compare, if you think you got what it takes.


----------



## mp20748




----------



## mp20748




----------



## Dj Dee

Follow tread rules with correct picture pixels size or stop posting. Here RS600


----------



## Kevin 3000

Dj Dee said:


> Follow tread rules with correct picture pixels size or stop posting.



Pic size is OK 3000x1516 but Exif Data omitted so don`t fall within the rules.


----------



## mp20748

The upload I use is not working so we'll have to do without the EXIF for these..​


----------



## Dj Dee

mp20748 said:


> The upload I use is not working so we'll have to do without the EXIF for these..​




I don't care. just follow the rules when posting pictures or drop it.
Again use
http://postimg.org you wont have a problem with any of it.


----------



## mp20748

The file size is too small using that one. 

I select do not resize and Forums 1


----------



## Kevin 3000

mp20748 said:


> The file size is too small using that one.
> 
> I select do not resize and Forums 1



Click on pic until full size right click to properties - copy link - http:// etc etc paste here like this.












full size with exif data.


----------



## mp20748

Those are* screencaps* (quite obvious). There is no camera info with those images... they are also at screencap resolution - *1278X527 - 91.9KB*..

They do not conform to the rules!


----------



## Dj Dee

mp20748 said:


> Those are* screencaps* (quite obvious). There is no camera info with those images... they are also at screencap resolution - *1278X527 - 91.9KB*..
> 
> They do not conform to the rules!


 
LOL lol lol click on the image everything is there according to the rules. This is the second time, do you just do this on purpose?




Click on the image, then the image get big  then save to your desktop or what ever. Every info is in the file. Now you really need to stop and follow the rules.


----------



## Andreas21

@Dj Dee

How do you take screencaps with black boarders that are not completely straight??


----------



## Kevin 3000

X90 Gamma decreased.


----------



## mp20748

Why is it that your pictures are the only ones that need to be clicked on to open and downloaded before the resolution can be seen?

With mine and Kevin's, you only right click on our image and see resolution? 

Kevin (*4,480px × 2,520px (scaled to 1,092px × 614px*) -- Mine (*3,000px × 1,532px (scaled to 1,092px × 558px) 


*Clicking on yours shows this: *1,278px × 527px (scaled to 1,092px × 450px*) and only when you click on it and download it, will it then show a higher resolution:* 4218X1738*


You have 3 resolutions on one image, while ours is only showing that one ant it down-rezed - What's the trick


----------



## Dj Dee

Andreas21 said:


> @*Dj Dee*
> 
> How do you take screencaps with black boarders that are not completely straight??



Hint on this to you Andreas 2 people needed, hold your monitor not straight and then take a screen cap. Think that will work


----------



## Dj Dee

Lets not discuss this. USE Postimage.org end of story also like the moderator suggested. Why? here we use pictures to compare.
Then if you want to see full picture and check picture just download this and compare side by side.
Now its enough bull let the pictures roll. 


Wonder if this is only to go away from topic.


----------



## Dj Dee

Here a comparison 


Impressively god CRT picture then on sharpness, to be this sharp with so little MTF with todays lenses used also so big difference from others with the same machine and same mods. 
Almost unbelievable. Colors are some off on my photo from what I see, the same with the CRT picture. 
This is only pictures, and does not show any of the projectors as they are in real. Here just photos. 



Also posted some screen caps of comparison side by side. Original Pictures untouched. Click on the photo until get large. Save and compare if you want.



Picture 2 CRT Picture 1 Digital JVC, Compare screen caps CRT right Digital left.



http://postimg.org/image/afn1ppl7j/full/


----------



## Kevin 3000

Your suspicions are spot on - just run that program and see for yourself.


 ASSESSMENT: Class 1 - Image is processed/edited


----------



## Dj Dee

Kevin 3000 said:


> Your suspicions are spot on - just run that program and see for yourself.
> 
> 
> ASSESSMENT: Class 1 - Image is processed/edited


 

Hehehe  
Every picture from that person is checked just some . Wont use them anymore. I have said that the whole time.


----------



## Dj Dee

Also say ASSESSMENT: Class 1 - Image is processed/edited if no if only taken away black bars in some programs. See that some of my old pictures show that when I used photo editor app for removing the black bars. Mine are real always been..


----------



## Dj Dee

Lol my friends X5000 show tampered with haha. I ask how or what he did before sending it to me.


"*post #183* of 201 Old Yesterday, 06:50 AM - *Thread Starter* this post."


----------



## Dj Dee

Dj Dee said:


> Lol my friends X5000 show tampered with haha. I ask how or what he did before sending it to me.
> 
> 
> "*post #183* of 201 Old Yesterday, 06:50 AM - *Thread Starter* this post."


 

Picture was some to dark and used auto adjust. So this brings out the cheaters for shore  He used 2 programs photoshop and iPhoto.
This was a good program Kevin.  +1
Even the smallest adjustments. 


Will be fun to see what CRT pictures show up after this, and if it suddenly is a digital, then easy seen 
Keep pictures rolling


----------



## Dj Dee

This shall be agreat comparment hope that someone with CRT posts the same picture. Also no use to posta digital projector as a CRT, its easy seen on the colors and sharpness ifpicture is correct taken. But will be interesting to see a really good CRTpicture taken of this photo without any mambo jambo. 


On screen this look fantastic, the dynamic is enormus and even shown in the picture and my camera is not calibrated so not 100% but my projector is to the correct standard.
I have a 110 inch screen and this picture is taken with picture zoomed down to about 100 inch on my screen this because of distance problem for a photo. 
To watch the picture in full, click on it. Download all you need to know is in the file.


----------



## Dj Dee

Postimage.org has problems pictures will appear again I hope.
Fixed....


----------



## Dj Dee

Nice to see that the Crt guys on other forums posting real pictures of their CRTs again not altering with other projectors or photo editing. 
Also see the small dust dots. also the blue touch. that apair on almost every real CRT shot. When shutter time is long. (also if your screen is dirty hehe) 
And no doubt its a CRT. Halleluja  Name of the picture... 






Picture 1 Digital




Picture 2 CRT moded 2016 marquee 9500lc

Side by side 
Digital on the left and CRT on the right..


----------



## Dj Dee

Mixed up the left and right lol. 


In a bit I guess a new picture will be taken from the same crt machine halleluja picture with a digital projector clamed to be the same CRT, and only with some darbee touch  I will post it here.








free image host
Why not keep CRT as CRT? We all know how it is and looks great. This is easy to see and easy to confirm.


This is only one out of many, coming from the same guy.
Have a look over here, easy to see what I see. To bad someone will sink so low. And all the time dragging down other technology and now also CRT.
CRT will always have its charm, so will Digital. And great that someone makes mod for it even in 2016. And we pick what we like best. And thank GOD for that. Would be boring if everyone had the same. 


Here a link to see for yourselves.
https://www.avforums.com/threads/worldwide-crt-projector-shootout.2000957/


----------



## Andreas21

Why are all the CRT pictures over scanned, the last comparison is missing very much on each side.


----------



## Dj Dee

Andreas21 said:


> Why are all the CRT pictures over scanned, the last comparison is missing very much on each side.


 When you press resolution limit this is better, over scanned around 5%+ then you get better visible resolution, minimizes side errors. Maximize phosphor use.


----------



## Kevin 3000

Super detailed info Dj Dee thanks for your insight.


----------



## Dj Dee

picture 1 JVC rs600




picture 2 Marquee modded 9 inch


----------



## Dj Dee

Here one more, took 2 CRT pictures, with same mods, calibrated by the same person 2 different places and cameras.
Had to show both, because you see that its a crt, and huge difference on the same machine. Also adjusted and calibrated by the same man. Then the CRT pictures.


*Picture 1 Crt modded Marquee 9 inch*




*Picture 2 Crt modded Marquee 9 inch different machine*



*Picture 3 Jvc X500*




*First the CRTs together, so you see that its CRT both pictures*


*Same the CRTs together, so you see that its CRT both pictures*







*Then the best CRT picture, picture nr 2 together with the Jvc X500 Jvc picture nr 3*






Remember to click on the picture to get the full picture.


----------



## Andreas21

There is no doubt in my mind the CRT projectors look much more natural and organic...


----------



## Dj Dee

Lol here can you see how little effect size of the image from 3,66MB to 568KB do in picture quality nothing....... 


Here just the RS 600


----------



## Dj Dee

*Facts and proof*

*This Crt picture is not great, because look like of some strey light in the room. Because turns grey. But you see that its a great CRT if you look on other stuff.*
*2 pictures, **and the first picture show "clean" without any processing. Picture nr 2 is with processing then Darbee and maybe some other stuff don't care.*
*CRT*

*CRT with processing Darbee......*









Here zoomed inn to se differences, what do you see? Minor differences shown.




Same guy clamed just by using Darbee you an get it like this.

Then I want his Darbee  And I might be the new James Bond in the future lol




Also put the originals here.


Also showing here zoomed in so you can compare and see. Its easy to see.


Here his CRT without darbee

Here his clamed Digital JVC CRT with 25% darbee 




Don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that its just bull.


----------



## Dj Dee

I lay this to rest here a comparison 
*Here a JVC* 


*Here Marquee the best of them clearly if not bull...*

*Here together Digital on the left and Crt on the right.*
http://postimg.org/image/pgzg17gkf/full/
http://postimg.org/image/pgzg17gkf/full/http://postimg.org/image/pgzg17gkf/full/





One thing for shore 100% 
The biggest differences between digital and Crt is many things.
Ansi Contrast is one of them, and have nothing to do with *the ones who never had a CRT with enough MTF or ansi contrast*. MTF has its limitations in the lenses. *End of story*. Bandwidth does not help with MTF.*End of story*.
The combination of both on/off and god ansicontrast will give a better image than if you just have one of them.


All the different factors in a image is combined together. FL punch, MTF, Simultain contrast, on/off, correct color, and a calibration up to the standard we use. All this together makes debt, clearness, and will show HD 1080P or higher like it shall be. A CRT in 2016 will and can not compete with that.
But for some still that like the softness prefer CRT, and what I like with CRT is the total shutdown to 0 IRE Its a fantastic feeling. Most digital cant compete with this at all. But JVC have managed to get high on off that goes past a CRT and there for great.


And pictures will never show how god a projector is. The only way is to see them side by side. And the differences will then be even much bigger.



*This can easy be seen with 1:1 patterns 1080P that the lines get grey like shown here. Then both white and black lines (Just simulated not a CRT) In this simulated picture you also see that 720P struggles. On Crt you will see more black instead of grey in the 720P then the thicker lines , because manages this better but also here not even close to a digital.*



*And here you see some that manages the resolution. Real picture of a DLP and a D-ila not my projector.*


----------



## DrDon

Off topic posts removed. Warnings issued. As stated earlier, abide by the rules of this thread and AVS or you lose posting privileges here. Pretty simple, really.


----------



## Dj Dee

Here all can draw own conclusions. Tampered with or not. See that many program is used on the CRT picture. But so good that I like to use it.
The following IJG-based editors also match this signature:





 SW :[FastStone Image Viewer ] [094 ] 
 

 SW :[NeatImage ] [094 ] 


 SW :[Paint.NET ] [094 ] 


 SW :[Photomatix ] [094 ] 


 SW :[XnView ] [094 ] 


 Based on the analysis of compression characteristics and EXIF metadata:


 ASSESSMENT: Class 1 - Image is processed/edited






This is a great "CRT" picture but don't think it look like this after what we have seen. And this picture is magic so any way well done.. I will see this on a CRT that I know is perfect, differences shall be minimal if not extra sharpness added and so on. But most likely this is done heavy. Draw your own conclusions.    
*CRT modded also after program Image is processed/edited.*

*RS600 Digital*




*side by side JVC Left, CRT Right Click on the image to see closer.*
greenshot









Even on a small monitor you see differences, think in 110 inch or bigger. And even the color match. :


----------



## Dj Dee

Hehe 


I think I lay this dead with this guys CRT pictures.
First picture newly taken of the RS600. If someone believe that a 20-25% MTF CRTwith higher bandwidth and mod can compete in sharpness and realness and everything else together with a digital something is done to the picture. That is proven 1000%. And now the color are more CRT like in the CRT picture and you see different use of added processing. 


See the extreme difference same projector Marquee modded. 



But I liked very much the picture of the nature last post. It looked like a adventure +1


*RS600*



* modded marquee .*







Happy Weekend.


----------



## Kevin 3000

^^CRT not modded enhanced/processed enough just look at the stitching on TC RS600s cap for example.


----------



## Carteknik

Dj Dee said:


> Hehe
> 
> 
> I think I lay this dead with this guys CRT pictures.
> More un natural pictures with a lot of processing done to the pictures and look plastic fantastic. All pictures show use of many programs, and you see sharpness and clearness being added in all pictures to try to back up all he has done.
> First picture newly taken of the RS600. If someone believe that a 20-25% MTF CRTwith higher bandwidth and mod can compete in sharpness and realness and everything else together with a digital something is done to the picture. That is proven 1000%. And now the color are more CRT like in the CRT picture and you see different use of added processing. Both in program an might be in real also. LOL
> But I liked very much the picture of the nature last post. It looked like a adventure +1
> 
> 
> 
> Happy Weekend.


I had the pleasure of seeing the above displayed CRT projector, and got the full demo tour, and ill like to say its most impressive, and the impression was close to what those pictures display.


----------



## Dj Dee

Carteknik said:


> Dj Dee said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> I had the pleasure of seeing the above displayed CRT projector, and got the full demo tour, and ill like to say its most impressive, and the impression was close to what those pictures display.
Click to expand...

I bet its great. 
Better than shore Lol


----------



## Dj Dee

Kevin 3000 said:


> ^^CRT not modded enhanced/processed enough just look at the stitching on TC RS600s cap for example.


To say this easy,and understandable there is much more visible processing on the CRT pictures. And they look unnatural.
And some of them look really plastic and over processed \ sharpened And that added processing is proven and easy seen. 
Funny that all CRT guys talk about unprocessed picture. Can someone see anything at all in the rs600 picture?
I don't see anything....


----------



## Kevin 3000

JVC X90 Just cropped otherwise too large to upload message from postimg.org

online photo sharing

image free hosting
CRT Modded

photo sharing
Compared


----------



## Dj Dee

Look like The normal.
How can someone say digital flatness and debt ?


----------



## Kevin 3000

Dj Dee said:


> Look like The normal.
> How can someone say digital flatness and debt ?



I was in 2 minds whether to post the above or not as the differences is striking to say the least but then I though when the CRT pic was posted it must have been posted to impress so it is what it is.


Forgot to mention JVC was in FILM 2 preset (filter engaged).


----------



## Dj Dee

That is the point to this thread.
The siense of how good this is in 2016.
So you can chose if you want to mod or just buy something else.
What you can do with your CRT is just to change to new cooler fluid and then get it like it was when new. That also is a big improvement. But again 1+1 is 2 not 10 :wink:
Don't look bad alone, but side by side even in a picture seen on a monitor huge difference.
But like earlier, they post also pictures of DVD so we shall compare. About the same.
But we like what we like, and have different preferences. But to say that it's better or not the picture speak.
Think in real side by side test.


----------



## Dj Dee

Here some of Batman. This is the RS600 the real "THE DARK NIGHT" Native up to 150 000:1 mine calibrated to around 80 000-100 000 because of iris at -11  
Fun to see if someone tries this photos out on the old black level king With the same shadow detail, real feeling, clearness and debt that don't exist on digitals. 
Let see if someone dares to post a shot clean CRT without any processing, and added sharpness or a digital projector.


There *is *a guy here with a Cine9 watching, that can do this great. And that projector also is super. I know how it will look, and we wont be disappointed. 



JVC RS 600 14,7FL, MPC setting 6,5,0,0 E-Shift ON Clair black ON, high lamp. Gamma at 2,3. Normally calibrated at 2,5 this gamma 2,3 used because of the shadow details got lost at 2.5 in the picture.


----------



## Kevin 3000

@Dj Dee Does the dynamic iris work on a paused image?


----------



## Andreas21

Kevin 3000 said:


> @Dj Dee Does the dynamic iris work on a paused image?


Yes.


----------



## Kevin 3000

@*Dj Dee*The above is the usual Digital Envy that's why most have scrapped their CRTs and moved with the times.


----------



## Dj Dee

Kevin 3000 said:


> @*Dj Dee*The above is the usual Digital Envy that's why most have scrapped their CRTs and moved with the times.


 Also see the color that is totally different in the 2 CRTs. And huge differences in sharpness huge....

Information:
Many think or just 3 think that bandwidth will do something with the MTF. The MTF is set in the blueray then 100% MTF.
Out into a projector is the part where something happen, and MTF gets lower. Also with digital projectors. But lenses are made for 1080P with digital to manage up to 100%
In CRT case, the bandwidth needed for crt with blueray is one thing, to get higher bandwidth to reach up to what blueray requires that ok . But the MTF has its limitation in the lenses not the bandwidth. This even written in the book CRT for dummies.







Here explained correct from another forum about resolution and bandwith.
**********************************************
_The whole path from BNC to CRT grid can exceed 300Mhz, power bandwidth measured at the tube. That claim is very accurate. Ive swept that path and its got response to 600Mhz. You do gotta replace that crappy coax tho, bandwidth limiting. The VNB is a wonder of engineering. The use of RF power transistors was awesome. 

But a higher resolution is not tied like you think to bandwidth. LOTS of things effect the ability to resolve that resolution that is fed to the grid. That tube is a messy analog place. Messy RF analog place. With HIGH voltages present. 

The bandwidth of the channel is not as important in this case as say a clean supply on those RF output transistors. ANY noise on those rails ends up in the signal. That effects resolution by adding noise ( fuzz ) to the beam spot. Anything that adds noise to the beam decreases resolution. If there is noise in deflection then the pixel does not land in exactly the same spot frame after frame but moves around very slightly at like 60hz. This has the effect of reducing resolution by making the dot look fuzzy again. 

So a 1Ghz bandwidth is great, but if your dot is fuzzy in the range of a 200Mhz equiv, then any change you made elsewhere does not matter. 

So EVERYTHING effects percieved resolution in this case. Vert deflection is a big one. That flutters and moves up/down by more then 1 line frame by frame. With a still picture. On dynamic contrast changes scene to scene BIG changes of pic size can occur because of "bloom" which is a lack of HV regulation when the tubes are pulling more power. This "jitter" vertically by one or more lines decreases percieved resolution by 1/2. So having the HV stable, the deflection stable and all sorts of things like focus and alignment effect resolution and so bandwidth alone does very little above 300mhz._
_***********************************************_

And all digital projectors updates to 72 or 96 times pr sec normal. Even if it says 24 frames pr sec, then you just know little about digital if you believe this. New Sonys have 96 and the old JVCx500 had 72. Don't know with the new models JVC. 72 or 96 don't know. And with e-shift on up to 120


----------



## dzseki

Dj Dee said:


> ...
> Information:
> Many think or just 3 think that bandwidth will do something with the MTF. The MTF is set in the blueray then 100% MTF.
> Out into a projector is the part where something happen, and MTF gets lower. Also with digital projectors. But lenses are made for 1080P with digital to manage up to 100%
> In CRT case, the bandwidth needed for crt with blueray is one thing, to get higher bandwidth to reach up to what blueray requires that ok . But the MTF has its limitation in the lenses not the bandwidth. This even written in the book CRT for dummies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here explained correct from another forum about resolution and bandwith.
> **********************************************


4...

In CRT it makes sense to measure MTF in both horizontal and vertical direction because they are not the same, the explanation is easy and it involves the bandwidth :
As you probably know most CRTs using raster scanning scheme, that consist of several scanlines which build up the actual image.
-In vertical plane the picture only consist of the scanlines, the thickness of the scanlines should be considered constant regardless of resolution. imagine an 1 on 1 off line pattern stucture. For MTF calculations it does matter how close the lines get together, at low resolutions scanlines may fall that far apart so another scanline(s) could fit inbetween; this case is pretty similar to the screen door effect of a fixed pixel digital display. On CRT therefore the best utilization is when the scanlines are just touching eachother. In this plane, apart from the already mentioned placement of scanlines, the scattering effect of the phosphor, the gaussian distribution of the electron beam and the lens quality (resolution) that affects MTF. This also means at lower resolutions (in vertical plane) CRT can have much higher spatial resolution, just as digital displays.
-In the horizontal plane the thigs a bit different. The traveling speed of the electron beam is much higher in horizontal plane than in vertical plane (about 1000:1), in this case the speed how we can control the electron beam intensity play a significant role too along with the parameters already mentioned for the vertical plane. This control speed is actualy the analog bandwidth.
You can imagine this as a valve: it is not possible to fully open a valve from its closed position without going through a state where it is only half opened, let this time be as short as possible, but you can't eliminate it.
So in fact, we'd need infinite bandwidth on a CRT to match the horizontal MTF to the vertical MTF. But as you already quoted there are practical considerations and constraits on how high the bandwidth should/can be, but the fact is low bandwidth can severely affect MTF in horizontal direction on a CRT.
That is however a whole different story how your eyes perceive the horizontal and vertical details in the real world -because they are not the same either.


----------



## Dj Dee

Much CRT information here now.

Let's go back to the threads topic compartment.

First Screen cap
 just for the color


*Digital my shot way to much yello *



*Modded marquee 9 inch*





_*Here together digital on the left if you wonder.*_
http://postimg.org/image/wb65qz6ov/


----------



## ElTopo

Does the digital has color calibration ?

The CRT looks much better.


----------



## Dj Dee

ElTopo said:


> Does the digital has color calibration ?
> 
> The CRT looks much better.




The digital is calibrated up to the correct standard we use today. 
But the camera is not.
And you can like what ever you like


----------



## koldby

Dj Dee
Are you serious?
Do you really like the digital best in the last shots?

Hmmmm..
Well your choice.


----------



## Dj Dee

koldby said:


> Dj Dee
> Are you serious?
> Do you really like the digital best in the last shots?
> 
> Hmmmm..
> Well your choice.


Yes I am serious and 100% my choice. 
And here is a screen cap of the Blueray film. click on it to get it in 1920x1080



free picture upload


Everybody can make it how we like, but I like to be true to the source and as close as possible. That's why we calibrate.










And I see that I did not match the color, but its a photo and the camera is not calibrated. And i bet that what many of us watch it on also a not calibrated monitor. But look at the CRT picture and you ask me if im serious. 
But we rest it there for shore, want to continue do it on pm.

Post some shots if you guys like, lets see what you CRT guys got.


----------



## Andreas21

ElTopo said:


> Does the digital has color calibration ?
> 
> The CRT looks much better.





koldby said:


> Dj Dee
> Are you serious?
> Do you really like the digital best in the last shots?
> 
> Hmmmm..
> Well your choice.


If you guys prefer the CRT in the last shots from James Bond Spectre you just show you don´t know how a calibrated picture should look like. If you look at the screencap the JVC look very close to the source and I guess the difference between the screencap and JVC is because of the camera.

The CRT is so far off in everything it is not the camera here as the difference is so big it is just silly. Other than that the CRT clearly shows it can not handle the resolution among many other things and most of them is not due to the camera....

The main reason we calibrate is that we can watch the material the way the Director and DOP ment us to see the movie and Spectre was made with this yellow look from the creators so with a properly calibrated display this is the way it is ment to look.


----------



## Dj Dee

Everybody have a right to their opinion, back to comparing


----------



## Archaea

Dj Dee said:


> Here his CRT without darbee
> 
> Here his clamed Digital JVC CRT with 25% darbee
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that its just bull.


Which Darbee? I have the 5000 unit and while it does make a positive difference it is NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO where near that much different - no matter what and definitely not at 25%.


----------



## Dj Dee

Archaea said:


> Which Darbee? I have the 5000 unit and while it does make a positive difference it is NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO where near that much different - no matter what and definitely not at 25%.




You are so so so so so so right.


----------



## Dj Dee

I put up the screen caps because I understand that some are not use to calibrated displays or simply don't know what is. There is noting wrong with a un calibrated display, but then cant come calming something correct is wrong.
First here 1 screen caps of the Blu-ray. Here I got extremely close to the screen cap that's why I picked it.







Here the orginal 1080P screencap from the blue-ray.



*Here the CRT*



_*Here the JVC *_








_*Here zoom compared together JVC digital on the left or right? Hehe*_


----------



## Andreas21

Dj Dee said:


> I put up the screen caps because I understand that some are not use to calibrated displays or simply don't know what is. There is noting wrong with a un calibrated display, but then cant come calming something correct is wrong.
> First here 1 screen caps of the Blu-ray. Here I got extremely close to the screen cap that's why I picked it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here the orginal 1080P screencap from the blue-ray.
> 
> 
> 
> *Here the CRT*
> 
> 
> 
> _*Here the JVC *_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*Here zoom compared together JVC digital on the right*_


If the JVC is on the right I prefer the CRT...


----------



## Dj Dee

Hehe corrected


----------



## Dj Dee

_*Picture 1 CRT*_
*http://postimg.org/image/ut8rfotjz/full/*

_*Picture 2 Digital*_
*http://postimg.org/image/ltkc6mfbz/full/*


*Compared side by side*
*http://postimg.org/image/rung35o67/full/*


----------



## Dj Dee

*Picture 1 CRT*
*http://postimg.org/image/9wtj7va8v/full/*
*Picture 2 Digital*
*[url=https://postimg.cc/image/9szprm4rj/]







[/url]*

*Compared side by side*
*http://postimg.org/image/c6aawn067/full/*

*
*


----------



## Dj Dee

ElTopo said:


>


 ElTopo You have a great and correct Cine9. I know, have seen photos of it. You don't have the high bandwidth mod if I don't recall wrong. 
But will be much better than the pictures posted of MP modded marquees at other forum.
I know Barco more than Marquee, and I know how a great adjusted CRT look like, .


Take some shots so we can see your Cine9.
I will soon test a Sony G90 with Eisemann simulator tubes brand new, and modd . I will post pictures and compartment here later.
Lets see what you got, also know you don't do funny business with your shots or use digital projectors ..


----------



## ElTopo

Hi,

those CRT shots look great.

I don't have the Cine9 live at the moment.

But imagine a blend or stack with those....

Still missing one Cine9 for that project.


cheers
ElTopo


----------



## Dj Dee

ElTopo said:


> Hi,
> 
> those CRT shots look great.
> 
> I don't have the Cine9 live at the moment.
> 
> But imagine a blend or stack with those....
> 
> Still missing one Cine9 for that project.
> 
> 
> cheers
> ElTopo



Can be really cool  2 Cine9 nice.... a lot of adjustment and experience 


The CRT shots look great for some and not so great for others and that is how it shall be. 
There is a huge difference comparing CRT with pro digitals. That's how it is .You like it or you don't. 


You asked me if my projector was calibrated, a calibration is important .
1. You get correct Black and White level, you get your greyscale correct
2. You get your gamma as preference (2.2, 2.3,2.35,2.4,or other. 
3. You get our colors correct after the REC709 that is used on blueray. 
If a film is oversaturated it will be oversaturated, and the same the other way. 
Like the 007 shot the hole film is some yellow and therefore if correct calibrated it also show in the picture.
If totally wrong you get the result shown. 


All this makes your picture better dynamic, better debt, also get the best out of any projector even a CRT. Also skin tones get correct, and the light that is used under filming you see it how it is meant to be. That's why sometimes a person get some yellow. Why? because of warm/yellow light used under filming. This will be completely wrong if not calibrated. And will show in your picture as basic. 
If some like to make some own standard , everybody can do that. But not true to the source at all. And the result will never be any reference or great, and you see that from all the pictures posted here from a CRT. 


If you get your cine9 up and rolling, post some shots. I remember that your pictures were good. And much better than shown here from the Modded marquees In my opinion. Remember that I also told you that once. You have the best CRT ever made  "my opinion"


----------



## ElTopo

My shots were done with an iPhone 5s so no professional camera was in use.

I try to set the Cine9 up again soon.


----------



## Dj Dee

ElTopo said:


> My shots were done with an iPhone 5s so no professional camera was in use.
> 
> I try to set the Cine9 up again soon.



There you see, camera shows it how it is  Don't need the best camera.


----------



## Dj Dee

Here some new side by side.
*Digital*


_*Modded CRT *_





http://postimg.org/image/zbpawduov/full/
http://postimg.org/image/zbpawduov/full/http://postimg.org/image/zbpawduov/full/


----------



## Dj Dee

*Screen cap*
**


*Digital*
*http://postimg.org/image/g443mb95r/full/*


*Modded CRT and calibrated???????*
*http://postimg.org/image/n26a5qahr/full/*

*Side by side*
**
**
**
*
*
*
*
*CRT?*


----------



## Kevin 3000

CRT owners make a lot of compromisers - No not compartments Dj Dee - judging by the above samples a camera can show, clarity, uneven brightness.


If the above is from a calibrated CRT even before posting the pics the poster should see a marked difference if calibrated to the correct standard, obviously not, and need a professional qualified calibrator to have a look at that CRT.


----------



## Dj Dee

Kevin 3000 said:


> CRT owners make a lot of compromisers - No not compartments Dj Dee - judging by the above samples a camera can show, clarity, uneven brightness.
> 
> 
> If the above is from a calibrated CRT even before posting the pics the poster should see a marked difference if calibrated to the correct standard, obviously not, and need a professional qualified calibrator to have a look at that CRT.


I hate my spelling control. Have I used compartments again? lol So every everybody know if I write compartments I mean compare lol lol lol


----------



## Kevin 3000

Just a little joke so you don`t get *compromiser*s confused with *compartments*


----------



## Dj Dee

Tried this out, here a max 100-200 dollar digital DLP 720P projector, oppo also run 720P. NOT calibrated at all totally KOKO.
Nothing is added. Taken with my iphone hand held  What do you see?
*Modded Marquee running 1080P* 
http://postimg.org/image/n26a5qahr/full/
*Theme Sene HD65 720P DLP*
http://postimg.org/image/v7xivddi7/full/



*Optoma 720P, *magic with a handheld camera? , Think with pro handheld camera haha
*http://postimg.org/image/ivumhvpnj/*

_*Pictrue of projector*_




Like I said totally off on a trip to mars. Gamma not so off, track 2.2 ok.


----------



## Dj Dee

Crt Marquee 9" LC MP modded left
And on the right the 720P digital





images hosting


----------



## Dj Dee

*Handheld* *Theme Sene HD65 720P DLP vs CRT Marquee 95**LC MP mod*
*Projector not in center of screen so I get some sparkling on camera picture.*

*CRT*
**
*Theme Sene HD65 720P DLP *
*
*


*Side by side CRT on the left, **Theme Sene HD65 on the right*
**


----------



## Ericglo

Why do you want to keep picking on the poor, decrepit old CRT?

It looks like Chris Stephens now considers the Sony 5000 the best pj out there. He really is in love with it and is considering doing mods.
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...00/2168905-sony-vpl-vw5000es-4k-laser-17.html

For those that are new here, Chris was the original modder. 
http://www.xymox1.com/Resume/Press/SGHTReview.pdf


----------



## Dj Dee

Ericglo said:


> Why do you want to keep picking on the poor, decrepit old CRT?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like Chris Stephens now considers the Sony 5000 the best pj out there. He really is in love with it and is considering doing mods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...00/2168905-sony-vpl-vw5000es-4k-laser-17.html
> 
> For those that are new here, Chris was the original modder.
> http://www.xymox1.com/Resume/Press/SGHTReview.pdf


 Dated 2002 The good old days. Got my first CRT around that time.










Sony 5000 the best pj out there!!, sounds expensive, had the VW1100 that was great








Cant wait to see it one day.
That Sony VW5000 look amazing.
And prize also amazingly high hehe.
I want one:tired_face::confounded::tired_face: 


"This is just a screenshot compartment thread, and we just let the picture speak."


----------



## Dj Dee

*Handheld* *Theme Sene HD65 720P DLP vs CRT Marquee 95**LC MP mod*
*Projector not in center of screen so I get some sparkling on camera picture.*
*Remember to click on the picture to get full picture resolution.*



*First a CRT picture*



*Theme Sene HD65 720P DLP one take freehand *


Side by side CRT on the right, *HD65 720P DLP on the left*


----------



## Dj Dee

*Handheld* *Theme Sene HD65 720P DLP vs CRT Marquee 95**LC MP mod*
*Projector not in center of screen so I get some sparkling on camera picture. "Camera Canon Power Shot G6 OOOOOOLD camera "*

*CRT*
*
**Theme Sene HD65 720P DLP one take freehand *
http://postimg.org/image/wtvmpiy73/full/

Compared 720PDLP on the right, Crt on the left.


----------



## Dj Dee

*Handheld* *Theme Sene HD65 720P DLP vs CRT Marquee 95**LC MP mod*
*Projector not in center of screen so I get some sparkling on camera picture. "Camera Canon Power Shot G6 OOOOOOLD camera "*


*CRT picture modded9 inch*

*Theme Sene HD65 720P DLP one take freehand *


*CRT picture modded9 inch*
*
*

*Theme Sene HD65 720P DLP one take*




This picture is a close-up, and not much sharpness is needed. And the CRT looks good and manages this ok. To me looks like the CRT runs on to high resolution that it CAN`T handle, the CRT might be better if not using 1080P.
Then in total picture quality. You see that clear in the red car picture from Need for speed and others, where debt, dynamic, black, sharpness fall apart compared even to a 720p dlp PJ.


----------



## mp20748

I see Diddern is still finding the worse CRT images for his comparison. And what happened to the resolution rules?


----------



## Dj Dee

This getting tiresome with all excuses and the try of bricking, and proves nothing. "the picture speak". MP Mods are useful up to a point, so give it a long rest eh?


----------



## Kevin 3000

mp20748 said:


> I see Diddern is still finding the worse CRT images for his comparison. And what happened to the resolution rules?


 

The viewing public and duped owners are very aware now of how CRTs have advanced recently with all the added modifications compared to the latest Digitals thanks to Dj Dee`s continuing unbias comparison efforts.
If you think the comparisons are of inferior quality and unrealistic don`t you think by now others would have posted some better than "worst CRT images" ones? They are the clever ones got out at the right time.
What you should be asking is why owners of your installed mods need to Process/Enhance their screenshots after seeing what a modern Digital is capable of and then make the usual sad excuses? 
Doing so just reinforces their dissatisfaction of the CRTs they have invested in and wished they never got duped into the mod upgrades then being let down by the low MTF SD lenses, clearly visible in all the above comparisons rules or no rules.


----------



## Dj Dee

Classic  The rs600 


Dumb and Dumber


----------



## SirJMon

Ericglo said:


> It looks like Chris Stephens now considers the Sony 5000 the best pj out there. He really is in love with it and is considering doing mods.
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...00/2168905-sony-vpl-vw5000es-4k-laser-17.html


It better be for $60k. And IMO, picture quality in this day and age doesn't get $60k good. It only costs that much because Sony knows rich people have to have something to brag about owning.  Who the F--- needs 5k lumens unless they are watching movies outside in the middle of a sunny day on a 400inch screen.


----------



## DrDon

Off topic and insulting posts removed. Infractions and thread-bans issued. Read the thread rules.


----------



## Ericglo

SirJMon said:


> It better be for $60k. And IMO, picture quality in this day and age doesn't get $60k good. It only costs that much because Sony knows rich people have to have something to brag about owning.  Who the F--- needs 5k lumens unless they are watching movies outside in the middle of a sunny day on a 400inch screen.


You do know CRTs used to cost $40k. The only reason they cost what they do now is that few people want them. A couple of years ago China was big into CRTs, but I think that has dropped off. 

Honestly, I like a bright image, but I live in a very bright place. I think you would be surprised if you saw a properly calibrated high lumen pj.


----------



## Dj Dee

JVC 



CRT modded 






Compared Modded CRT 2015 or 2016.


----------



## Dj Dee

*JVC* 2016


_*CRT modded 2016*_

_*Side by side 2016*_

http://postimg.org/image/6j73q1k4f/full/
http://postimg.org/image/6j73q1k4f/full/http://postimg.org/image/6j73q1k4f/full/


----------



## Dj Dee

Forgot JVC just the Screencap Dumb Dumber 



Screencap
http://postimg.org/image/l5be6nfkv/full/


----------



## mp20748

Kevin 3000 said:


> The viewing public and duped owners are very aware now of how CRTs have advanced recently with all the added modifications compared to the latest Digitals* thanks to Dj Dee`s continuing unbias comparison efforts*


Lol.. unbiased really. So where did these shots come from (post) and how do the "viewing public" get to see if they are from a later modified CRT, as you indicated the digital shots are from the "latest digitals"





> What you should be asking is why owners of your installed mods need to Process/Enhance their screenshots after seeing what a modern Digital is capable of and then make the usual sad excuses?


I'm not aware that anyone needs to or has been using image processing. Definitely not used by me, and for any mods I've done, I've recommended to NOT use any processing. So this is new to me ans something I don't recommend especially for the latest in what Ive been doing this year at least.




> Doing so just reinforces their dissatisfaction of the CRTs they have invested in and wished they never got duped into the mod upgrades then being let down by the low MTF SD lenses, clearly visible in all the above comparisons rules or no rules.


Do you have a post to support this, I'm thinking Ive missed something here if what you said here is true.

btw, why keep referring to Diddern as DJ Dee, when we all really know who he is, and if they lifted the ban on him, why don't he just go back to being Diddern?


----------



## Dj Dee

Thread rules:
So, adhere to these please:

1. *No Bickering.*
2. Use an upload site that keeps Exif data intact to check no software processing being used. image.org for example.
3. Minimum size 16/9 2999x2000/ 235:1 2999x1000 res to make a comparison.
4. For comparing to see more side by side without a lot of black, remove top and bottom in picture. Because they will and have to be removed to get the pictures close for comparison.
5. The shots should be posted one on top of the other to avoid degrading them by either shrinking or scaling up. Both can break up the structure of the image after it' initial resizing.


----------



## mp20748

Where are you getting your 2016 modified screenshots f_rom?_


----------



## Per Johnny

mp20748 said:


> Where are you getting your 2016 modified screenshots f_rom?_


Internet?

Seriously. I think he is refering to screenshots posted online in 2016, rather than 2016-modded Marquee's?


----------



## Per Johnny

I have dealt with a lot of crts, and what i thought was the greatest about crt was the ability to show a picture with depth and a firmly held black level.

But what many crt users dosent understand is that crt-tech has many limitations beside of bandwitdth. When you start to push a crt with higher resolution/scanrate, you will sacrife some of the good picture qualities, and bandwidth-mods will not solve all of this problems. When you come over this threshold, your inky black will suffer, and the picture will be more flat than before (do experiments with lower resolutions, and many will see a picture with more depth). There are several reasons for this as: lenses, noise inside the neck of the crt, too high scanrate(electron beam has not enough time to go from zero to full between each pixel), small variations between each frame in the horizontal og vertical deflection-circuits(problem the higher scanrate you use).

My point: it is not always the best to have as goal as high resolution/scanrate as possible. I always liked to lower the total scanrate and have greater picture, than push for highest possible resolution/scanrate.

This is just my personal opinion and preference. I love that there still are a few that discover this technology and are trying to prolong there lifespan. It is to many good crts that have been dragged to the junkyard.

To the MODERATER of this thread. If this is of topic - please delete.


----------



## Dj Dee

Per Johnny said:


> I have dealt with a lot of crts, and what i thought was the greatest about crt was the ability to show a picture with depth and a firmly held black level.
> 
> But what many crt users dosent understand is that crt-tech has many limitations beside of bandwitdth. When you start to push a crt with higher resolution/scanrate, you will sacrife some of the good picture qualities, and bandwidth-mods will not solve all of this problems. When you come over this threshold, your inky black will suffer, and the picture will be more flat than before (do experiments with lower resolutions, and many will see a picture with more depth). There are several reasons for this as: lenses, noise inside the neck of the crt, too high scanrate(electron beam has not enough time to go from zero to full between each pixel), small variations between each frame in the horizontal og vertical deflection-circuits(problem the higher scanrate you use).
> 
> My point: it is not always the best to have as goal as high resolution/scanrate as possible. I always liked to lower the total scanrate and have greater picture, than push for highest possible resolution/scanrate.
> 
> This is just my personal opinion and preference. I love that there still are a few that discover this technology and are trying to prolong there lifespan. It is to many good crts that have been dragged to the junkyard.
> 
> To the MODERATER of this thread. If this is of topic - please delete.


 
Very good written. You are more on topic than others. What you write here is also what I feel. And also very close to my personal opinion.

Got my UHD blueray player and films yesterday, so taking pictures of compairment crt vs digital is not priority enjoy.




Here you see that higher resolution the more grey it gets on CRT even modded , so you are correct, and verifies it... I edited the Picture because of to high resolution written in the Picture. wrote 720P but was 540P. Deleted it away when the picture of the projector showed less than this.


1080P you see more grey total. this I have explained before in this tread. The picture is from a MP modded Marquee 9 inch.


----------



## Dj Dee

Per Johnny said:


> mp20748 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where are you getting your 2016 modified screenshots f_rom?_
> 
> 
> 
> Internet?
> 
> Seriously. I think he is refering to screenshots posted online in 2016, rather than 2016-modded Marquee's?
Click to expand...

How did you figur that out man? 
You are spot on, was it that obvious . :wink:
Happy weekend. Everyboddy.
Enjoy your projectors, watch more films and less pictures. :+1:


----------



## Ericglo

Great post, Per Johnny.

Another thing people forget is that owners tend to run the brightness up high, because CRTs are so dim. Running it at lower brightness can achieve better performance.

Around a decade ago, I was at VDC and TSE was showing me how to measure MTF (acronym city ). IIRC MTF was low and didn't really change much at resolutions above say 1280x960. I did try out 2 on/2 off and 3/3 just for giggles. MTF did go up pretty good, but I don't remember 2/2 being as big a jump as one might think.


----------



## mp20748

Per Johnny said:


> I have dealt with a lot of crts, and what i thought was the greatest about crt was the ability to show a picture with depth and a firmly held black level.
> 
> But what many crt users dosent understand is that crt-tech has many limitations beside of bandwitdth. *When you start to push a crt with higher resolution/scanrate, you will sacrife some of the good picture qualities, and bandwidth-mods will not solve all of this problems. When you come over this threshold, your inky black will suffer, and the picture will be more flat than before (do experiments with lower resolutions, and many will see a picture with more depth). There are several reasons for this as: lenses, noise inside the neck of the crt, too high scanrate(electron beam has not enough time to go from zero to full between each pixel), small variations between each frame in the horizontal og vertical deflection-circuits(problem the higher scanrate you use).
> *
> My point: it is not always the best to have as goal as high resolution/scanrate as possible. I always liked to lower the total scanrate and have greater picture, than push for highest possible resolution/scanrate.
> 
> This is just my personal opinion and preference. I love that there still are a few that discover this technology and are trying to prolong there lifespan. It is to many good crts that have been dragged to the junkyard.
> 
> To the MODERATER of this thread. If this is of topic - please delete.


This is 100% incorrect, but I understand why it's seems safe to assume.

The higher (faster) the bandwidth the better the video chain produces BLACK and a more life like image. The inability to resolve the higher resolution results in weaker Blacks (low end performance). Because the video chain is not fast enough (rise/fall) to properly transition from full white to full black, which requires a fast video chain.

The better depth is always related to the higher resolution...


----------



## mp20748

Per Johnny said:


> Internet?
> 
> Seriously. I think he is refering to screenshots posted online in 2016, rather than 2016-modded Marquee's?


Ok, so lets try this. Where as in can you link to (where did he get them) the screenshots of "CRT 9 inch modded" projectors that were posted in 2016?


----------



## ElTopo

Per Johnny said:


> I have dealt with a lot of crts, and what i thought was the greatest about crt was the ability to show a picture with depth and a firmly held black level.
> 
> But what many crt users dosent understand is that crt-tech has many limitations beside of bandwitdth. When you start to push a crt with higher resolution/scanrate, you will sacrife some of the good picture qualities, and bandwidth-mods will not solve all of this problems. When you come over this threshold, your inky black will suffer, and the picture will be more flat than before (do experiments with lower resolutions, and many will see a picture with more depth). There are several reasons for this as: lenses, noise inside the neck of the crt, too high scanrate(electron beam has not enough time to go from zero to full between each pixel), small variations between each frame in the horizontal og vertical deflection-circuits(problem the higher scanrate you use).
> 
> My point: it is not always the best to have as goal as high resolution/scanrate as possible. I always liked to lower the total scanrate and have greater picture, than push for highest possible resolution/scanrate.
> 
> This is just my personal opinion and preference. I love that there still are a few that discover this technology and are trying to prolong there lifespan. It is to many good crts that have been dragged to the junkyard.
> 
> To the MODERATER of this thread. If this is of topic - please delete.



Have you ever had or seen a Cine9 / 909 ?


----------



## Dj Dee

ElTopo said:


> Have you ever had or seen a Cine9 / 909 ?


LOL trust me he have owned more 909 and Cine9 that you ever have seen


----------



## Dj Dee

Dj Dee said:


> *Handheld* *Theme Sene HD65 720P DLP vs CRT Marquee 95**LC MP mod*
> *Projector not in center of screen so I get some sparkling on camera picture. "Camera Canon Power Shot G6 OOOOOOLD camera "*
> 
> 
> *CRT picture modded9 inch*
> **
> 
> *Theme Sene HD65 720P DLP one take freehand *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This picture is a close-up, and not much sharpness is needed. And the CRT looks good and manages this ok. To me looks like the CRT runs on to high resolution that it CAN`T handle, the CRT might be better if not using 1080P.
> Then in total picture quality. You see that clear in the red car picture from Need for speed and others, where debt, dynamic, black, sharpness fall apart compared even to a 720p dlp PJ.


This is the tread topic, lets keep it there. and 2016 is this year.


----------



## mp20748

Where are you getting the CRT shots?????????????


Link please....


----------



## Dj Dee

Have watched some UHD films and demo clips on Sony VW520 and RS600 in my homecinema.
This must be the most wow feeling I ever had in my home cinema ever.
More real, and natural never seen it like this.
WOW.
Some handheld iPhone shots. They really pop out of your screen, haha






This is not even close to how I see it 


And to bad that on UHD blueray we cant calibrate yet up to the correct standard, so only calibrating by eye and what you feel is right. So then KOKOKOKO
And I clearly prefer normal Bluray 1080P compared to UHD Bluray with HDR now. 
You see that its some sharper and compact image, but must be calibrated before I can say more. Cool demo files, look fantastic, but also made to look fantastic.


----------



## koldby

mp20748 said:


> Where are you getting the CRT shots?????????????
> 
> 
> Link please....


One wonders why this is NOT answered...
Also wonders why these folks, witch are clearly devoted to digital, keeps posting here.


Koldby


----------



## techtre2003

After reading this, I'd be really interested to actually see a CRT in action. Just going by the pictures in this thread, my takeaway is that digital is sharper and brighter while the CRT produces a richer, more lively color and nice true whites. I can definitely see why there are some who still like the CRT look. That Lucy shot on the previous page looks SO much better in CRT. The digital shot almost makes ScarJo (one of my favorites) look sickly. Most of the digital shots here lean toward yellow.


----------



## Dj Dee

techtre2003 said:


> After reading this, I'd be really interested to actually see a CRT in action. Just going by the pictures in this thread, my takeaway is that digital is sharper and brighter while the CRT produces a richer, more lively color and nice true whites. I can definitely see why there are some who still like the CRT look. That Lucy shot on the previous page looks SO much better in CRT. The digital shot almost makes ScarJo (one of my favorites) look sickly. Most of the digital shots here lean toward yellow.


Good for you.
Then you got something out of this.
And it's screenshots so colors can be shown some off in pictures. You see that if you compare with a Screencap of the source. And the picture you referring to is a 720P DLP totally off. But the point was that a 720P is sharper.
And with resolution comes debt. Like said before here The better depth is always related to the higher resolution... The color on that 720 dlp look terrible, and I would also pick the *color* on the crt picture compared to that 720P dlp


----------



## techtre2003

Dj Dee said:


> Good for you.
> Then you got something out of this.
> And it's screenshots so colors can be shown some off in pictures. You see that if you compare with a Screencap of the source.


Understandable, screenshots can never seem to capture what we are actually seeing. I'd love to be able to compare a digital to a CRT in person but I don't know anyone with a CRT and it's way too much more work than I'd want to put into it. To me, it's almost like the debate between vinyl and digital. The digital has a much clearer, cleaner sound while vinyl seems to have more of a warm, fuller "feeling" to it despite the pops and hiss.


----------



## Dj Dee

techtre2003 said:


> Dj Dee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you.
> Then you got something out of this.
> And it's screenshots so colors can be shown some off in pictures. You see that if you compare with a Screencap of the source.
> 
> 
> 
> Understandable, screenshots can never seem to capture what we are actually seeing. I'd love to be able to compare a digital to a CRT in person but I don't know anyone with a CRT and it's way too much more work than I'd want to put into it. To me, it's almost like the debate between vinyl and digital. The digital has a much clearer, cleaner sound while vinyl seems to have more of a warm, fuller "feeling" to it despite the pops and hiss.
Click to expand...

We like what we like. I have done side by side tests many times with CRT, Result the same every time. Enormous differences. You will see that yourselves also. 

Cool that still some tries to get it better.
And I have been a DJ for 25 years and vinyl rocks  But Its not the same as a picture. Personally I feel that what you see is easier to compare than sound.  And you have one correct standard, D65 REC 709. Sound have many.
But you understand that


----------



## Andreas21

techtre2003 said:


> After reading this, I'd be really interested to actually see a CRT in action. Just going by the pictures in this thread, my takeaway is that digital is sharper and brighter while the CRT produces a richer, more lively color and nice true whites. I can definitely see why there are some who still like the CRT look. That Lucy shot on the previous page looks SO much better in CRT. The digital shot almost makes ScarJo (one of my favorites) look sickly. Most of the digital shots here lean toward yellow.


The Lucy shots on the previous page is from a 720p uncalibrated DLP projector and it looks horrible so you can not judge a digital from that projectors screenshots. Other than that screenshots are just silly and to really see things correct you need to see them with your own eyes at the screen and preferably calibrated to rec 709.


----------



## Dj Dee

Found a picture at AVF of CRT that was good and I liked.


*Here the Screencap of the film frame, missed frame some but you get the idea of correct color and how it shall be, like the filmmaker wanted it to look.*
**



*The Marquee CRT "Picture around 950KB"*

*Here the Digital "Picture around 970KB"*
*
*



*Compared side by side.*


----------



## Dj Dee

Did a little experiment. With out of focus on my JVC. Quit much also. To try to match the softness in the CRT picture, to see result.
*Here first the screen cap.* 
This is how it is in 1080P resolution and correct color then from the film, how it was meant to be seen after mastering.



*Here the CRT*




*Here the JVC much out of focus with **e-shift ON*



*Here the JVC IN focus with e-shift ON*


----------



## Dj Dee

The whole point with this was to inform others how god CRT vs today's digital projectors are in 2016.Also to find out how much better a modded CRT is compared to a original good correct adjusted CRT. And after what the pictures show there are not a big difference like many claim, and don't look far form what I had without mod. This is also confirmed in other forums about mod also from MP and others. 


Also for the fun of it to see how good we can make pictures without "manipulating" and "altering" pictures or "using pictures of digital projectors as a CRT!!!" to promote MP mod in many forums. CRT are totally different than digital. And it should be. Totally different tec , and the way to show picture and experience picture. And most important what you like and prefer your picture. . I am not a fan of digital or CRT, I pick the best that I like to watch and enjoy and I have owned both tec a long time.
There is no doubt in anyone's mind that CRT was the best home video experience back in the good old days. But today the truth is something else visual also with speck and the visual experience . 
And to pick the tec you like if digital, D-ila, sxrd, DLP,laser, led or CRT is totally up to you and the only way to find out what you like best is a real side by side where both are setup to its best. In that test you find what you like best, If its CRT good for you, if digital good for you.
Most important enjoy home cinema the best way for you.


Have fun


----------



## thewolfman

Dj Dee said:


> Did a little experiment. With out of focus on my JVC. Quit much also. To try to match the softness in the CRT picture, to see result.
> *Here first the screen cap.*
> This is how it is in 1080P resolution and correct color then from the film, how it was meant to be seen after mastering.
> 
> 
> 
> *Here the CRT*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Here the JVC much out of focus with **e-shift ON*
> 
> 
> 
> *Here the JVC IN focus with e-shift ON*


I don't want to put you in the spot, nor anyone from the CRT community, but on my monitor, the face of the girl on the JVC, are as green as the tiles in the background. 

On the other hand, the tiles on the CRT are less similar to the face as the digital. Strange. 

I'm not picking sides I am just wondering why the tiles has the same color as the face in many of the shots?

(Not the entire face of course, just a halo around the for most cheek.)


----------



## Dj Dee

thewolfman said:


> I don't want to put you in the spot, nor anyone from the CRT community, but on my monitor, the face of the girl on the JVC, are as green as the tiles in the background.
> 
> On the other hand, the tiles on the CRT are less similar to the face as the digital. Strange.
> 
> I'm not picking sides I am just wondering why the tiles has the same color as the face in many of the shots?
> 
> (Not the entire face of course, just a halo around the for most cheek.)


No problem at all, everybody can like or prefer the one they like the best. This was the point here from the start.
The first picture is the screen cap, that is how it shall look. You can adjust it how you like it, on your projector, you can skip the calibrating. But not true to the source, not how it was meant to be seen if shown different. And also camera does not show 100% how it looks. But you see that camera don't lie much with color with my picture. But I also prefer calibrated display up to the HDTV standard 100 % to be as true to the source as possible. 
But the CRT picture also look good in my eyes. And showing the picture totally different. Also with color and specially skintones. Different Camera, different screen, different light output, different technology and specifications.


Nothing is right or wrong its how we like to have our picture shown with preferred light output much color less color, calibrated or not calibrated. CRT or Digital.
The point with mod from MP, Greg Eisemann and others with CRT is to make the best image possible out of what you have. 
When it comes to what you want to spend your money on its totally up to the person that have the money.


----------



## thewolfman

Dj Dee said:


> No problem at all, everybody can like or prefer the one they like the best. This was the point here from the start.
> The first picture is the screen cap, that is how it shall look. You can adjust it how you like it, on your projector, you can skip the calibrating. But not true to the source, not how it was meant to be seen if shown different. And also camera does not show 100% how it looks. But you see that camera don't lie much with color with my picture. But I also prefer calibrated display up to the HDTV standard 100 % to be as true to the source as possible.
> But the CRT picture also look good in my eyes. And showing the picture totally different. Also with color and specially skintones. Different Camera, different screen, different light output, different technology and specifications.
> 
> 
> Nothing is right or wrong its how we like to have our picture shown with preferred light output much color less color, calibrated or not calibrated. CRT or Digital.
> The point with mod from MP, Greg Eisemann and others with CRT is to make the best image possible out of what you have.
> When it comes to what you want to spend your money on its totally up to the person that have the money.



Your right, we like what we like. 

Have you tried The great Gatsby shot I did? Just slap me in the face with the sharpness already! Kidding. 

No, post if you like, as I like to see the difference myself. CRT vs Digital. 

But honestly, I feel that I might have one of the sharpest CRT pj on the planet. Top 5 maybe. That's not bad at all, and all considered, well worth the money! 

:devil:


----------



## Dj Dee

thewolfman said:


> Your right, we like what we like.
> 
> Have you tried The great Gatsby shot I did? Just slap me in the face with the sharpness already! Kidding.
> 
> No, post if you like, as I like to see the difference myself. CRT vs Digital.
> 
> But honestly, I feel that I might have one of the sharpest CRT pj on the planet. Top 5 maybe. That's not bad at all, and all considered, well worth the money!
> 
> :devil:


I think I have posted enough screenshots, and time to enjoy what I have instead .
And what is well spent money I cant say yes or no. My rs600 costs a lot of money well spent? In my eyes yes, others might say no  hehe


----------



## thewolfman

Dj Dee said:


> I think I have posted enough screenshots, and time to enjoy what I have instead .
> And what is well spent money I cant say yes or no. My rs600 costs a lot of money well spent? In my eyes yes, others might say no  hehe



No, I think we should we should go head to head, with say, From Hell or American Psycho, or both. Not the normal boring Baraka and such, no, something dismembered. Let's make it a show worthy of reading. I promise I will do my best to match! 

I will also getting a PS4 this week so I can run pure [email protected] and give you a run for your money!


----------



## thewolfman

I want to see dismemberment of the limbs.


----------



## Dj Dee

thewolfman said:


> I want to see dismemberment of the limbs.


Sweden is not far, better head to head eye to eye


----------



## thewolfman

Dj Dee said:


> Sweden is not far, better head to head eye to eye


Yeah, maybe. I have not finished painting the walls as it became the wrong color and not very well done either, so don't like having people over, but for this occasion, why not. 

But I'm not aloud to show the boards to anyone, even if they have black cover ups on them. It's a promise I made and I intend to keep it that way. But I see your point and it would be very interesting to see that RS600 also. 

Until then, we should order the movies in question and have some fun shooting!  I must order them as well because I want to try out my PS4 with them and not use the PC.


----------



## Dj Dee

thewolfman said:


> I don't want to put you in the spot, nor anyone from the CRT community, but on my monitor, the face of the girl on the JVC, are as green as the tiles in the background.
> 
> On the other hand, the tiles on the CRT are less similar to the face as the digital. Strange.
> 
> I'm not picking sides I am just wondering why the tiles has the same color as the face in many of the shots?
> 
> (Not the entire face of course, just a halo around the for most cheek.)



So you understand this Wolfy 
A screen cap has nothing to do with a projector TV, CRT, monitor or digital at all.
It is simply how it shall look, then a frame of the Blu-ray 100% correct how the filmmaker wanted it to look. Everything else is wrong 100%.
A calibration will make your picture closer to the screen cap, and camera will not capture 100%. If it looks like the CRT picture you can like it, but is NOT how it shall look. Same with the James bond picture have a look and
read this 
http://www.thebondbulletin.com/true-colours-regrading-spectre


Therefore wrong if not yellow tint. But if it looks correct,,,, to me NO. But correct calibrated will be like this because it is meant to be shown like this in theatres, monitors, TV, and projectors. That's why we calibrate to get it true to the source.


----------



## thewolfman

Dj Dee said:


> So you understand this Wolfy
> A screen cap has nothing to do with a projector TV, CRT, monitor or digital at all.
> It is simply how it shall look, then a frame of the Blu-ray 100% correct how the filmmaker wanted it to look. Everything else is wrong 100%.
> A calibration will make your picture closer to the screen cap, and camera will not capture 100%. If it looks like the CRT picture you can like it, but is NOT how it shall look. Same with the James bond picture have a look and
> read this
> http://www.thebondbulletin.com/true-colours-regrading-spectre
> 
> 
> Therefore wrong if not yellow tint. But if it looks correct,,,, to me NO. But correct calibrated will be like this because it is meant to be shown like this in theatres, monitors, TV, and projectors. That's why we calibrate to get it true to the source.


I know about the screen cap and how it works.. but it looks so wrong that the girl-with-tear-shot looks to have a layer of green all over it. It even suggest that the rest of Baraka should look like that too and I find that very hard to believe. 

Let's make a bet.. 100 SEK.. when you guys come on over here, and show me in person that she's really that freaken green in the face as the tiles in the background, then I would believe you. 

But until then, I think that you might be doing it wrong when taking those screen caps, or something else is wrong, but there is no way in hell Baraka is suppose to look that green. 

No, I think that the theory is right, with the screen caps, it's just not showing it when you post. Take a step back and think about this for a second. Do you really believe that those guys who made Barka wanted it to look that green. No way man, somethings very wrong with those images. You are going to have to prove it to me! Simpel as that as you say.

But let's not get to be enemies over this, just because I have this strong feeling that your theory is right but you're not showing it right!

Get American Psycho and we have some fun posting some seriously disturbing images. Oh it will awkward alright, oh yeah! But that's just my twisted morbid humor for you!


----------



## Dj Dee

thewolfman said:


> I know that is a screen cap.. but it looks so wrong that the girl-with-tear-shot looks has a layer of green all over it. It even suggest that the rest of Baraka should look like that and I find that very hard to believe.
> 
> Let's make a bet.. 100 SEK.. when you guys come on over here, and show me in person that she 's really that freaken green in the face as the tiles background, then I would believe you. But until then, I think that you might be doing it wrong when taking those screen caps, or something else is wrong, but there is no way in hell Baraka is suppose to look that green.
> 
> No, I think that the theory is right, with the screen caps, it's just that showing it when you post. Take a step back and think about this for a second. Do you really believe that those guys who made Barka wanted it to look that green. No way man, somethings very wrong with those images. You are going to have to prove it to me! Simpel as that as you say.
> 
> But let's not get to be enemies over this, just because I have this strong feeling that your theory is right but you are not showing it right!
> 
> Get American Psycho and we have some fun posting some seriously disturbing images. Oh it will awkward alright, oh yeah! But that's just my twisted morbid humor for you!



I'm finished with screenshots  and I ill never be a enemy specially with you 
This is not theory its FACT 100% i say to you.
Screen cap is a frame form the BD and cant be wrong. You can manipulate color, gamma, brightness does not help. Its straight form the frame of the mastered BD REC709 D65. And that you get on the Screen cap cant be manipulated, then you have to do that after.
Like I have said, if you don't like it how it suppose to look, calibrate by eye or don't calibrate at all. But then another movie will be total wrong because of this.
I'm just telling you, what is fact and what is wrong. What you or me mean does not count here at all. Fact is fact. 


http://www.thebondbulletin.com/true-colours-regrading-spectre


----------



## thewolfman

Dj Dee said:


> I'm finished with screenshots  and I ill never be a enemy specially with you
> This is not theory its FACT 100% i say to you.
> Screen cap is a frame form the BD and cant be wrong. You can manipulate color, gamma, brightness does not help. Its straight form the frame of the mastered BD REC709 D65. And that you get on the Screen cap cant be manipulated, then you have to do that after.
> Like I have said, if you don't like it how it suppose to look, calibrate by eye or don't calibrate at all. But then another movie will be total wrong because of this.
> I'm just telling you, what is fact and what is wrong. What you or me mean does not count here at all. Fact is fact.
> 
> 
> http://www.thebondbulletin.com/true-colours-regrading-spectre


I believe you on the Bond movies. But still have a hard time seeing that Baraka is suppose to be that green tinted like posted. 

But where going nowhere with this, so it must be a meet to show in person, or some other way if convincing me that Baraka should look that green.. who would have thought. If I was a consec, over at whatever movie-company who made Baraka, I would have fired the color-rendering guy, but only after I kicked him in the nuts first, making HIM green in the face! I would have. :serious:


----------



## Dj Dee

thewolfman said:


> I believe you on the Bond movies. But still have a hard time seeing that Baraka is suppose to be that green tinted like posted.
> 
> But where going nowhere with this, so it must be a meet to show in person, or some other way if convincing me that Baraka should look that green.. who would have thought. If I was a consec, over at whatever movie-company who made Baraka, I would have fired the color-rendering guy, but only after I kicked him in the nuts first, making HIM green in the face! I would have. :serious:


Does not matter, that is how it is. End of story hehe 
You and me were not there, can be the light. Or in the mastering process from film to digital. One thing for shore the screen cap is correct if we like it or not
Everything else is WRONG its just to except, but to like it another thing. hehe
Then you understand how this will effect every other film if its not green like you say. What will then happen on another film if not calibrated correct to how it was meant to be shown? You know the answer.


----------



## thewolfman

Dj Dee said:


> Does not matter, that is how it is. End of story hehe
> You and me were not there, can be the light. Or in the mastering process from film to digital. One thing for shore the screen cap is correct if we like it or not
> Everything else is WRONG its just to except, but to like it another thing. hehe
> Then you understand how this will effect every other film if its not green like you say. What will then happen on another film if not calibrated correct to how it was meant to be shown? You know the answer.


Yeah, end of story on this. I must accept the fact that's the way it should look. But so bloody hell awful its scary. 

Anyways, I saw today the new EPSON Faux K machines that will be out in August. Look like a JVC killer in term of price.. very affordable so that even I can buy one. But trusting the CR for what claim.. I don't know. But they can't be that far off the mark and probably gain back some lost territory to JVC over the years. EPSON used to be the s_hit back in the day.


----------



## tanwn1

thewolfman said:


> I don't want to put you in the spot, nor anyone from the CRT community, but on my monitor, the face of the girl on the JVC, are as green as the tiles in the background.
> 
> On the other hand, the tiles on the CRT are less similar to the face as the digital. Strange.
> 
> I'm not picking sides I am just wondering why the tiles has the same color as the face in many of the shots?
> 
> (Not the entire face of course, just a halo around the for most cheek.)


I think i maybe able to answer this question, assuming calibration of the crt is correct, it could be a problem due to the wear in the green crt tube. Unless you have a brand new pristine green tube which i doubt so, all tube will age and when the green tube wears, it will cast a magenta shade on the screen which can never be corrected. This is the trouble with CRT once the tube wears no matter how slight.


----------



## Dj Dee

tanwn1 said:


> I think i maybe able to answer this question, assuming calibration of the crt is correct, it could be a problem due to the wear in the green crt tube. Unless you have a brand new pristine green tube which i doubt so, all tube will age and when the green tube wears, it will cast a magenta shade on the screen which can never be corrected. This is the trouble with CRT once the tube wears no matter how slight.


 Correct


----------



## Dj Dee

Here's a comparison where I can only say that CRT looks very good ,if this is real pictures without any photo shopping. The CRT picture is not far away what I can remember of the G90 perfectly set up.
The differences here will be big compared side by side in real. Also have to remember pictures can be extremely different just with different exposure or shutter . Also very scary that I see a picture of CRT that is so close to screencap. Can just say good work with camera and setup the CRT. 
This is the last compartment in this thread from me. We are now in 2017.











Here a screen cap.



Here a CRT 9 inch 



Here a JVC RS520


Under side by side, From the left Screencap, CRT, JVC RS520 estimated difference at 90 inch screen


----------



## AVMB

Dj Dee said:


> Here's a comparison where I can only say that CRT looks very good ,if this is real pictures without any photo shopping. The CRT picture is not far away what I can remember of the G90 perfectly set up.
> The differences here will be big compared side by side in real. Also have to remember pictures can be extremely different just with different exposure or shutter . Also very scary that I see a picture of CRT that is so close to screencap. Can just say good work with camera and setup the CRT.
> This is the last compartment in this thread from me. We are now in 2017.


Looks quite blurry to me, good to see that I wasn't just imagining things back when I was tweaking my own crt and was constantly told that it can look as detailed as a digital.
Now that I'm moving on to 4k I guess there isn't much of a comparison at all. All I can say is the people who still own crts are obviously doing it mainly because they enjoy tinkering, and there's nothing wrong with that as long as we are honest with ourselves and others regarding performance that can be expected.


----------



## cmjohnson

I can assure you, a G90 can be sharper than the CRT image two posts above this one. But I don't have photos to prove it.
I have enough G90s and Marquees that I'm pretty sure about that. I can compare any of them side by side with my RS45 and
the G90 has a sharpness advantage that a Marquee can't match. 

I am still with CRT because I'm way beyond being merely "well stocked". My CRT inventory of new condition tubes numbers
in the dozens of sets. So I have absolutely no issues with tube wear and can always have a machine on my ceiling which is in
absolutely top form, WITHOUT spending any money. 

4K, OK, I can't match that, but how much native 4K content do you have to watch yet? It's not enough yet to make for a very
compelling argument.


----------



## Dj Dee

cmjohnson said:


> I can assure you, a G90 can be sharper than the CRT image two posts above this one. But I don't have photos to prove it.
> I have enough G90s and Marquees that I'm pretty sure about that. I can compare any of them side by side with my RS45 and
> the G90 has a sharpness advantage that a Marquee can't match.
> 
> I am still with CRT because I'm way beyond being merely "well stocked". My CRT inventory of new condition tubes numbers
> in the dozens of sets. So I have absolutely no issues with tube wear and can always have a machine on my ceiling which is in
> absolutely top form, WITHOUT spending any money.
> 
> 4K, OK, I can't match that, but how much native 4K content do you have to watch yet? It's not enough yet to make for a very
> compelling argument.



Prove it! you won't even be close  
Click the links and have a look.


http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/211287


http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/211294


----------



## RobertR

cmjohnson said:


> I can assure you, a G90 can be sharper than the CRT image two posts above this one. But I don't have photos to prove it.


Lack of photographic evidence puts you at a big disadvantage. Simply asserting something instead of showing visual evidence of something inherently visual doesn't suffice.


----------



## Dj Dee

Point of this is, photo of screen will NEVER show how your image really is. Also because manipulation have been proved by some users that are not longer here, and still have the best CRT pictures on net for shore. Then after buying a bunch from 20-150 dollar pr. unit marquees and hoped for a goldmine I would say major bummer . Therefore must try to drag everything else down, then todays tec also manipulate pictures of the CRT to get attention. 


How many discussions have I had because I said calibrate, and compare with a screen cap to get better photos on other forums or here? 


But like shown here form the start, have and will be the fact. Does it matter? NO It is just how it is.


Like many here feel also my selves, "I wasn't just imagining things back when I was tweaking my own CRT and was constantly told that it can look as detailed as a digital." The compare here might be much bigger in real with side by side, because of screen size. The bigger the bigger difference. 
CRT have limitations on MTF, lenses, Ansi Contrast, brightness, resolution, also video chain, and much more. But again I will say that BW higher than what's needed on HD will not make a revolution like many say in picture quality. I will say just to promote sales of high bandwidth mod. Many have tried to take pictures of improvements and not possible to capture it on photo. So I will say SMALL improvements for a lot of money. I saw that easy on a perfect adjusted G90 not so long time ago. I bet it will be equal or better than a modded CRT, because of many other stuff that can **** up. What's important on CRT for a great image ? great tubes low runtime about the same runtime on each, to get something else is stupid, the best lenses for your room HFQ900 great, and a good HDMI card connected in the projector. And not to big screen 80-100 inch for best image quality. And most important ,,,skills to operate the CRT to performance.


Would I like to have a great CRT 9 inch today, yes I might, if I have the room for it and time, but will I say to anyone that its better than todays technology NO, because then I will be telling a big fantasy. 


Click the links and have a look.


http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/211287


http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/211294


----------



## cmjohnson

I'll make screen shots when I get around to it, that's the best I can offer.

I don't even know HOW to use photoshop. Anything I may post will be right out of the camera, the camera being a 36 MP Nikon D800 or D810. (I have both.)


----------



## Dj Dee

cmjohnson said:


> I'll make screen shots when I get around to it, that's the best I can offer.
> 
> I don't even know HOW to use photoshop. Anything I may post will be right out of the camera, the camera being a 36 MP Nikon D800 or D810. (I have both.)


Great , looking forward to it.


You are the one calming you can get it better cmjohnson


----------



## cmjohnson

I'm only saying that the G90 is sharper than a Marquee with stock magnetics. 

Since I own an absurd number of both kinds of projector, I think I'm well qualified to make that statement.

I'll post pics, when I'm ready. But there is no rushing me. I'll do it when I'm good and ready.

I need to go get Apocalypto just to have the same reference as most people are using.


----------



## Dj Dee

"""I can assure you, a G90 can be sharper than the CRT image two posts above this one.....""" your own words. Far form what you write in the next post.


The picture of the Marquee I posted are the best CRT picture/photo I have ever seen of a CRT. Most likely manipulated some, or extremely small screen. You see that easy from his disciples pictures, they are not good compared. So take your photo, I be surprised if you're even close. 


"Since I own an absurd number of both kinds of projector, I think I'm well qualified to make that statement. " Have you done side by side test of them calibrated to same standard. 
Just wonder. Or is it done without knowing the light output , or measured gamma. and might calibrated by eye


----------



## cmjohnson

When the light output is similar to the eye, conditions are similar enough to determine by eye if one unit is sharper than the other.
This is hardly news to anybody with CRT experience.

Exact calibration is NOT necessary to see which unit is sharper. Do you actually think that's a requirement?

I'm waiting for the right deal on the right luminance meter to come before I spend money on a calibration system.


----------



## Dj Dee

Here you claim that you can make a better photo than this photo shown of the marquee the same frame in the film, because you see that a G90 is sharper at your home? really???
*Take the picture* and show that you can beat a fully photo manipulated , calibrated and modded marquee with your eye calibrated G90. Use the screen cap that is uploaded if you don't have the film.
Also see that my best friend posted @ another forum a super black crushed picture of the same frame with just more contrast, it was also 0,01% better lol  But if you know what is done, not any better at all.
Only some contrast manipulation in camera or photoshop like always.


----------



## Dj Dee

Since no one fixes a G90 shot quick I have fixed that today from a friend.




Here just a side by side with the best super modded Marquee against a un-modded G90 zoomed inn to see differences. Color different because different camera settings.


G90 picture on the LEFT Marquee 95** on the RIGHJT in both pictures.
Also the G90 have no over scan the Marquee has. Screen 110" on the G90 so larger than the Marquee.




image upload no ads
image hosting


----------



## Dj Dee

See on another forum that a banned member here is saying that G90 is the marquee shown here. Just for info this s totally wrong.
G90 is on the left, Marquee on the right. Remember G90 not modded and no overscan. Also 3 pictures was taken of the G90, I picked out the best that I liked the best for side by side picture check.
Also have to say that the differences are minor. And pictures don't show how good a projector is. Specially when sale is a factor 


One of the 3 pictures from G90. Then just a screencap of picture and details below.


----------



## Dj Dee

So again, this is the real reality when doing a side by side switch With new digitals and CRT.
Just like AVMB says look blurry to me. Compared a CRT side by side will look very blurry and many other stuff will be shown , but this is just because all the factors I have written many times and many years ago combined together, and will show like this against new tec.


You get use to the difference quick and forget reality, But if you think HD is to sharp , and detailed its just to adjust the digital way out of focus 
But still you get the advantage of high ansi-contrast combined with great real on off. So the total image will always be way way ahead of a old CRT tec. And closer to the source HD for shore.
If you say other vice you are blinded by a fantasy not a reality and will come with stupid excuses. 
Also I know that the G90 photo is real and not tampered with. 


So shown here will be close to how " in real" it will look side by side.


----------



## Per Johnny

I can confirm that the G90 screenshots in the posts from Dj Dee are genuine. They came from the G90 I owned last year. No overscan.

But I will comment that people should be careful to draw any conclusions out of screenshots. They are for fun and should not be judged, because it is to many factors that determines the end result.


----------



## Dj Dee

Per Johnny said:


> I can confirm that the G90 screenshots in the posts from Dj Dee are genuine. They came from the G90 I owned last year. No overscan.
> 
> But I will comment that people should be careful to draw any conclusions out of screenshots. They are for fun and should not be judged, because it is to many factors that determines the end result.


This is just funny. My point with this is that differences are small between different good CRTs. Like you say Per to scream out that the G90 is horrible by zooming inn on zoomed pictures, compared with a full picture file .. Again from a picture is just lol. And remember that if the G90 picture have some artifacts, its not there in real. We both know that. 
Also claimed that the G90 shot was the Marquee at one point. So close close close, but have to see it like I zoomed them in.
That is the point, yes you see that the marquee run at 72Hz and the G90 run at 60Hz. In real would be minor in side by side.


----------



## cmjohnson

What I'm getting out of this is that a stock G90 is sharper than even a heavily modified Marquee, based on the photos YOU have posted.

Which is all I've said that I expect. For all the mods you can put into a Marquee, which can give it the best greyscale and the best video chain to be found in a CRT projector, you're still limited by the stock Thomson magnetics on a Marquee's CRTs. They will ALWAYS be a limitation because they were designed for the Thomson tubes that Electrohome stopped using in the early 90s. Electrohome chose NOT to reinvest in a better magnetics system when they switched to Panasonic tubes. Every OTHER manufacturer chose Panasonic's partner magnetics company, Kanto-Denshi, for their focus yokes, and all but AmPro chose K-D for deflection yokes as well. 

So, not surprisingly, the projectors that feature magnetics DESIGNED FOR THE TUBES BEING USED are all sharper focusing than the Marquee which has the WRONG magnetics for the tube type. Electrohome knew this but since the Marquee still met the goals of their
primary customers (flight simulation) they just went with it. 

Oh, FYI, I have not made any claims at all about how good a photo I can post. I have some very good camera equipment, truly professional
grade stuff, actually, but as for actually using it to photograph a projected image, I make no claims as I haven't put any effort into that.


----------



## Dj Dee

I did not disagree with you on that a stock G90 is sharper than a Marquee, but I wanted you to post it. And felt that you misunderstood that the pictures were zoomed in at. 
To take pictures is not easy of a CRT I have figured that out, and for shore there are many factors involved.


----------



## Dj Dee

And have to correct this, I see that I posted 1 pictures of a Marquee side by side, where I wrote that G90 was on the left on that picture. That was not correct. 
I removed the wrong one. Thanx Holms


----------



## cmjohnson

Yes, I do understand that those pictures are zoomed in to show the detail differences. I would expect that.

I really just need to get back to my little "experiment" that should give a Marquee the focus sharpness of a G90, or at least in the central region of the picture. I began that a while back and initial results were promising but I have to revisit it and do a full scale test run on all three tubes in order to prove the idea works.

It's really nothing less than running G90 magnetics, both the deflection AND the focus yokes, on a Marquee's tubes. 

The focus yoke works "as is" but for the problem that if you attempt to just put it behind the Marquee's stock deflection yoke, the focus yoke ends up being too far back on the tube neck. So the solution is to also use the G90 deflection yokes, and THERE is where the problem lies. They are not electrically compatible so SOMETHING has to be modified. And that is what I'm working on, the mod that makes this a possibilty. 

I've made it work, but on ONE tube, NOT the green system, and I risked damaging the HDM because the G90 deflection yoke has a lower inductance value and draws too much current. It will trip the over-current protection circuit if it's connected to the green circuit.

My task is to make it happy with three G90 deflection yokes hooked up. If I can do that, it will be the sharpest Marquee yet seen, I think, and it will retain focus sharpness into high contrast levels.


----------



## RobertR

cmjohnson said:


> Yes, I do understand that those pictures are zoomed in to show the detail differences. I would expect that.
> 
> I really just need to get back to my little "experiment" that should give a Marquee the focus sharpness of a G90, or at least in the central region of the picture. I began that a while back and initial results were promising but I have to revisit it and do a full scale test run on all three tubes in order to prove the idea works.
> 
> It's really nothing less than running G90 magnetics, both the deflection AND the focus yokes, on a Marquee's tubes.
> 
> The focus yoke works "as is" but for the problem that if you attempt to just put it behind the Marquee's stock deflection yoke, the focus yoke ends up being too far back on the tube neck. So the solution is to also use the G90 deflection yokes, and THERE is where the problem lies. They are not electrically compatible so SOMETHING has to be modified. And that is what I'm working on, the mod that makes this a possibilty.
> 
> I've made it work, but on ONE tube, NOT the green system, and I risked damaging the HDM because the G90 deflection yoke has a lower inductance value and draws too much current. It will trip the over-current protection circuit if it's connected to the green circuit.
> 
> My task is to make it happy with three G90 deflection yokes hooked up. If I can do that, it will be the sharpest Marquee yet seen, I think, and it will retain focus sharpness into high contrast levels.


I have to say I'm impressed with your knowledge and expertise with CRT projectors. Have you set them up professionally?


----------



## cmjohnson

As a matter of fact, yes, as part of simulator installations. 

A few months ago I was working overseas, retubing and realigning all the Marquees in an F/A-18 Hornet simulator just like this one:










This type uses 11 Marquees for the front cockpit and 9 more for the rear cockpit.


----------



## Dj Dee

look cool, and expensive. Here in Norway all CRT simulators are being changed to new DLPs 
But that also cost a fortune.


----------



## cmjohnson

In time, that will happen with these, too. But the government contracting process for getting those upgrades done is long, slow, and expensive, and I'm happy to have the CRT replacement work when I can get it because it pays well.

But it's interesting to note that digital projectors may not represent a cost savings for a simulator operator. The reason is the cost and frequency of lamp replacement as compared to the cost and frequency of CRT replacement.

For example, the Barco F35 is a modern choice for some simulators. It has two lamps that have a 2000 hour service life and the cost of the replacement lamps is somewhere around 700 dollars each, and the simulator operators are usually restricted by contract to buying authentic parts from an authorizeed Barco parts distributor so they WILL pay that much. Otherwise they void the warranty and they can not afford
to void the warranty on projectors that cost so much.

Over 10,000 hours they'll replace five lamps at a cost of 3500 dollars OR they'll replace 10 lamps at a cost of 7000 dollars, depending
on whether they use dual lamp mode. Sim operators normally do because they don't wan't any down time. Having a projector's only
operating lamp fail during a training session is considered very bad so they run both lamps at once, and change them early during 
scheduled downtime rather than wait for lamp failures.

So, at a cost of 3500 to 7000 dollars (roughly) per 10,000 hours, this is in the same range of pricing for CRT replacement at somewhere
between 5000 and 10,000 hours of service on the tubes. 

The newest laser source projectors make a much better cost benefit argument in their favor, though. With an expected service life of 40,000
hours on the laser light source, or more, the only thing that can kill their competitiveness would be if the laser source assembly were to cost 30,000 dollars or more. Which it doesn't.


----------



## Dj Dee

I can understand that this pays well 20 CRT adjustments hohoho 
Must be much more cost effective to go digital.


----------



## AVMB

cmjohnson said:


> I can assure you, a G90 can be sharper than the CRT image two posts above this one. But I don't have photos to prove it.
> I have enough G90s and Marquees that I'm pretty sure about that. I can compare any of them side by side with my RS45 and
> the G90 has a sharpness advantage that a Marquee can't match.
> 
> I am still with CRT because I'm way beyond being merely "well stocked". My CRT inventory of new condition tubes numbers
> in the dozens of sets. So I have absolutely no issues with tube wear and can always have a machine on my ceiling which is in
> absolutely top form, WITHOUT spending any money.
> 
> 4K, OK, I can't match that, but how much native 4K content do you have to watch yet? It's not enough yet to make for a very
> compelling argument.


Patiently awaiting the evidence  It would also ideally be equally sharp across the entire screen, corner to corner, not just the center.
Every video game ever made runs on my beastly computer gaming rig in 4k, and it looks great 
Can't beat the input lag of a crt though


----------



## cmjohnson

I just got a new player which can directly display files off a USB drive, which is very convenient, now to go find uncompressed full resolution image files to put on it for display purposes.


----------



## Dj Dee

Will be fun to see CMJ.
Use the screen cap. The picture I got was from that screen cap.


----------



## atlemusic

Dj Dee you have to give the CRT some source-sharpness for a fair game. Check what it can do to my Sony G70. 


Sony G70 with VRM Lenses, 71.952Hz, Camera Canon Ixus 85 

1. Source: PC, MPC MadVR DXVA --> RGB 16-235 ---> Moome 1.3, 0 - 255 
2. Source: PC, MPC MadVR DXVA --> Sharpness Complex 2 + Nvidea Sharpness 49% --> RGB 16-235 ---> Moome 1.3
3. Source: PC, MPC MadVR DXVA --> RGB 16-235 ---> Moome 1.3 0, 0 - 255 
4. Source: PC, MPC MadVR DXVA --> Sharpness Complex 2 + Nvidea Sharpness 49% --> RGB 16-235 ---> Moome 1.3

In motion,, looks almost like 4k + the CRT-depth.


----------



## Dj Dee

atlemusic said:


> Dj Dee you have to give the CRT some source-sharpness for a fair game. Check what it can do to my Sony G70.
> 
> 
> Sony G70 with VRM Lenses, 71.952Hz, Camera Canon Ixus 85
> 
> 1. Source: PC, MPC MadVR DXVA --> RGB 16-235 ---> Moome 1.3, 0 - 255
> 2. Source: PC, MPC MadVR DXVA --> Sharpness Complex 2 + Nvidea Sharpness 49% --> RGB 16-235 ---> Moome 1.3
> 3. Source: PC, MPC MadVR DXVA --> RGB 16-235 ---> Moome 1.3 0, 0 - 255
> 4. Source: PC, MPC MadVR DXVA --> Sharpness Complex 2 + Nvidea Sharpness 49% --> RGB 16-235 ---> Moome 1.3
> 
> In motion,, looks almost like 4k + the CRT-depth.


 
I have no doubt hehe
The G70 is a great CRT.

They are so soft, that extreme sharpness boost wont destroy the picture. This because of the poor resolution on them. Under 720P
And if you add fake sharpness you remove the CRT realness hehe?
As long as you are happy, that's all that counts.


----------



## atlemusic

Dj Dee said:


> I have no doubt hehe
> The G70 is a great CRT.
> 
> They are so soft, that extreme sharpness boost wont destroy the picture. This because of the poor resolution on them. Under 720P
> And if you add fake sharpness you remove the CRT realness hehe?
> As long as you are happy, that's all that counts.


I know what you mean and it's still hot!


----------



## Dj Dee

atlemusic said:


> I know what you mean and it's still hot!



I will not recommend adding sharpness at all. Here you use two different sharpness filters added.

This is not positive for picture quality.


----------



## atlemusic

Dj Dee said:


> I will not recommend adding sharpness at all. Here you use two different sharpness filters added.
> 
> This is not positive for picture quality.


You know where to turn when you want to sell your G90 

Do you run your JVC at sharpness 0?

Cheers from Sweden!


----------



## Dj Dee

atlemusic said:


> You know where to turn when you want to sell your G90
> 
> Do you run your JVC at sharpness 0?
> 
> Cheers from Sweden!


Correct always, or else you get artifacts like edge enhancement, and not a correct Picture.


But again am not you or anyone else  and for many its preferable to use sharpness. I'm not one of them 
If you study what added sharpness do you might not use it.


----------



## atlemusic

ok


----------



## elio

Why is pixel sharp so fatiguing to the human eye? My Barco 909 does not have this problem. Do you ever think digital will get this fixed?


----------



## Per Johnny

elio said:


> Why is pixel sharp so fatiguing to the human eye? My Barco 909 does not have this problem. Do you ever think digital will get this fixed?


Today most people would be more strained by the softness of the crt projector picture than what you call 'pixel sharp fatiquing'. I have a really sharp Barco Cine 9, and every person I have for visit that are not familier with crt, says that they think it is really soft, and it shows 1-1 1080p pixel as god as crt can do.

Most people are staring at 5 inch screen for hours each day, that will probaly cause some new catagories of eye problems with time.


----------



## Dj Dee

elio said:


> Why is pixel sharp so fatiguing to the human eye? My Barco 909 does not have this problem. Do you ever think digital will get this fixed?




Are you serious?


----------



## elio

Yes I am serious as digital seems so fake.


----------



## Per Johnny

elio said:


> Yes I am serious as digital seems so fake.


We that still enjoy crt are in a extreme minority these days.

I bet if you sampled 1000 random people to see the best crt setup and the best digital setup, I would bet that 1000 out of 1000 would say that the digital looked more real.


----------



## Curt Palme

It's all what people have been conditioned to.

I tell consumers that bring me equipment to repair to look at a shot of a Caucasian person in the snow, on an HD demo loop. It looks like they have a tan, and came right out of the tropics for a month. I am Caucasian, and my skin is pale and white. What you see on a current 4K display looks nothing like reality, but I agree with Per, anyone looking at that same picture thinks it looks amazing.. until you start pointing out the flaws.

I used to spend hours here on avs trying to educate people, esp when digitals looked awful, back from about 1999 to 2004 or so. Now I can't be bothered.. and frankly, don't care.


----------



## Dj Dee

elio said:


> Yes I am serious as digital seems so fake.


I can agree with you that digital was fake looking, then in 2004 -2007 or so, when you saw the pixels. I understand that you have not seen the right digital projectors at all. Maybe only the low end digitals or very old stuff. I have owned many CRTs and even have laying around a perfect Cine9. but its not close to how I prefer the picture, and takes to much room. And the only thing the CRT projector is better than a digital today is the 0 ire/no info in picture. Then compared to bulb based projectors.
I can ashore you: fake is how its not out in the real life. A CRT is far form managing to show how its in real life . Digitals are miles in front.  But even they are far from managing that to. I have now watched digital every day since 2010 ish. And when I see the Cine9 perfect adjusted it look like I need glasses, or the same way when I put my reading glasses on. Then everything's gets real. 
But if you think that new digital projectors today is fake looking, I rest my case.


----------



## elio

Your right. It's only video everyone has there own preference what an image should look like. Its not about pixels or a lack of that hinders digital it is the panel technology and how the human eye perceives the image. Phosphor is more natural that's for shore.


----------



## Dj Dee

elio said:


> Your right. It's only video everyone has there own preference what an image should look like. Its not about pixels or a lack of that hinders digital it is the panel technology and how the human eye perceives the image. Phosphor is more natural that's for shore.


This statement is your opinion.
There are standards how video HD shall look. 
How you like a picture is totally up to you with CRT or Digital


----------



## elio

Dj Dee said:


> elio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your right. It's only video everyone has there own preference what an image should look like. Its not about pixels or a lack of that hinders digital it is the panel technology and how the human eye perceives the image. Phosphor is more natural that's for shore.
> 
> 
> 
> This statement is your opinion.
> There are standards how video HD shall look.
> How you like a picture is totally up to you with CRT or Digital /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
Click to expand...

Yes sir I agree 100%


----------



## elio

How do post full file shots on here. Did some tweaks to the 909 and want to post them.


----------



## Dj Dee

elio said:


> How do post full file shots on here. Did some tweaks to the 909 and want to post them.


Use http://postimages.org/


use the "Hotlink for forums"
remember to keep Minimum size 16/9 2999x2000/ 235:1 2999x1000 res to make a comparison.

Where are you from?


----------



## ask4me2

Hi do not see any of the postimages.org linked pictures posted earlier in this thread, only the pictures saved in the posts itself. Is there a problem with my google chrome or do other have the same problems?

It was when i have seen the picture form the HD1 (RS1) and HD100 at arund 10 years ago i decided to park my CRT projectors gear down for a while. Last year i got a hold on a very nice G90 (one of my CRT dream projectors back i the days) and have done some testing and have lots of fun with the CRT way of watching movies again.

Made some "compartment" pictures between my old HD100 (RS2) and my G90... Think it is quite easy to spot what is from a CRT and an old Digital....


----------



## ask4me2

Here are some more


----------



## Dj Dee

Hello Ask4Me2
See that your old JVC still does the job right hehe


Post image is down and up and down at the moment. Hopefully getting up stabile soon.


Nice comparment of your JVC vs G90. It shows easy why people changed CRT to JVC back in the old days. 
If I had room I would hook up one of the Cine9s that PJ got laying around and play along. But takes to much space, so both are in storage. 
Kind of dropt this CRT thing after several side by side tests with newer projectors then also with now your G90 and the 2 Cine9s. Maybe some day ill make a retro cinema for my best dvds and laser discs. Then the Cine9 will be a good alternative.


----------



## Curt Palme

Can't say that it's an apples to apples comparison. Sure, the JVC is sharper, but judging by the colors, your G90 is poorly setup. The green push is massive. I can also see convergence bleeding around the edges, a properly setup G90 won't show that, regardless of the digital camera image.


----------



## Dj Dee

ask4me2 said:


> Here are some more



Can you provide the screen Cap for these images ask4me2, hard to say anything without them.


----------



## ask4me2

Curt Palme said:


> Can't say that it's an apples to apples comparison. Sure, the JVC is sharper, but judging by the colors, your G90 is poorly setup. The green push is massive. I can also see convergence bleeding around the edges, a properly setup G90 won't show that, regardless of the digital camera image.


Yes i do agree with you on the convergence and some of the CRT setup Curt. The G90 have some vertical drift between cold and warm on the red tube, the other color issues is not like this in real life. Think its more of a blue hump insted...

Here is some more HD100 vs G90 pictures..


----------



## Dj Dee

ask4me2 said:


> Yes i do agree with you on the convergence and some of the CRT setup Curt. The G90 have some vertical drift between cold and warm on the red tube, the other color issues is not like this in real life. Think its more of a blue hump insted...
> 
> Here is some more HD100 vs G90 pictures..


 
Great comparison of your G90 and your old JVC HD100. Yes from the pictures feel like may need some calibration, but camera does much here, this you see form the digital projector picture also. But a great side by side since from the same screen and camera. Close to how it will be compared in real, but will be bigger difference seen live. Not hard to see why people changed to digital when the HD1 arrived to the marked many many years ago. But still for us that have and owns the greatest CRTs know what they can do, and will never stop to have fun with the CRT even when we know how they are compared to newer digitals.. Wait until you get a new JVC in your house you will be shocked  As you know I compared perfect condition Cine9s to newer digitals reasontly. Then to close some old myths, and discussions . You know the result from me and the other person that is a known CRT expert in Norway. They were tuned both to same light output and equal gamma response calibrated on the same 110 "screen. Both the Cine9s are now in storage safely, and maybe play with it later again when we feel for it. Keep your G90 its a great CRT. I know how god your G90 is, because me and PJ played with it for many days before you got it


----------



## Dj Dee

Try to use
http://postimages.org/

and press share, there you pick "Hotlink for forums"
Then you can click on the image and get full resolution. 



Thread rules:
So, adhere to these please:

1. *No Bickering.*
2. Use an upload site that keeps Exif data intact to check no software processing being used. image.org for example.
3. Minimum size 16/9 2999x2000/ 235:1 2999x1000 res to make a comparison.
4. For comparing to see more side by side without a lot of black, remove top and bottom in picture. Because they will and have to be removed to get the pictures close for comparison.
5. The shots should be posted one on top of the other to avoid degrading them by either shrinking or scaling up. Both can break up the structure of the image after it' initial resizing.


----------



## Dj Dee

If someone like to try out this interesting Screen cap. Cant wait to buy the BD.
This movie must be eye candy.


This is a quit dark scene also, so can be much interesting. If there still some guys that have CRT in 2018 bring it on 


This cap can be used for the picture. Just be shore to get it in 1080P


----------



## Dj Dee

Here the Picture above. 
Can anyone do better pictures?
I think that if you don't manipulate pictures this is as good as it gets.
Its easy proven in other threads, that magic is fiction. Lenses limitations show, crystal clear. 


I think this G90 does more than a great job here. 
Also a zoomed in side by side.


First CRT G90

JVC Second

Side by side zoomed inn.


----------



## Dj Dee

Here also another from the same movie Black Panther.
Got the Sony VW1000 picture from persons I have done a calibration for. So this is not taken by me, only removed the black bars.
You also see the Reality Creation does some possessing to the picture, also camera, like all cameras does.


First the screencap, this can be used with your BD player or PC to take a picture.



Then the Sony VW1000ES



Then the CRT Sony G90


----------



## KM987654

Run the G90 at 1080i/72 or 96

or 

Run the digital projectors at 35% past their rated maximum bandwidth (I don't think digitals can do that!!).


----------



## elio

Seems the CRT is what most people would want to watch from what has been shown in this thread. I will stick with the Barco 909 no question about it.


----------



## Dj Dee

Its nothing wrong of liking CRT, The war CRT vs Digital is over many years ago.
I think its still fun to see how good still a 9" can perform in 2018.
Some modifications would help some, but minimal to what its worth, and still far from a OK digital.


Tested reasontly Cine9 against JVC RS440. It was sad for the Cine9 so sad. The guy with the G90 owns a X7500 JVC and the similarity in the pictures show this easy. 


Like @*KM987654* say try 1080i, that is not the best option because you see the interlaced lines all the time, in my opinion 720P or 1080P 60/72hz. With 720P you can feel some higher resolution, but that is often on 8" CRTs. 
1080P look like 720P anyway because of the limitations of the lenses. That I would suspect you know is max 1280x1024 with under 50% MTF if you then run 1080P you are down at 10-max 30% MTF, this is tested and documented on the net some were . "Then on the best lenses used on 9" CRTs". This will show, and very good illustrated in the pictures above. CRT has its own signature and I still like that.

@*elio* nice to see that some still adore they're CRT. I might play again with my own Cine9, but I don't see the point anymore. And also in this heat here in Norway its a danger of burning down the house using it hehe


But again respect to elio and others that still only have CRT and stick by it.


----------



## KM987654

Dj Dee said:


> Its nothing wrong of liking CRT, The war CRT vs Digital is over many years ago.
> I think its still fun to see how good still a 9" can perform in 2018.
> Some modifications would help some, but minimal to what its worth, and still far from a OK digital.
> 
> 
> Tested reasontly Cine9 against JVC RS440. It was sad for the Cine9 so sad. The guy with the G90 owns a X7500 JVC and the similarity in the pictures show this easy.
> 
> 
> Like @KM987654 say try 1080i, that is not the best option in my opinion 720P or 1080P 60/72hz. With 720P you can feel some higher resolution, but that is often on 8" CRTs.
> 1080P look like 720P anyway because of the limitations of the lenses. That I would suspect you know is max 1280x1024 with under 50% MTF if you then run 1080P you are down at 10-max 30% MTF, this is tested and documented on the net some were . "Then on the best lenses used on 9" CRTs". This will show, and very good illustrated in the pictures above. CRT has its own signature and I still like that.
> 
> @elio nice to see that some still adore they're CRT. I might play again with my own Cine9, but I don't see the point anymore. And also in this heat here in Norway its a danger of burning down the house using it hehe
> 
> 
> But again respect to elio and others that still only have CRT and stick by it.


You have posted side by side images produced by a two different projectors. You have used a resolution beyond the capability of the G90 and well within the ability of the digital so of course the G90 image is a little soft. If you want to compare projector images then they should be under the same conditions either both beyond the maximum resolution of the projectors by the same amount or both inside those specifications. 1080i is the same resolution as 1080p and both projectors can resolve one i.e the G90 can resolve the 1080i and your digital can resolve the 1080p. Thats a fair comparison in that the same resolution is used for the purpose of like images for comparison. Alternatively run 720p for both projectors *Try it and post*.

Of course as I mentioned you could feed the digital projector a resolution beyond its capability be the same amount as you are doing to the G90 at 1080p. In that case the G90 does quite well when you consider the maximum bandwidth is 135mhz well under what is required to resolve 1080p.


----------



## Dj Dee

KM987654 said:


> You have posted side by side images produced by a two different projectors. You have used a resolution beyond the capability of the G90 and well within the ability of the digital so of course the G90 image is a little soft. If you want to compare projector images then they should be under the same conditions either both beyond the maximum resolution of the projectors by the same amount or both inside those specifications. 1080i is the same resolution as 1080p and both projectors can resolve one i.e the G90 can resolve the 1080i and your digital can resolve the 1080p. Thats a fair comparison in that the same resolution is used for the purpose of like images for comparison. Alternatively run 720p for both projectors *Try it and post*.
> 
> Of course as I mentioned you could feed the digital projector a resolution beyond its capability be the same amount as you are doing to the G90 at 1080p. In that case the G90 does quite well when you consider the maximum bandwidth is 135mhz well under what is required to resolve 1080p.


 
Agree with you.

Someone can post same picture of 720P 1080i and 1080P would be fun.


Its just to use the screencap, feed it directly in the PC or BD player, just like the pictures of the G90 and the digitals have done.


----------



## Dj Dee

How does this picture look? 
I will say quit good?


----------



## Kevin 3000

Black Panther JVC X90 MadVR processed JPG unedited.


----------



## Kevin 3000

NEF converted to JPG cropped adjusted to onscreen visuals.
Same MadVR settings.


----------



## Dj Dee

Nice shot Kevin 3000¨digital signature for shore. 


First screencap then side by side


----------



## Dj Dee

I have to say that the G90 does a great job up to the digitals.
Like KM987654 says I agree. 720P or 1080i the CRT will be better. 
Why does all CRT users use 1080P. I think this has to be like I think. 1080P must be better..
But like I used before 720P I saw that the CRT liked that resolution better. I know that someone might say different, but would be fun to see photos of 1080i or 720p.
On CRTs then compared to 1080P.


----------



## elio

Dj Dee said:


> I have to say that the G90 does a great job up to the digitals.
> Like KM987654 says I agree. 720P or 1080i the CRT will be better.
> Why does all CRT users use 1080P. I think this has to be like I think. 1080P must be better..
> But like I used before 720P I saw that the CRT liked that resolution better. I know that someone might say different, but would be fun to see photos of 1080i or 720p.
> On CRTs then compared to 1080P.


 on the 909 who wants to see scan lines from 12 feet away. 1080i is awful.


----------



## Dj Dee

elio said:


> on the 909 who wants to see scan lines from 12 feet away. 1080i is awful.


I think this have to be what you like, i agree with you. I dont like the 1080i on CRT. Used 720P much better.
Its not always wise to use 1080P. Its not made for it. And you will get better dynamic and experienced sharpness. Also higher MTF. That will be visible.


Is it to much to ask to check on this screencap. Use this directly into the player or PC to Your projector. Be shore to get it in 1080P.


take one Picture With 720P and one With 1080P


----------



## Dj Dee

Here side by side with Oppo resolution on 720P and 1080P out to the JVC. Both pictures are the JVC X7900. 
Picture used for this is the picture as I posted it last post.


Here you see the JVC X7900 with 720P vs 1080P adjusted in the Oppo. *Waiting for a CRT to show the same*. I doubt it will be much better in 720P than 1080P.
All this comes down to MTF and how well the CRT handle 720P or 1080P. But you will get higher MTF in720P for shore. 
The JVC will always be uppcaled to 1080P or e-skift to 4K in the projector but you see some clarity/dynamic difference. Because of the downscale and upscale.
You see on top of the side by side what resolution it is in the Oppo.


----------



## Kevin 3000

Greatest Showman X90 Unedited JPG/NEF converted to JPG cropped.


----------



## KM987654

elio said:


> on the 909 who wants to see scan lines from 12 feet away. 1080i is awful.


If you push the refresh or frequency up enough the scan line will disappear and the projector can fully resolve the image. 

It simply isn't a comparison if one projector is pushed beyond its ability. Having said that a properly setup G90 will look better than those shots indicate. Its certainly different watching a movie than viewing a static image.

There is no indication that the G90 is correctly setup.


----------



## Dj Dee

Here side by side G90 and the JVC X90


----------



## Dj Dee




----------



## markrubin

posts removed


----------



## Dj Dee

Some talk about 1080i on 9 inc. I don’t prefer it, but fun to see if some can document it with the same pictures posted here.
Have anyone a 9 inch adjusted to 1080i so we can see?


----------



## ask4me2

Last time i tried that it did not look good when watching movies. Digital projector can recreate a [email protected] picture out of 1080i, but 1080i fed directly to a CRT may show a lot of scanlines and nose with movement etc, and do not do so well i think.

There are not many CRT users left in the world in 2018 i am afraid, so it may be hard to find someone that want to try this now.

It may look good on a still photo when the camera act like a "inverse telecine filter and joins up all the same scan lines for the still picture exposed at 0.8 sec in the camera .. To not think i will even try 720p at the moment, it does not feel right to do that with BD 1080p sorces. If i had a scaler that cold send [email protected], i wold have tried to use that for shure. Have seen that, and it does not look as bad as one may think. But one may use a little time getting used to it...


----------



## thewolfman

ask4me2 said:


> Last time i tried that it did not look good when watching movies. Digital projector can recreate a [email protected] picture out of 1080i, but 1080i fed directly to a CRT may show a lot of scanlines and nose with movement etc, and do not do so well i think.
> 
> There are not many CRT users left in the world in 2018 i am afraid, so it may be hard to find someone that want to try this now.
> 
> It may look good on a still photo when the camera act like a "inverse telecine filter and joins up all the same scan lines for the still picture exposed at 0.8 sec in the camera .. To not think i will even try 720p at the moment, it does not feel right to do that with BD 1080p sorces. If i had a scaler that cold send [email protected], i wold have tried to use that for shure. Have seen that, and it does not look as bad as one may think. But one may use a little time getting used to it...



I will set up my new PJ with 800p and while I have both 800p and 1080p of the same Movies (a lot of the times) I will take shots on both 800p + 1080p. How you ask? Sending a 1080p signal thru KODI player passed as an 800p signal is easy as KODI automatically removes the upper and lower black bars from the 1080p signal, so in theory, we will be able to tell the difference between the two.


----------



## ask4me2

thewolfman said:


> I will set up my new PJ with 800p and while I have both 800p and 1080p of the same Movies (a lot of the times) I will take shots on both 800p + 1080p. How you ask? Sending a 1080p signal thru KODI player passed as an 800p signal is easy as KODI automatically removes the upper and lower black bars from the 1080p signal, so in theory, we will be able to tell the difference between the two.


Yes thewolfman, test and pictures from the screnchot and results of them will be very interesting indeed.

I think having a CRT still running in 2018 is nice, and the more the merrier. 

This tread suport digitals supporters too, and i love projectors that trows good pictures i the home theater, even if they do mot use CRT in this equation.

This is one from my "old" JVC HD100 with A-lens and anamorphic stretch so the 2.35:1 uses all the 1080 lines in the projector.


----------



## thewolfman

ask4me2 said:


> Yes thewolfman, test and pictures from the screnchot and results of them will be very interesting indeed.
> 
> I think having a CRT still running in 2018 is nice, and the more the merrier.
> 
> This tread suport digitals supporters too, and i love projectors that trows good pictures i the home theater, even if they do mot use CRT in this equation.
> 
> This is one from my "old" JVC HD100 with A-lens and anamorphic stretch so the 2.35:1 uses all the 1080 lines in the projector.




I have no problem with digitals either I'll just post the best I can with CRT. And feel free calling me Wolfman even though it is occupied by someone else. :smile:


----------



## Dj Dee

Here your image on the JVC HD100 and the screencap Ask4Me2


Think U need a calibration on that monster  Red gain must be tuned down here.


----------



## Dj Dee

Here the full screencap if you want to try Wolf 


https://postimg.cc/image/fwe5m56u7/


----------



## Dj Dee

thewolfman said:


> I will set up my new PJ with 800p and while I have both 800p and 1080p of the same Movies (a lot of the times) I will take shots on both 800p + 1080p. How you ask? Sending a 1080p signal thru KODI player passed as an 800p signal is easy as KODI automatically removes the upper and lower black bars from the 1080p signal, so in theory, we will be able to tell the difference between the two.


Hi Wolfy  Hope you don't get so much trouble with the new one, and congratulations on a new CRT. I'm shore it will be great.
You say : "I have both 800p and 1080p" that was not what I meant, but I think its best that you post the best of your Marquee, and don't need to borrow manipulated pictures on other forums LOL. In here I like both CRT and Digitals, and know the limitations so its just to post.


----------



## thewolfman

Dj Dee said:


> Hi Wolfy  Hope you don't get so much trouble with the new one, and congratulations on a new CRT. I'm shore it will be great.
> You say : "I have both 800p and 1080p" that was not what I meant, but I think its best that you post the best of your Marquee, and don't need to borrow manipulated pictures on other forums LOL. In here I like both CRT and Digitals, and know the limitations so its just to post.


It wasn't exactly what you wanted but this will also tell a story, magnified. I can't tell the difference from seating position but really like to know if there is one up close. 800 should come out ahead and so easy to find out I wonder why I haven't done so Before. But it will be awhile the pj is in monocules and need to get rid of the old one first. And thanks for the caps it will help with colors.


----------



## Dj Dee

thewolfman said:


> It wasn't exactly what you wanted but this will also tell a story, magnified. I can't tell the difference from seating position but really like to know if there is one up close. 800 should come out ahead and so easy to find out I wonder why I haven't done so Before. But it will be awhile the pj is in monocules and need to get rid of the old one first. And thanks for the caps it will help with colors.


The point with 1080i was to get the CRT projector to resolve bandwidth and better resolution, because of less stress on the CRTs. But like I have said I don't prefer 1080i on a CRT. This is something you need to get used to over a period of time. The CRT will also be more comfortable with 48 HZ 1080P. With some of the same result, stressing the CRTs less and using less bandwidth and getting a better experienced resolution. But you will get the flickering that I don't like much.


Be careful not to burn another set of tubes also. Specially in 235:1 adjustment. Know the limitations.


----------



## Dj Dee

ask4me2 said:


> Yes thewolfman, test and pictures from the screnchot and results of them will be very interesting indeed.
> 
> I think having a CRT still running in 2018 is nice, and the more the merrier.
> 
> This tread suport digitals supporters too, and i love projectors that trows good pictures i the home theater, even if they do mot use CRT in this equation.
> 
> This is one from my "old" JVC HD100 with A-lens and anamorphic stretch so the 2.35:1 uses all the 1080 lines in the projector.


You see here just with some red removed form your picture look better.


----------



## Dj Dee

Here picture of a JVC RS540.


Brighter than the screencap, but a quick picture taken.


First The JVC 540



Then Screen cap removed black bars.


----------



## thewolfman

My first suggeston came out wrong.. 1080p passed as an 800p automatically in KODI should on the contrary NOT reveal any diffrances because it is only zoomed in. But proper encoded 800p vs proper 1080p signal should make 800p a bit better magnified. But something tells me that a genuin 1080p disc @ 72hz probably Paints a better image anyway. I woulnd't be surprised at all..


----------



## thewolfman

Dj Dee said:


> Here picture of a JVC RS540.
> 
> 
> Brighter than the screencap, but a quick picture taken.
> 
> 
> First The JVC 540
> 
> 
> 
> Then Screen cap removed black bars.




Here's Another good example of a screencap that looks so ****ing muted and whased out it's silly. Your own 540 JVC looks more Alive and kicking. Brighter some how. I wonder why people wants to hang me for saying that when it's the truth a lot of the times. This is one of them..

EDIT: I missed out on you saying it was a bad representation with your photo. Maybe that's what's happening when I find screencaps to be absolut **** compared to the live thing. I'm sure it is..


----------



## Dj Dee

thewolfman said:


> Here's Another good example of a screencap that looks so ****ing muted and whased out it's silly. Your own 540 JVC looks more Alive and kicking. Brighter some how. I wonder why people wants to hang me for saying that when it's the truth a lot of the times. This is one of them..
> 
> EDIT: I missed out on you saying it was a bad representation with your photo. Maybe that's what's happening when I find screencaps to be absolut **** compared to the live thing. I'm sure it is..



Brighter because of the shutter time, and because the light reflects back to the lens, the colors not far off. But will never be 100% with a camera, and of Corse the processing in the digital camera. So lack will it always be, then how it looks in real. 


Screen cap is how it shall look end of story. But you or me don't have the monitor calibrated to how it was mastered in production, so there will be differences. That's why you can use the screen cap and take a picture with your camera on screen. Its the same as using the BD disk. But then use the one with black bars like I did posted earlier.


Is your machine up and running? 
What have you done with it?
Any modds?


----------



## thewolfman

Dj Dee said:


> Brighter because of the shutter time, and because the light reflects back to the lens, the colors not far off. But will never be 100% with a camera, and of Corse the processing in the digital camera. So lack will it always be, then how it looks in real.
> 
> 
> Screen cap is how it shall look end of story. But you or me don't have the monitor calibrated to how it was mastered in production, so there will be differences. That's why you can use the screen cap and take a picture with your camera on screen. Its the same as using the BD disk. But then use the one with black bars like I did posted earlier.
> 
> 
> Is your machine up and running?
> What have you done with it?
> Any modds?



No, not up and running yet, I got it home yesterday. But if I were to sell it it would be costly for an entusiast and I wouldn't sell it for anything less than 15000 SEK. That's how much I love it already, I have this craving to post the mods done to it because he Went to Town on every board on it, not only the boards itself but also the duaghter boards. But, sadly, it is his documentation to post and not me. I want to, believe me, but in the end it's his chioce to make..


----------



## Dj Dee

thewolfman said:


> No, not up and running yet, I got it home yesterday. But if I were to sell it it would be costly for an entusiast and I wouldn't sell it for anything less than 15000 SEK. That's how much I love it already, I have this craving to post the mods done to it because he Went to Town on every board on it, not only the boards itself but also the duaghter boards. But, sadly, it is his documentation to post and not me. I want to, believe me, but in the end it's his chioce to make..



I think that 15000 SEK is impossible to get for a CRT today, there only enthusiasts left and they wont pay. Reasonable price around 1000-6000 SEK. So best to keep it if you like it. 


With so much done with it no doubt keep it until you recycle it..


----------



## thewolfman

Bought in parts it adds up fast. About 6500 SEK for the machine + 2500 SEK NIB Red tube + 3500 SEK NIB green + 3500 for a NIB blue. Total: 16000 SEK. But yes, I see what you are saying it's hard times selling CRT parts so a keeper until recycle. Luckely it will last me thousands of hours of good use.


----------



## Dj Dee

thewolfman said:


> Bought in parts it adds up fast. About 6500 SEK for the machine + 2500 SEK NIB Red tube + 3500 SEK NIB green + 3500 for a NIB blue. Total: 16000 SEK. But yes, I see what you are saying it's hard times selling CRT parts so a keeper until recycle. Luckely it will last me thousands of hours of good use.



Even if you paid 50K for it today marked price on CRT is down to zero. So based on that, keep it. But I guess that's the plan also 
You have many enjoyable hours on it so use them good.


----------



## ask4me2

Dj Dee said:


> Here your image on the JVC HD100 and the screencap Ask4Me2
> 
> 
> Think U need a calibration on that monster  Red gain must be tuned down here.


yes the colors did not come out right from that file. 
Have a raw file from that and cheked the white balance and set it to 6500k instead. does it look better now?


----------



## Dj Dee

Better more correct for shore.
RS540 here below, see it side by side with the HD100. Quite close for a old JVC monster to my picture. 
Make the JAC animation, because I don't have big enough size of your picture..


----------



## Dj Dee

Found a Picture that is a great CRT shot. But I think it has to much possessing. "Maybe to get it look better."?
*What do the crowd think`?*

Here also screen cap from the frame in the film then the one with black bars, a JVC X7900 and side by side.
Also like I have said before, you see the limitations in the lenses with MTF.
Seen at a big screen you will see huge differences in debt and dynamic and detail sharpness because of low MTF.
Colors look fine on the CRT. Almost to correct, so I guess a Lumagen calibrating. MTF on the CRT shows poor resolution around 720P might some lower.


Here switch animasjon full picture


The JVC have e-shift on, so also the MTF gets LOW. Settings in the MPC 1,0,0 clear black off.


*Screencap*

*Modded Marquee*

*JVC X7900*



And side by side JVC on the left and the CRT marquee on the right.


----------



## Dj Dee

Here a OLD Jvc HD750 un-calibrated so far, compared to the "best world wide CRT projector Marquee supermodded.


This shows enormous enhancement before or after picture taken on the CRT. Like use of massive darbee or any lumagen.
the person complains about digital projector how they destroy the picture because of processing, and are so unreal. 
This just prove the total opposite. So don't go in the trap. The picture of the HD750 was taken quick setup, so no job in getting it perfect.

Marquee CRT supermoddet first and then the Old outdated JVC HD750.


----------



## Dj Dee

Here you see the difference with a newer JVC X7900 vs the JVC HD 750


First the HD750



Then the JVC X7900


----------



## Dj Dee

Here you see close up photo zoomed inn, in the camera on both.
Pixels only visible on the HD750. The X7900 have none visible pixels.
110 inch screen. The x7900 have a more pure picture in my opinion. 


Mainly to get any JVC correct you must calibrate gama perfect.. If not will look poor. Also the hardness in the HD750 makes the total image look possessed.
Both gama 2.3, both REC709 D65 16 FL.







https://postimg.cc/JsvSdhGN
https://postimg.cc/JsvSdhGNhttps://postimg.cc/JsvSdhGN


----------



## Dj Dee

I'm borrowing and calibrating a old JVC HD750, I have to say it was a really a downgrading from my X7900. 
And cool to try out a old JVC again.
But quit ok. 



Here you can see the pictures together then a old CRT and the old Digital. Also tried to match MPs pictures as good as possible.
The HD750 worth almost nothing today, but after a pro calibrating looks ok. And much better than any cheep DLP.


Mainly the gamma was so off on the HD750 that it was almost impossible to fix. So picture were totally flat and boring. 
And had to use a external possessor for the gamma and CMS to get it corrected to reference. 


Here a Marquee with a clean video source.
I'm quit impressed about the CRT actually, also when I know that the photo is not tampered with.


First MPs Marquee



Then the JVC HD750 also no enhancement everything adjusted to zero. So as clean as possible.



First MPs Marquee



Then the JVC HD750



Crt on the Left and the HD750 on the right.


----------



## Dj Dee

Here a great 9 inc. Marquee CRT experience .
Must be closer to VHS quality than ever before or less. Hope that someone can post a CRT that shows some better result.
Film: Lucy.


Here a Sony VW260 calibrated Source BD and a Marquee 95** modded with a lot of awesomeness.
Also a comparment with and without reality creation on. Settings resolution in reality creation 0 and 10

Here also another one no need to say whats the Sony



First side by side with a Sony VW260 vs a CRT then side by side. Reality creation ON and OFF second picture.
With the CRT without reality creation.
On look way to processed I think.


----------



## Bachiano

Hi DJ Dee 

Is that external Shutter DIY ? Thanks


----------



## Dj Dee

Bachiano said:


> Hi DJ Dee
> 
> Is that external Shutter DIY ? Thanks


Yes its a external shutter for 1080P and 4K even HDR. Made by a friend here in Norway.
Works perfect. Instant and super accurate.
Only shuts off with 0 ire.


----------



## thewolfman

Dj Dee said:


> Yes its a external shutter for 1080P and 4K even HDR. Made by a friend here in Norway.
> Works perfect. Instant and super accurate.
> Only shuts off with 0 ire.



Your friend who made this could make a fortune over this DIY shutter. Why did you not tell me about this Before?


Although, I did read awhile ago, over one having a JVC x9900 who swore he thought the projector broke down on him with the sudden zero visabilty (as you all know I love so much) so why do you need a DIY if it's like that already?


----------



## Dj Dee

thewolfman said:


> Your friend who made this could make a fortune over this DIY shutter. Why did you not tell me about this Before?
> 
> 
> Although, I did read awhile ago, over one having a JVC x9900 who swore he thought the projector broke down on him with the sudden zero visabilty (as you all know I love so much) so why do you need a DIY if it's like that already?


 
Problem is the price.


The value as it stands in parts are 1000 dollar. So cost quit much. 
No digital bulb projector can fade 2 black 100%. But the iris on the x7900 and the x9900 does this around 95-98% So there will be stray light on the screen.


But form a bright scene you will not be able to see the stray light when going black, then without a shutter. After some seconds you will see the stray light on the screen. This shutter eliminates this, and keep it 100% 0 ire until there is not. If not it opens. This shutter is programed to measure over 20000 measurements per period of around 30 milliseconds.


So if you think your CRT shuts down to 0 IRE this does it 100% and accurate.
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/24-d...978-100-fade-black-digishutter-pro-1-0-a.html


----------



## Dj Dee

Just wanted to take a check on this one.

I used this posted screencap to take the photo from the screen. 1920x1080
Picture is scaled to 4K in the OPPO UHD BD player
This is a easy picture, when not much sharpness or resolution needed.
But still you see that captured by the camera it shows quit much, when comparing just the pictures.

First the Screencap


Then the JVC


Then the G90


And last the Marquee


Here all 3 together.


----------



## Dj Dee

Here some good CRT G90 shots


----------



## ask4me2

Hi DJ Dee, did the same shots using the RS520 and the same Canon EOS 5Mk2 and 50mm sigma lens used for these G90 pictures.







































Think the white level in the camera is a little bit off...


----------



## Dj Dee

ask4me2 said:


> Hi DJ Dee, did the same shots using the RS520 and the same Canon EOS 5Mk2 and 50mm sigma lens used for these G90 pictures.
> 
> 
> 
> Think the white level in the camera is a little bit off...


Maybe a little, do you have the screencaps?


----------



## Dj Dee

Here you see what standard machines can do. Then from a photo.
Different camera, settings,different screen/size and so on will affect the picture.
I will say that both here done a great job on the basic adjustments. If not this is done modification will be just to use up your money.

Sony G90 I will guess 60hz
url=https://postimg.cc/z34xC1RJ]







[/url]


1996 standard marquee 9500 non ultra with 12000 hours on it. 1080P 72hz 195Mhz.


----------



## ask4me2

Dj Dee said:


> Maybe a little, do you have the screencaps?


Yes, this is the cap from I Am Legend



And these are from two different The Fifth Element BD's releases, one sone B"nordic" one from 2009, and one ABC one from 2007.




























(2007)

(2009)


----------



## mp20748

I was thinking this thread would have bloomed by now, because it looks like there hasn't been much activity for awhile. Don't wait for me if that's the case. I'd rather wait to get my setup to a better level first, and will then get back into things later. Plus I've been somewhat busy working on other non related things, but did get enough popcorn for when you guys get do back to the thread.


Looking forward to your postings..


----------



## mp20748

I've posted a few shots DJ, but take note that are from a quick setup after the control board dumped is memory the other day, and I can't re-load my copied memory file because the laptop I use for that is not here at the time.


Anyway, these are in no way competition grade, and I hope you don't use them as such. I do intend after I get a tube and get things seriously dialed in get back to this. But for now, I just took a few shots after a quick setup. But this time using my third set of neck boards because they are the higher bandwidth version being used to setup only.


----------



## Dj Dee

Thats Ok Mike I wont.


----------



## mp20748

Dj Dee said:


> Thats Ok Mike I wont.



I'm using the Olympus camera, but I put the image quality back to FINE instead of NORMAL this time. That camera seem to be better that way, but when putting the Fuji in FINE, it distorts the image as you pointed out that time.


----------



## mp20748

Same Olympus camera, but this time the Image Quality is set at: Normal...


----------



## ask4me2

Not sure I understand the purpose of these "no way competition grade" CRT screenshots here but hope to see some of the one correctly setup and without that green spot burn later.

These pictures may indicate some of the difference between CRT and Digital in a way that for a CRT projector, it is less plug and play than a any typical digital i can be compared with?

When we set up a CRT we need to "make" the picture more from scratch than from any Digital i know, the picture needs lots of work and know how to be made to look correct and as good as it possibly can..
Even a good digital need some calibration and adjustment to make a correct looking picture, but not in a starting from scratch as a typical CRT setup. 
Some that may not be familiar with CRT projector can get more info about that from this you tube video showing the setup process for the Sony 1292 9" CRT model ( Sony's 9" model before the complete re-design that resulted in the G90)






The later Sony G90 is one of the most over engineered and complex menu controlled plug and play CRT projector ever made, but setting up it still needs the same correct alignment and lens flapping etc. The EH Marquee is more basic hardware hands on, modification and tweak able CRT around.... 

The posted screenshot here may also show that it is often harder to photograph CRT projected pictures vs digital, but without the same scenes photographed of a digital projector from the same camera etc, it is hard to know how these scenes compare. I do not have that movie or BD captured sources, so can not try these on the G90 or RS520.

CRT is generally often harder to photograph than digitals because of the softer looking CRT signature with no pixel screendoor projector focus plane to focus on (harder to know when the camera have optimal focus of the lens, (can not thrust the auto focus)), the way the CRT refresh each frame, were the picture is only partly "on" in a very short period of time with different on time for the the RGB phosphorus, that may confuse the light meter white balance and exposure in a camera etc. 

It is also often easier to get a sharper looking CRT picture on screen when the projector is not setup to produce a lots of light, but a low light projected picture is harder to get correct when using a camera.
A Camera will for low light need longer exposure times, an aperture setting letting more light pass trough the lens where its optical properties is not the best, and using higher ISO settings that combined with longer shutter times may often cause more noise from the camera chip and some more processing etc.

From one of the posted pictures 


that still looks a little under exposed the exif exposure data show f/3.6 2sec ISO 400 that indicate a EV0.6 > 0.0553 fL low light picture on screen....

Edit: see you posted some more screenshots from the U-571 movie, are these more competition grade screenshots from your CRT setup MP?


----------



## mp20748




----------



## ask4me2

Dj Dee said:


> Thread rules:
> So, adhere to these please:
> 
> 1. *No Bickering.*
> 2. Use an upload site that keeps Exif data intact to check no software processing being used. image.org for example.
> 3. Minimum size 16/9 2999x2000/ 235:1 2999x1000 res to make a comparison.
> *4. For comparing to see more side by side without a lot of black, remove top and bottom in picture.* Because they will and have to be removed to get the pictures close for comparison.
> 5. The shots should be posted one on top of the other to avoid degrading them by either shrinking or scaling up. Both can break up the structure of the image after it' initial resizing.


Hi Dj Dee not to brake rule 1.... what happens to Thread rule 4?


----------



## Dj Dee

Here is a CRT that I will say look great. Have a high BW mod on this one also.



Also a screencap so you can try on your G90 Ask4Me2.


----------



## ask4me2

Yes i will try that later. Only have that U-571 movie on DVD (that may be good enough for some the posted pictures here....), but with the BD caps It will be easy to compare these scenes with the G90, RS520 and even the HD100 

I like that other modded CRT, think it looked like a better setup with geometry, and colors etc. From the exif it looks to be the same camera used too...?


----------



## mp20748

Dj Dee said:


> Here is a CRT that I will say look great. Have a high BW mod on this one also.
> 
> 
> 
> Also a screencap so you can try on your G90 Ask4Me2.



Wow DJ. this has got to be a joke right?


That top image is terribly over processed and it's very obvious...so it in no way could represent anything high bandwidth. Put your glasses on and look at again. 



So this must be a trick, but why..


----------



## Dj Dee

ask4me2 said:


> Yes i will try that later. Only have that U-571 movie on DVD (that may be good enough for some the posted pictures here....), but with the BD caps It will be easy to compare these scenes with the G90, RS520 and even the HD100
> 
> I like that other modded CRT, think it looked like a better setup with geometry, and colors etc. From the exif it looks to be the same camera used too...?


Yes same camere, same settings. in the camera. 

Trid this on the JVC X500, With more resolution you show more. So I will guess with higher BW you will also show more and be sharper and more detailed. 
But this is by far a good picture taken of the JVC X500, look some hard.


----------



## mp20748

Dj Dee said:


> Yes same camere, same settings. in the camera.
> 
> Trid this on the JVC X500, With more resolution you show more. So I will guess with higher BW you will also show more and be sharper and more detailed.
> But this is by far a good picture taken of the JVC X500, look some hard.



You're not understanding things here. Higher bandwidth should always be confirmed by how well things in the background are revealed. Youre shot looks more like I would expect from a digital. The same previous shot I posted is dark on purpose...so the background is not showing because it is too dark to reveal it. 





This (below) is what high bandwidth should look like...it must be clean and clear in detail.


----------



## Dj Dee

This a very simple, and answering what I suppose not understand with BW. 

Here your marquee and another marquee. With same camera settings. Just different modifications in the Marquee Pictures can be seen above in this thread.

High BW shall also resolve the foreground to resolve the background well hehe, or in the past when you did mods, you only focus on the background and forget the most important part the foreground. ? 

Why this is not shown in your first picture or the other marque is the camera you both used. With the same settings. It shows quit different BW resolving in the foreground.


This shot is in fact a great comparison to your shot, also a illustration of what shown on screen in the foreground, everybody knows that the background is clearly visible on any crt.




Move on.


----------



## mp20748

DJ, cut it out. There are many issues with that shot, that the old DJ would have been true to his nature and called out also..


The camera comparison proves nothing here, and your mentioning of my focusing on background and leaving foreground out makes no sense either. The bandwidth is better defined and proving using background, which is also the main reason for going 4K. Foreground should follow or be as good as background in today's image evaluation, because it is also what set aside "standard definition" from "high definition." When things are High Def, it basically means the ability to see all things in the image in its entirety. 



And that is also why I said there should be multiple shots all posted at one time, where any judging can be based on the ability so see how well, the setup, etc is doing based on the ability to see things beyond a foreground only or background only scene. In other words, you cannot judge a setup based on a single scene. A single scene cannot present the ability to see dynamics.


----------



## Dj Dee

This was also observed by Ask4Me2

_"I like that other modded CRT, think it looked like a better setup with geometry, and colors etc. From the exif it looks to be the same camera used too...?"_

No doubt that there is different in setup, with geometry, and colors etc that again resolve in better visible sharpness and debt shown in the photo also on screen.
Different in details in dark scenes are gamma related. Higher gamma show less details in dark scenes, lower gamma more details pop up in this background.


----------



## Dj Dee

Here another screencap to try out
This picture is already posted from one CRT.


----------



## ask4me2

mp20748 said:


> You're not understanding things here. Higher bandwidth should always be confirmed by how well things in the background are revealed. Youre shot looks more like I would expect from a digital. The same previous shot I posted is dark on purpose...so the background is not showing because it is too dark to reveal it.


The X500 Dj Dee used for this picture *is* a digital projector...

Here you once again write about the background in movie scenes "Higher bandwidth should always be confirmed by how well things in the background are revealed". 

If you have said how well the finest detail available in the entire picture is revealed i can agree with you.

I think the cinema camera used to get the scenes have the actual control of how the detail in the focus plane and background is shown in the movie. A projector only use that source and project a flat "film plane" onto a flat projector screen, and does not know or care what part of the picture is in front of or is the background.





mp20748 said:


> This (below) is what high bandwidth should look like...it must be clean and clear in detail.


Looks like you using imageshark for these pictures again.. The exif info and the original posted file may not be available when you use that one.

If you want to show how well the modded projector show details in the entire picture, I think dedicate test pattern made for that is the best way to show it. 

I tried this one on my standard G90 a while back.



with this result


----------



## mp20748

ask4me2 said:


> Looks like you using imageshark for these pictures again.. The exif info and the original posted file may not be available when you use that one.
> 
> If you want to show how well the modded projector show details in the entire picture, I think dedicate test pattern made for that is the best way to show it.
> 
> with this result



My cameras are limited in that they are not capable of showing what I have on screen, to include, my last shots were taking with only a quick setup taking place after the CLM dumped the memory and I wasn't able to reload it. So only the center stig and focus was addressed. And with the green CRT being bad, a more or better setup will only happen after I replace the tube. So any test patterns here would not be good for showing off anything.


Plus, seeing terribly enhanced shots posted, why bother with trying to make things better. As I've said before, this same stuff has happened before in the other thread, going back over the years. The JVC 500 shots is also distorted, because it's hard to believe that projector looks that bad.


Again and being realistic about this whole matter, you cannot prove anything worthwhile using screenshots..


----------



## mp20748




----------



## Dj Dee

Fun to see how much a filter in front of the lens can do to my image of my X500 .
Left image without lens skylight filter, Right With skylight filter.
I will say massive difference.
*Then here on the JVC X500 picture zoomed inn*




And here to you Mike as you say, """"Plus, seeing terribly enhanced shots posted""""" you should start on your own picture first lol


----------



## Dj Dee

Here the JVC X500

With filter and without filter

Here without filter


Here with filter ----No doubt this picture look horrible.-----


----------



## mp20748

Dj Dee said:


> And here to you Mike as you say, """"Plus, seeing terribly enhanced shots posted""""" you should start on your own picture first lol



Considering and knowing that I don't use enhancements, what possible could that distortion be...another reason why this stuff should have an un-biased and uninvolved evaluator presenting "factual evidence" Who I'm sure would complain about the file being converted to PNG from JPEG, and then resized and zoomed in on. And somehow the end results should be clean/true enough to comment on..




Anyway, that's interesting what's going on with your JVC. 





.


----------



## Dj Dee

Remember 

Thread rules:
So, please follow adhere to these please:

*4. For comparing to see more side by side without a lot of black, remove top and bottom in picture. Because they will and have to be removed to get the pictures close for comparison.
5. The shots should be posted one on top of the other to avoid degrading them by either shrinking or scaling up. Both can break up the structure of the image after it' initial resizing. 
*
Remember that posting pictures here its for comparing pictures. Black bars must be removed.


----------



## mp20748

Dj Dee said:


> Remember
> 
> Thread rules:
> So, please follow adhere to these please:
> 
> *4. For comparing to see more side by side without a lot of black, remove top and bottom in picture. Because they will and have to be removed to get the pictures close for comparison.
> 5. The shots should be posted one on top of the other to avoid degrading them by either shrinking or scaling up. Both can break up the structure of the image after it' initial resizing.
> *
> Remember that posting pictures here its for comparing pictures. Black bars must be removed.



Well, you know I don't do side by side or top bottom comparisons. I've mentioned this a many times, because any attempt to change size/resolution of shot, it without doubt becomes degraded. 



I do think they are good rules for anyone wanting to do comparison shots. And for those not doing comparison shots, why can't they leave their shot untouched and in its original form. Or are you also saying that all and every shot that's posted in this thread MUST have the black section removed period?


----------



## Dj Dee

To post shots must be a purpose. 

Thread purpose is to evaluate pictures from different projectors for those who want. 
Why black bars shall be removed are because you then get a better look at the actual important part the picture. 

So if posted here the pictures will be compared to other pictures.


----------



## Dj Dee

*Sony 4K*


*JVC X500*


*Marquee with Gabor modifications that does high BW*


*Screencap 1080P*


Also see that the JVC X500 picture is from another frame.


----------



## Per Johnny

The Marquee Gabor looks really nice. But a little difficult when the screencap and screenshots are not the same frame, probaly several seconsds apart?


----------



## Dj Dee

Per Johnny said:


> The Marquee Gabor looks really nice. But a little difficult when the screen cap and screenshots are not the same frame, probably several seconds apart?



I'm going to fix the same of the JVC X500, and might try the NX9 also.
Really hope it looks better than the X500 hehe. I might not dare to try 

But you see also like you wrote to me that the first X500 picture was not good. The filter in front of the lens did stuff that did not look good.

I also agree that the Marquee look really nice. The camera used are not the best, but does a ok job. 
With a different better camera it will look great.


----------



## ask4me2

Dj Dee said:


> I'm going to fix the same of the JVC X500, and might try the NX9 also.
> Really hope it looks better than the X500 hehe. I might not dare to try
> 
> But you see also like you wrote to me that the first X500 picture was not good. The filter in front of the lens did stuff that did not look good.


If you do not see the same difference in picture quality between the X500 and NX9 in screenshots like you do in real life, then you need a better camera and lens... 

The filter you are talking about, what kind of filter is that and how is it used?


----------



## Dj Dee

ask4me2 said:


> If you do not see the same difference in picture quality between the X500 and NX9 in screenshots like you do in real life, then you need a better camera and lens...
> 
> The filter you are talking about, what kind of filter is that and how is it used?


Hehe for shore LOL

The filter is not 100 cleair so must have a function in some way.
I only put it on for protection.


----------



## mp20748

Per Johnny said:


> The Marquee Gabor looks really nice. But a little difficult when the screencap and screenshots are not the same frame, probaly several seconsds apart?



I agree, the Marquee with Gabor Mods, definitely looks better in comparison to the two JVC's.


----------



## ask4me2

Skylight filters was often used together with analog color reversal film to make a "warmer" look. For Digital cameras where the camera itself can adjust the white balance a skylight might do more harm than good.

A filter like that may protect the front element on the objective in some situations, but may also degrade the picture quality (internal reflections etc.), so for controlled screenshot situations like this using a tripod etc. , i think it is safe to photo without any filters like that.


----------



## Dj Dee

mp20748 said:


> I agree, the Marquee with Gabor Mods, definitely looks better in comparison to the two JVC's.


Is *not* 2 JVCs its a Sony and a JVC.

And you mean the picture! , I guess you don't think that these pictures shows the projector as you write above, then you have totally misunderstood. 
In real the picture of the CRT are much better, same with the Sony and the JVC. If taken with a different camera it even be much better pictures.
You also see the same noise in the Sony and the Marquee that's the camera used.

I have to say this Marquee with these Gabor Mods really look good. Also manages to lift the visible resolution good. So BW helps here definitely. 
Different pictures of projectors are on top of the picture.


----------



## mp20748

Actually, because all three are converted up, they look about the same and that's not good for any of them. You can't take a less than 100K image file and converted it up, and then be able to rate its image quality. They are now over 900K files. How possible could that not affect the structure and resolution content.


And one other thing, when evaluating Close Ups or Foreground. Use the word Sharpness instead, because again, resolution requires the ability to see finer detail in backgrounds or things not up front primarily.


------------


Thread rules:
So, adhere to these please:

1. *No Bickering.*
2. Use an upload site that keeps Exif data intact to check no software processing being used. image.org for example.
3. Minimum size 16/9 2999x2000/ 235:1 2999x1000 res to make a comparison.
4. For comparing to see more side by side without a lot of black, remove top and bottom in picture. Because they will and have to be removed to get the pictures close for comparison.
*5. The shots should be posted one on top of the other to avoid degrading them by either shrinking or scaling up. Both can break up the structure of the image after it' initial resizing. 
*

*------------*

Check out number *5* above, that I agree with and think you should stick with. And being honest with you, nothing in those shots speak or or represents anything Resolution wise.


----------



## Per Johnny

mp20748 said:


> I agree, the Marquee with Gabor Mods, definitely looks better in comparison to the two JVC's.


I would only go so far to say that it looks amazingly good compared to other crts. And for a small screen it holds very good up against jvcs.


----------



## Dj Dee

Per Johnny said:


> I would only go so far to say that it looks amazingly good compared to other crts. And for a small screen it holds very good up against jvcs.


Here you also see 2 different cameras on the same screen. Like I also said better camera better picture.
Look amazing to be a CRT.


----------



## Dj Dee

mp20748 said:


> Actually, because all three are converted up, they look about the same and that's not good for any of them. You can't take a less than 100K image file and converted it up, and then be able to rate its image quality. They are now over 900K files. How possible could that not affect the structure and resolution content.
> 
> 
> And one other thing, when evaluating Close Ups or Foreground. Use the word Sharpness instead, because again, resolution requires the ability to see finer detail in backgrounds or things not up front primarily.
> 
> 
> ------------
> 
> 
> Thread rules:
> So, adhere to these please:
> 
> 1. *No Bickering.*
> 2. Use an upload site that keeps Exif data intact to check no software processing being used. image.org for example.
> 3. Minimum size 16/9 2999x2000/ 235:1 2999x1000 res to make a comparison.
> 4. For comparing to see more side by side without a lot of black, remove top and bottom in picture. Because they will and have to be removed to get the pictures close for comparison.
> *5. The shots should be posted one on top of the other to avoid degrading them by either shrinking or scaling up. Both can break up the structure of the image after it' initial resizing.
> *
> 
> *------------*
> 
> Check out number *5* above, that I agree with and think you should stick with. And being honest with you, nothing in those shots speak or or represents anything Resolution wise.


What type of screen and inch size are you using to evaluate on Mike?


Added this to point 5, *Screencap can be used to illustrate if originals are posted.*


----------



## mp20748

Dj Dee said:


> What type of screen and inch size are you using to evaluate on Mike?
> 
> 
> Added this to point 5, *Screencap can be used to illustrate if originals are posted.*





I have an 8 foot wide 1:1 gain screen.




Post shots of the two I have listed below. One on top of the other. 

No enhancements or processing in either of them.


----------



## Dj Dee

mp20748 said:


> I have an 8 foot wide 1:1 gain screen.
> 
> 
> What type of *PC monitor and* inch size are you using to evaluate on Mike?
> And please remove black bars. Or please don't post.
> 
> Do it like this if not leave it.


----------



## Dj Dee

This is your screenshot from the post above, I have now posted how it looks if you watch it on a big screen. Because the picture is so bad.
Seen on my 29inch pc monitor the image in the thread is about 8-9 inch.


----------



## mp20748

Are you saying I can't post shots with the black bars on them?


And are you aware of how many other shots that are posted already that still have the black bars. Are you going to have them removed, or does this only apply to me. And don't forget that the caps also has black bars..


We tried over the years to set rules on the CRT Screenshot forum, multiple times over. But in every case, was told we could only recommend procedures, because the forum already has rules.


Anyway, maybe that has changed over the years.


----------



## mp20748

Dj Dee said:


> This is your screenshot from the post above, I have now posted how it looks if you watch it on a big screen. Because the picture is so bad.
> Seen on my 29inch pc monitor the image in the thread is about 8-9 inch.





Interesting DJ, that you can blow up (zoom in on a face) an image and say it would represent what it looks like on a big screen. What do you think the camera captured?


----------



## Dj Dee

mp20748 said:


> Are you saying I can't post shots with the black bars on them?
> 
> 
> And are you aware of how many other shots that are posted already that still have the black bars. Are you going to have them removed, or does this only apply to me. And don't forget that the caps also has black bars..
> 
> 
> We tried over the years to set rules on the CRT Screenshot forum, multiple times over. But in every case, was told we could only recommend procedures, because the forum already has rules.
> 
> 
> Anyway, maybe that has changed over the years.


Please remove black bars from in this thread* from now on*.


----------



## Dj Dee

mp20748 said:


> Interesting DJ, that you can blow up (zoom in on a face) an image and say it would represent what it looks like on a big screen. What do you think the camera captured?


What PC monitor brand and model number are you using.

And try this out you understand what I mean. Use your own photos posted here on this forum and see it on your CRT projector.


----------



## Dj Dee

Your picture Mike 2,84Mb
Other picture that is compared with yours 740kb

Same projector I will guess the same screen and just different modifications, setup and camera


----------



## mp20748

Dj Dee said:


> Your picture Mike 2,84Mb
> Other picture that is compared with yours 740kb
> 
> Same projector I will guess the same screen and just different modifications, setup and camera



DJ, not sure why you can't see what's going on with these shots, or are you just looking the other way. When you know already from everything previously sent to you, that they are enhanced. Yes, this is the same person, just look at how the face is broken up. Or better zoom in on both and you're see it..


As pointed out before, those shots are in no way from a high bandwidth video chain. And that you already know. Just go back a month or so and look at how many times you yourself have pointed out that their shots are enhanced. They are at the least clever manipulations to represent a high bandwidth setup. Don't forget, this is the same setup that produced that other picture, that I though was a joke.


Just look at what happens when you click on both, and zoom in. Though mine will expand larger, it still remains intack, while the smaller one is slightly zoomed in, it starts to break up.


----------



## nidi

I have been running Gabor's mods for a while now.

everyone who watched movies at my place was amazed how good and sharp it looks.

and it's only 200 MHz bandwidth.


----------



## mp20748

I don't want it to appear as if I'm trying to shoot down Gabors Mods, because I won't do that and have never done anything like that. I think he is a very decent guy really, and I think he should be able to move forward with Mods.


What bothers me is when I find my shot posted next to a shot that claims to be High Bandwidth, when I can easily dispute that...




Here are a few things that are always common when you properly address 1920X1080P 60/72hz:


- if the bandwidth is good, you will see clear and abundant WHITES - look at the white in the pictures on the wall in the shot. Look at how the white shows clean and clear. One of the things about bandwidth performance is when it really honers the bandwidth, it will produce PERFECT Black and Whites.


- Colors, regardless of what the original source is, better bandwidth performance will also produce better colors.


- Texture, and the reason why I don't use enhancements. Because any enhancement is distortion. 



- Brilliance, or brightness in and between the scenes. Weak bandwidth puts a darker haze over the image. That was what I was pointing out in that first scene DJ posted, that was very weak in brilliance.


Bottom line, if the image lacks pure whites, the video chain is not handling the bandwidth properly. The weak or muted whites is the most obvious rule to determine if the image has good bandwidth performance. 



I think we should stop the challenging all together. Just state what you have and be happy with it, and there should be no need to make someone else work look bad in comparison. There are a lot of digital images I can make look bad or CRT images the same. But it would be beneath me to do so.


----------



## nidi

This is the grey scale of my latest Mike Parker Mod at 4.5fl on Screen.

white is not an option


----------



## Dj Dee

mp20748 said:


> DJ, not sure why you can't see what's going on with these shots, or are you just looking the other way. When you know already from everything previously sent to you, that they are enhanced. Yes, this is the same person, just look at how the face is broken up. Or better zoom in on both and you're see it..
> 
> 
> As pointed out before, those shots are in no way from a high bandwidth video chain. And that you already know. Just go back a month or so and look at how many times you yourself have pointed out that their shots are enhanced. They are at the least clever manipulations to represent a high bandwidth setup. Don't forget, this is the same setup that produced that other picture, that I though was a joke.
> 
> 
> Just look at what happens when you click on both, and zoom in. Though mine will expand larger, it still remains intact, while the smaller one is slightly zoomed in, it starts to break up.


They are not. If something added its in the camera used. Just like I tried to show you 100 times now, and I give up trying to explain this to you.


----------



## Dj Dee

nidi said:


> I have been running Gabor's mods for a while now.
> 
> everyone who watched movies at my place was amazed how good and sharp it looks.
> 
> and it's only 200 MHz bandwidth.



I can imagine that its great, after seeing G90 and Cine9 this actually look also great after my CRT preference. But for me to use 72hz and still manages to get it to look like 48Hz that must be really great. What I really mean here is that the BW helps so you get the visuale resolution in 72Hz 1080P. Same as using 1080i or 1080P 48 Hz so the CRTs don't struggle.

You are more than welcome to post some great shots. 

To bad this was not 15 years ago, I would go bananas hehe


----------



## Dj Dee

Mike you might missed my question.

What kind of PC monitor are you using to watch this thread and pictures from then Brand model-number and size?


----------



## ask4me2

mp20748 said:


> - if the bandwidth is good, you will see clear and abundant WHITES - look at the white in the pictures on the wall in the shot. Look at how the white shows clean and clear. One of the things about bandwidth performance is when it really honers the bandwidth, it will produce PERFECT Black and Whites.


Just one question about this. How do we know what PERFECT Black and Whites look like when using a BD movie as source for our pictures?

You do not approve the use of test pictures where we know exactly what perfect black or white is, and you do not calibrate...

We do have and can look at the BD cap. as a reference for some of the screenshot pictures, but do we not also need a calibrated monitor/screen to know what the reference shod look like too... Do you not agree?

I think white in many of your posted screenshots look to blue and there is some black crush too, almost as if the moon is the light source in many of them.

When it comes to removing the black bars from pictures in this thread, i hope the bd caps can be posted with 1920x1080 resolution so they can be used directly in the BD player...

hope we can evaluate the pictures like this.

G90 

RS520

BD cap.


----------



## mp20748

nidi said:


> This is the grey scale of my latest Mike Parker Mod at 4.5fl on Screen.
> 
> white is not an option





Yeah, I remember a graph like that being reported after the mods left your house that time. And after you had your calibrator setup your projector, and how happy and pleased you were with the results. But then I had a visit from someone who removed your boards and then from their location generator an odd graph. My concern on that was that your calibrator did not notice anything wrong as he did when there was a problem with the blue neck board that was fixed and he confirmed that afterwards. Now the various times I reached out to you, you wee still content. All until a person came to visit and wanted to take your boards with them. It still puzzles me that the calibrator, who we all know was and is a top notch guy in the field, was VERY pleased with what was on your screen, to later find out from someone you and I both know, totally disagrees with everything I do..


OK, and so with your setup being so sharp, post a few shots and let us see what it looks like. I still have the PM from Curt's site where your comment after your calibrator setup your projector with my mods in it: "Lots of sharpness" is what you wrote, and I also have what you said your calibrator thought of the mods. 



Anyway, I'm glad you're happy. That's all that matters...


----------



## ask4me2

mp20748 said:


> Yeah, I remember a graph like that being reported after the mods left your house that time. And after you had your calibrator setup your projector, and how happy and pleased you were with the results. But then I had a visit from someone who removed your boards and then from their location generator an odd graph. My concern on that was that your calibrator did not notice anything wrong as he did when there was a problem with the blue neck board that was fixed and he confirmed that afterwards. Now the various times I reached out to you, you wee still content. All until a person came to visit and wanted to take your boards with them. It still puzzles me that the calibrator, who we all know was and is a top notch guy in the field, was VERY pleased with what was on your screen, to later find out from someone you and I both know, totally disagrees with everything I do..
> 
> 
> OK, and so with your setup being so sharp, post a few shots and let us see what it looks like. I still have the PM from Curt's site where your comment after your calibrator setup your projector with my mods in it: "Lots of sharpness" is what you wrote, and I also have what you said your calibrator thought of the mods.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, I'm glad you're happy. That's all that matters...


It is a little hard to follow and know what is true and not true in this particular case. Think it is better to post screenshot pictures from both digital and CRT and let them speak for them self, not dig up all this old dirt about all the bad CRT mods out there..


----------



## Dj Dee

True lets get back to topic. Remember to cut away black bars and fun if more can participate. 
I have to say that I got shocked just what a filter could do to my old JVC X500. If someone sees this how it is, I be shocked if even one said it look bad or did not like it in real.

Same about the Gabor modded Marquee that I got pictures from. 

This can be a interesting shot, also hard to capture so much details in black and white together. Use the screencap, so everyone have the same source material. Remember to cut away black bars. 
Remember to download in 1920x1080


----------



## mp20748

Different camera


----------



## Dj Dee

Here a little screenshot war.
Many different cameras
1. JVC X500 E-shift off.

2- Marquee Gabors modifications

3. Sony VW270

4.Marquee MP


Screencap


----------



## Per Johnny

From the 4 pictures above, I actually like the Marqee Gabor the most. I want name the worst among them because it is quite obivous to everyone I think.

Edit: After looking more. Some sharpening processing is added to the Gabor picture, either by camera or source.


----------



## mp20748

Per Johnny said:


> From the 4 pictures above, I actually like the Marqee Gabor the most. I want name the worst among them because it is quite obivous to everyone I think.



DJ is back to doing his thing again and it's getting to be more obvious..lol




1 - my shot going from a 97kb file to a 52KB file.. 



2 - look at the left wall and check out the noise (added)..


3 - why is Gabor's shot darker thqan the other three when the projector is calibrated..


4 - look at the larger picture on the left rear wall and check out the purity in the WHITE that goes around the edge of the picture..


5 - Now let's see what happens when I also SHARPEN the image using the CROP software. Pay close attention to the previous things mentioned (1 -4)..


Before Sharpened:



After Sharpening:





Shots were also slightly defocused last night before posting..


----------



## Dj Dee

I recommend you to get another camera Mike, your picture compared to the rest look strange.

And you still don't understand how to download the picture correct i'll understand.


----------



## Dj Dee

I will say here that the Sony and the Marquee picture don't have much difference in the picture, actually look like the CRT picture is sharper in details. So I guess adjusted to preferences compared to the CRT. The Jvc *picture* look more natural sharp to the screencap on my monitor, and actually look less processed than the others. But this is *only differences in the cameras*. I have to say that I like the screencap here bestl, even if it look some boring. Would be fun to have all on the same screen and camera present . adjusted equal. But a nice picture war


----------



## mp20748

Dj Dee said:


> I recommend you to get another camera Mike, your picture compared to the rest look strange.
> 
> And you still don't understand how to download the picture correct i'll understand.



Ok, but I would also recommend that you stop altering other peoples shots and be mindful that I also know how you did that (same software).


And would learn that's it's real easy for certain people to be able to detect when shots have been altered. How many times have I mentioned that I've seen it all over the years. And for you to have been a round a little while, it's shocking that you're still using old image manipulation tricks..


I must say how bold it was of you to down rez my image from 97KB to 52KB..





.


----------



## Dj Dee

Why don't you use the Canon power shot Mike? That is your best camera with the least distortion.
What kind of PC monitor are you evaluate the pictures on ?

And finally you still don't understand how to download correct.


----------



## mp20748

Dj Dee said:


> Why don't you use the Canon power shot Mike? That is your best camera with the least distortion.
> What kind of PC monitor are you evaluate the pictures on ?



DJ, if this was that important to me I would take a few minutes and better dial things in. Plus there is just too much image manipulation going on here. Don't forget that same shot I pointed out to you from the digital projector, I saw where you posted that PJ sent you a message also saying it was not a good image:






Dj Dee said:


> But you see also like you wrote to me that the first X500 picture was not good. The filter in front of the lens did stuff that did not look good....



And we know that was not a filter problem. You have a tendency to sharpen the images, as well, you have also been degrading them. This is not something you can continue to hide. 



But this will all come out in the wash, as you continue to promote what Kurt send you. And outside of Kurt, no one with those mods will post a shot from their projector here. that's NOT going to happen, though I'm sure Kurt will send them a shot to post, but based on what I've been hearing and is obvious. The Gabor mods still has a way to go. Just remember for a moment maybe a few month or less ago when Kurt was posting from the same Mods in his projector. Think about your findings when you kept pointing out that he was using sharpening. What do you think has happened since then?


Kurt's concealed presence here is enough for me to not post, and or to ask AVS why they are allowing it to happen. And I'm sure I can give them more reasons for it to not happen. But I'd rather for now let you guys continue, and peep in on the show from time to time and see how long it's going to take before there is a big blow up between your all. Which is a common practice with this guy and it'll always happen when things don't go his way. I'll start marking the calendar to see how long this thread will continue between the two sides without discord. With you sharpening and Kurt also sharpening, where would this all lead to one day.


So count me out.. I'll much rather watch this Reality Show and see what happens next. And simply ask you to think about how many times in the past has there been a blow up between you and Kurt, or do you think things have changed..


Dude, I have medical documentation that goes back to 2015, when a medical team put me on a new medication that literally changed my life. And it was confirmed last Monday that I have been permanently disabled as a result. During that time and some time after I had been thrashed, insulted, lied on and had become a victim of a heinous crime. And here there is a thread were the victimize is riding in an invisible vehicle on a forum where he is banned and maybe have been banned more than 50 times.


Never-mind guys, I rather move on..


.


----------



## Dj Dee

Is really better that you move on. 

This last post from you, when writing old fun here, that is not relevant anymore in 2019  also have nothing to do in this thread and you should delete it ...
I delete this post when done.


----------



## ask4me2

mp20748 said:


> Ok, but I would also recommend that you stop altering other peoples shots and be mindful that I also know how you did that (same software).
> 
> 
> And would learn that's it's real easy for certain people to be able to detect when shots have been altered. How many times have I mentioned that I've seen it all over the years. And for you to have been a round a little while, it's shocking that you're still using old image manipulation tricks..
> 
> 
> I must say how bold it was of you to down rez my image from 97KB to 52KB..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


Please explain what you know about that picture altering process and what Dj Dee is doing with that software you also are using.

I also wold like to know where you get these 97KB and 52KB file sizes from.


----------



## Mike Lang

No more. You guys need to find a new site. Keep it up here and you'll all be removed permanently.


----------

