High resolution but low contrast? What then determines a good/great projector?

[remember]

I wanted to ask a general question about determining the quality of all-round images from projectors, but didn't know where to ask it.

I was looking at a Barco projector and noticed it's one of the 1080 x 1920 resolutions but it's contrast was only 800! I was and am still considering buying a projector from China with a higher contrast than that.

But my question is, if the contrast is obviously not a must have feature for a good projector, at least as far as the price for the Barco projectors is concerned, then what is it, that determines a good or even great projector?

Perhaps it is the high lumens this Barco model had of 6000 ?

The Sony VPL VW100 I also wanted only had 1200 lumens, but a contrast of up to 15,000. . .

So what is it that determines the great or not so great viewing quality of a projector? Is it just the resolution? because both the above mentioned Barco and Sony projectors ask a very high price and and only seem to have high resolution in common. Any explanation would be very appreciated. Thanks.

[Chris D]

Much more than just resolution. In the past several years, you could find 720p projectors for $2000 and $14,000 simultaneously. Were the $14k ones really seven times better? Probably not. Right now, you still can find 720p projectors that are more expensive than 1080p.

Yes, brightness, vivid colors, and ability to display blacks are also very telling.

[Brandon B]

Contrast is important, and you can do a lot better than 800:1 even with 6000 lumens.

Tell us what you are looking for, screen size, light control, seating distance, and of course budget.

BB

[Dean McManis]

Often business class projectors sacrifice contrast and color fidelity for brightness because they are geared to display on large screens with less than pitch black room lighting conditions.

But that's a different market than the home theater market.

1200 Lumens is more than enough for a normal sized big screen with decent room light control. As far as contrast goes, 800:1 is indeed pretty low for today's newer projectors, but it's not so certain that there is a huge improvement in black level and picture quality between say 3000:1 and 15,000:1 contrast in real life.

This is why it's so valuable to actually see and compare projectors in person when possible, as the specs are not as definitive as the numbers portray proportionally.

-Dean.

[draganm]

to me a good picture needs the following criteria
at least 1000 lums
at least 720P capable
more than 20,000:1 CR
Absolutley NO pixles, screen door, dithering, macro-blocking, Rainbows or Leperchaun's. Oh heck, you guys know where i'm going with this don't ya? :W

[Brandon B]

at least 1000 lums

You getting that out of your three eyed monster? Or do you have a stack and it slipped my mind?

BB

[draganm]

You getting that out of your three eyed monster? Or do you have a stack and it slipped my mind?

BB

no I still run my 8" CRT and you certainly don't need to stack to get 1000 lums peak-white. My 8500 is actually rated at 1200 lums peak (225 ANSI) . While this isn't the eye-ball searing output of a bulb machine I find it is plenty bright . With a true dynamic range from full black (0-IRE) to 1200 peak is more than enough for a pleasing experience on a reasonably sized screen < 8' wide.

[Brandon B]

Ah, peak white. I thought you meant 1000 ANSI.

Remember's post was dealing with ANSI lumens, he might not be satisfied with something in the few hundred range. Especially if he was looking at 6000 lumen Barco's.

BB

[Dean McManis]

to me a good picture needs the following criteria
at least 1000 lums
at least 720P capable
more than 20,000:1 CR
Absolutley NO pixles, screen door, dithering, macro-blocking, Rainbows or Leperchaun's. Oh heck, you guys know where i'm going with this don't ya? :W

So we are talking about theoretical contrast and lumens here?

The two illusions of CRT projectors are perfect contrast/black level and the real-world difference between addressable resolution and resolvable resolution.

I certainly won't deny that CRT displays have very good contrast and black level (when they have been set up well), but the two CRT FPTVs and CRT RPTV that I owned, plus most others that I've seen are not necessarily any better to my eyes than the better digital projectors out today.
Meaning around 3000:1+ contrast and comparable blacks.

Rainbows are certainly a fact, but a distorted one. With older DLP projectors using 1X color wheels, it was fairly easy to shake your head violently during some movies and see rainbows.
And in the same way that some people are extra sensitive to low refresh rates on CRT monitors, and can see the flicker in flourescent lights, a small percentage of people would be truly bothered with the rainbows that some of the older DLP designs could produce.

But now with the advances in faster/duplicated color wheels, only the super sensitive viewers can spot rainbows anymore. And the other 95% have no problems with DLP FPTVs.

Studying resolvable resolution of CRT FPTVs, it becomes clear that many of the CRT displays (RPTVs especially) are actually resolving less than 720p in reality.

I understand that CRT displays are mature in their field (meaning that they are well developed over decades and not going through growing pains of newer display technologies). But it has actually been several years now since many of the CRT display's best attributes have been met or exceeded by lighter, smaller, simpler, lower maintenance digital displays, especially now that resolvable resolution has now surpassed 99% of the CRT FPTVs/RPTVs out there with the native 1080p units coming out.

Like record players, CRT FPTVs can be a great opportunity for enthusiasts who value the technology's attributes, and are willing to overlook the many inherent drawbacks.

I'm not putting down high resolution CRT displays, I was happy to own mine, and at the time I felt that it was well worth living with the flaws for the great quality picture. But it was by looking at the edge-to-edge clarity of a digital projector with a mere 800:1 contrast that drew me to move to digital display technologies over 4 years ago. And the strides made in contrast, black level, color fidelity, gray scale reproduction, etc... have shown it to be a wise move, at least for me.

Plus at some point it's valuable to get beyond the details (tiny flaws) of the display technologies and simply enjoy watching movies and broadcast media.
But then again I'm just not as much of a tweaker as I used to be, mostly due to time contraints and shifted priorities. :B

[George Bellefontaine]

Well put, Dean.

Speaking of rainbows. When I first got my NEC HT1000 dlp I did see them on occasion on certain material, but that only lasted for a few weeks. In the past three years I can count on one hand the amount of times I've seen color flashes in any scene, under any condition.

As far as contrast goes, the NEC was in my theater the same time I owned a crt FP and I noticed little difference between the two in that regard. I love how easy it is to set up and maintain digital projectors, and their small size is really great, too.

[draganm]

I certainly won't deny that CRT displays have very good contrast and black level (when they have been set up well), but the two CRT FPTVs and CRT RPTV that I owned, plus most others that I've seen are not necessarily any better to my eyes than the better digital projectors out today.
Meaning around 3000:1+ contrast and comparable blacks.

3000:1? You're joking right? You would have to have a seriously screwed up room with White walls and sunlight streaming in to get that low with any CRT.As far as only truly resolving 720P that's baloney too. There have been numerous posts, some from Engineers at VDC Florida, showing fully resolved 1080P test patterns from even an 8" CRT projector.

[Dean McManis]

3000:1? You're joking right? You would have to have a seriously screwed up room with White walls and sunlight streaming in to get that low with any CRT.As far as only truly resolving 720P that's baloney too. There have been numerous posts, some from Engineers at VDC Florida, showing fully resolved 1080P test patterns from even an 8" CRT projector.

You know, I haven't actually spent any time trying to measure the contrast of CRT projectors. My point was that most of the better setup CRT projectors that I've seen have around the same contrast and black level as digital projectors that are rated at 3000:1 contrast. The actual specs mean far less to me than my eyes do.

As far as actual resolvable resolution goes, again I don't need some tweaking engineers (I'm and engineer by the way) who can carefully setup one projector to get outstanding numbers. Most CRT ratings are calculated at the lowest light levels, and once you crank up the brightness and contrast enough to get a watchable picture on a big screen, the actual resolution drops substantially. :E

Remember that I'm not talking about a lab setting, I actually owned a 7" CRT Electrohome, and 9" CRT Sony FPTV for years. And of course I have had many HT friends with CRT displays, and we have done tons of tweaking to optimize the picture quality of their and my projectors at get togethers over the years.

The optics are a chief limitiation on many units, and the ability to get the spot size focused enough takes a LOT of calibration effort (often with the case off of the unit), and then simply hooking up a PC and trying to get edge-to-edge clarity on a one-pixel-wide line at 1280 X 1024 resolution will show how difficult it is to pull 720p from a 7" CRT on a screen larger than 84".
Of course digital display owners don't have this brightness/contrast vs. resolution choice to make.

And that's not talking about CRT rear projectors that project onto a lenticular screen that often severely reduces actual resolution to way below the manufacturer's ratings.

No technology is perfect, and I'll readily admit that different digital display technologies each have their own flaws as well. But knowing both worlds well, I'm glad that I moved on from CRT RPTVs and FPTVs in the same way that I'm glad that I retired my record player and record collection years ago in favor of CDs and MP3s. :T

[draganm]

As far as actual resolvable resolution goes, again I don't need some tweaking engineers (I'm and engineer by the way) who can carefully setup one projector to get outstanding numbers. Most CRT ratings are calculated at the lowest light levels, and once you crank up the brightness and contrast enough to get a watchable picture on a big screen, the actual resolution drops substantially. :E

Well when you bought your Viper did you look at the 12 second quarter milke times and think "that's a factory tuned car on a test track, I bet it will be a Dog straight off the showroom?" :lol:
It is true that a stock CRT set-up by a novice will most likely not resolve 1080P, but the potential is there. The fact that developments over the last 4 years in the speed and accuracy of the analog video chain have made 1080P full possible on even 8" sets like my 8500 is very exciting (at least I think so) . It is just nice that people have a choice other than plopping down $4K or or $5K on a Sony Pearl (which I believe has not proven itself yet and will still have substantial bulb operating costs associated with it)

Remember that I'm not talking about a lab setting, I actually owned a 7" CRT Electrohome, and 9" CRT Sony FPTV for years. And of course I have had many HT friends with CRT displays, and we have done tons of tweaking to optimize the picture quality of their and my projectors at get togethers over the years.The optics are a chief limitiation on many units, and the ability to get the spot size focused enough takes a LOT of calibration effort (often with the case off of the unit), and then simply hooking up a PC and trying to get edge-to-edge clarity on a one-pixel-wide line at 1280 X 1024 resolution will show how difficult it is to pull 720p from a 7" CRT on a screen larger than 84".
Of course digital display owners don't have this brightness/contrast vs. resolution choice to make.

well my HT is certainly not a lab either and I'm not an engineer, but I can fully resolve 960P with scan lines plainly visible at 4:3 raster (less if squeezed to 16:9). I also do not have to push light output to blooming to have an enjoyable pic on a 91" wide screen. I'm resolving 960P at slightly above default Contrast of 60%. So to say 720P is a stretch for a CRT is just not fair.
BTW, I just ordered 3 new vinly records last week from Acoustic sounds so it's obvious we will never agree on this topic of Analog/digital debate.

[Dean McManis]

I don't know about any great advances in CRT technology over the last 4 years. It was already a mature industry, with much of the fundamentals worked out decades ago.

It's true that a newbie driver will have to practice to get a Viper down to low 12s (and perhaps 11s), but conversely I seriously doubt that most CRTs are going to have even a converged picture out of the box, far from resolving 720p, let alone 1080p.
It's true that you need a LOT of tweaking to get the best out of a CRT FPTV, and that's fine for someone with the time and passion for the task.
I personally know that the results can be rewarding for the work. But not for everyone.

I didn't say that no CRT FPTVs can resolve 720p, just that many 7" CRTs can't, and most CRTs can't resolve close to 1080p resolution with a decently bright picture on a big screen.

Alternately, you can get a nice 720p capable digital projector with excellent color, clarity and contrast like the Infocus SP5000 ( a FPTV that I used to own) for about $900 new now. :T

Which is about the same cost as a single Electrohome CRT replacement tube. ops: Or a good CRT ISF calibration. My used Electrohome FPTV needed a replacement board after I owned it 5 months, and if my projector wasn't (fortunately) covered under the seller's warranty it would have cost me $1480 to replace, plus the diagnostic costs. That's about 10 years of replacement bulbs on a digital FPTV.

If you are running 60% contrast and alternating between 4:3 and 16:9 raster sizes on a 91" wide screen, watch out for network bugs and bright movies as you might be shopping for that replacement CRT sooner than you think. :E

But also having a passion for vinyl records (on top of CRT FPTVs) says more than I can about your commitment to analog technologies.

Enjoy them both. 8)

My next replacement FPTV will most likely be a DLP model, with LEDs as it's light source (no bulbs, cooler and quieter, accurate color, and no color wheel), and be 1080p native, about 2000 lumens, with a great built-in scaler, and 10,000:1+ contrast, and probably cost less than $2500, hopefully all of that will be coming together in about a year's time.

Which I'm guessing will be about the same timeframe that the 1080p DVD media war takes to get sorted out. :W

[draganm]

I don't know about any great advances in CRT technology over the last 4 years. It was already a mature industry, with much of the fundamentals worked out decades ago.

decades ago? EM focus was the last major breakthrough and that wasn't instroduced until 95 , whci is 1 decade ago. Do you you really think though that VDC Florida has been cranking out the same old CRT for the last 5 years since they acquired the line? The chassis has been under constant development, and the same advances that have made computer's more powerful have also made the CRT more advanced, faster chips, DAC's, etc.The advances I'm talking about though are from private individual efforts. The 1080P test pattern I posted is from a 7 year old Marquee with modded Video chain.

The basics of modern TVs have been set in stone for decades, and having no major improvements in 10 years is an eternity for consumer electronics.

CRT FPTVs are heading down the same road as record players. How many advances have been made in record players recently. How many were needed? CRT FPTVs are like private airplanes in that they used to cost a BAG of money new, and now mostly only older used models and refurbished ones are still available to today's buyers. And as the market diminishes even further, skilled repair people and parts will become more and MORE expensive and harder to find.

I didn't say that no CRT FPTVs can resolve 720p, just that many 7" CRTs can't, and most CRTs can't resolve close to 1080p resolution with a decently bright picture on a big screen.Alternately, you can get a nice 720p capable digital projector with excellent color, clarity and contrast like the Infocus SP5000 ( a FPTV that I used to own) for about $900 new now. :T Which is about the same cost as a single Electrohome CRT replacement tube. ops:

Well I wouldn't want a $900 720P DLP, not even for half that price. however the rise of those machines have made CRT's I could never afford even 3 years ago within my reach, so I do appreciate them in that regard.

The Infocus SP5000 is a LCD FPTV, and you shouldn't put it down unless you have actually seen the quality of the picture. All from the price of a decent 32" tube TV from a couple years ago. :E

My used Electrohome FPTV needed a replacement board after I owned it 5 months, and if my projector wasn't (fortunately) covered under the seller's warranty it would have cost me $1480 to replace, plus the diagnostic costs. That's about 10 years of replacement bulbs on a digital FPTV.

like I said those days are gone, not only are 7" machines completely outside the mainstream (even for a CRT hobbyists) but used replacement boards are cheap and plentiful. Although I have not needed any spares for my machine.

Uh Huh, cheap and plentiful. Right. :roll:

They were expensive and rare when new, and for years now replacement electronics boards, power components, and tubes have not been made new for most models.
It's like trying to find a memory card for a 10 year old PS2 computer, or finding parts for a laserdisc player.
Originally they are very expensive when they are sold new, then for a short time (after they are discontinued) the parts are dumped really cheap as people liquidate their inventories and scavenge bits from older machines, then after a few more years you can't find the replacement parts for the older technology at nearly any price, and it becomes cheaper to just buy another used model instead of fixing your broken one. ops:

Let alone trying to find a low cost, quality external scaler. Or trying to find an affordable HDMI-to-RGB converter to be able to connect up to all of the new HD-DVRs, HD-DVD players, etc..

My next replacement FPTV will most likely be a DLP model, with LEDs as it's light source (no bulbs, cooler and quieter, accurate color, and no color wheel), and be 1080p native, about 2000 lumens, with a great built-in scaler, and 10,000:1+ contrast, and probably cost less than $2500, hopefully all of that will be coming together in about a year's time.
Which I'm guessing will be about the same timeframe that the 1080p DVD media war takes to get sorted out. :W

well that sounds good to me too but it also sounds a lot like the promises of laser projection we've been hearing for the last decade. At this time CRT FP remains the best bang for the buck

Two new 1080p DLP RPTVs are already using LEDs for their light sources, and my dream projector's brightness, resolution, scaler, and contrast are already coming out in today's new models or will be out very soon, with the $2500 price point being the only last element left before I pull the trigger and buy my next digital FPTV.

And with 720P native digital projectors going down from $15,000 to under $1K in just 2 years, plus new 1080p native digital projectors going from $120,000 to $4,000 in the 5 years time, clearly shows that my dream projector is coming out at my price point sooner than you might guess. 8)

And having a new, $2500, relatively tiny, lightweight, nearly silent, minimal maintenance, 1080p native digital projector that can truly compete well against the very best $60K CRT FPTVs ever built (in ALL respects) will make it the best bang for the bucks HT projector deal ever. ;x(

That is until the next new digital display technology surpasses it again in a few years ($2500 portable Holodeck anyone?).

[Dean McManis]

Oops, sorry about that Draganm.

I accidentally replied inside your post, under your name. ops:

My apologies.

-Dean.

[George Bellefontaine]

Oops, sorry about that Draganm.

I accidentally replied inside your post, under your name. ops:

My apologies.

-Dean.

I was wondering what was going on there ?

[Brandon B]

Dean is Neo. He can get inside his adversaries! 8O

BB

[Brandon B]

Well, the original poster seems to have tired of this thread and gone over to the large AV forum with his query.

BB

[George Bellefontaine]

Those newbies are so fickle... :P

[draganm]

Those newbies are so fickle... :P

oh I'm sure he's already enjoying his reference system that just got dropped off by the Best Buy truck :lol:
Just Kidding, but to get back on topic, here's an EXCELLENT article which tackles the very tough issue of DLP vs. LCOS vs. CRT. I actually agree with this guy for the most part although he's still basing his prices of CRT from 5 years ago. A fully re-tubed 9500LC from a reputable re-seller is only about $7K now, not $60K. Unfortunately I don't have $7K to blow either

http://www.ultimateavmag.com/images/newsletter/1006uav.html

[Brandon B]

From your link:

You can expect to pay around $2,500 or more for the least expensive, well-reviewed 720p projectors, and an average of $10,000 (some higher, some lower) for more upscale, sophisticated, and feature-rich 1080p designs.

He's just as out of date there, even if it is five months not 5 years.

There are 3 decent 1080P projectors available now or in a month for under $5K, with a bunch more on the way.

BB

[Dean McManis]

I'm just waiting for the new batch of 1080p FPTVs to hit $2500.
Hopefully sometime next year.

[draganm]

more pixels is beter than fewer pixels but they will still have a bulb and using band-aids like Auto Iris to get any CR out of them.
I just spoke to a Ruby owner in CA, actually bought his CRT off him, and he said he leaves the AI off because he can't stand the constantly shifting black pedestal. To him though, the Uber-sharpness of the 1080P chip was a good trade-off for decreased dynamic range.
It just goes to show that even people with lots of experience with AV gear will have different priorities.

[Brandon B]

more pixels is beter than fewer pixels but they will still have a bulb and using band-aids like Auto Iris to get any CR out of them.

The new JVC due out in January has 10,000:1 native with no iris. But yeah, it's got a bulb.

BB

[George Bellefontaine]

But yeah, it's got a bulb.
BB

Curses ...how can we ever live with that ??? :E

[Dean McManis]

Yeah, the bulb cost is not a big issue for me. At maybe $150 a year it's less than 1/4 the cost that I pay for DSS service. $12 a month is hardly crippling.

I just went to a movie theater tonight (The Prestige) and I noticed that the contrast, and black level of film is pretty comparable to what I'm seeing at home. Without any auto-iris. And I'm quite happy with that level of picture quality.

[Brandon B]

I'm still living with a PLV70 and about 650:1, so I am kind of hot to upgrade. THe problem is I am living with about 50 ftL and don't want to give that (all) up.

BB

[draganm]

One of the biggest problems I have with commercial film-screens is it just doesn't compare to my HT , not in sharpness or black-level. Even other factors like color fidelty suffer on some screens when blown up too big, although IMAX is an execption in this regard and looked really good for Return of the King.
SW3 Revenge of the Sith was a real disapointment, I kept wondering at the end why Darth Vader was actually Gray?

[Brandon B]

Sad fact is 99% of the commercial theaters are crap. In some areas of the country, it's probably 100%.

I won't even go to the theater in the area I live. I will go down into L.A. to see some things (like Revenge of the Sith). Saw that on 2 different digital 2K systems where it looked quite good. On the better one, their Qvis system froze during my first attempt to see it there so I saw it in their 25mm rig also, and then saw it on the digital 2 days later. Interesting chnace to see it with a close A/B for film vs. digital, really highlighted the differences in the two technologies as they stood last year. Digital has moved forward in the last year though.

BB

[Dean McManis]

I agree that the overall picture quality (and sound) is definitely better at home than our local multiplex theaters. But the big theaters and IMAX theaters still have good picture and sound. Unfortunately with film if you don't catch the movie early in it's release the print often gets scuffed with scratches, and debris. Plus judder issues.

This is why I usually prefer the theatrical DLP movie presentations to film.
But then again I can get a comperable presentation at home with a HD source, and ironically even with scaled DVDs.

But I still judge pristine film as the ultimate movie presentation medium, despite not having perfect blacks in the picture. And I think that it's great that HD digital projector picture quality is so very close to pristine film. But able to be conveniently enjoyed at home.

[Brandon B]

Digital has more over film than just blacks at this point. Seeing the same movie on one then the other (I have also gotten to do this at an industry screning facility in Hollywood), you can see other things.

Digital pros:

Even on a well maintained good film system, there is a little movement of the film frame giving a little jumpiness to the picture that you don't really notice until you see it go away. A digital picture is just steadier. Contrast, as you say, and correspondingly black level. Immunity to print degradation.

Film pros:

One thing I focus on in Star Wars movies is the ship designs an details. Even the newest 2K D-cinema DLPS suffer from temporal dithering detail breakup on fast pans or fast moving objects within the material. This was very apparent in this movie. On te film version I wa just able to see more detail in any area with fast movement. Color. Film just still has a better color gamut than DLP, although this area is closing rapidly. Resolution. I sit pretty close. 10th row at my favorite theater, which has a 65 foot screen. When D-cinema goes 4K, I may change my mind on this, but I still give the detail advantage to film.

BB

[Dean McManis]

I do know just what you are talking about. I have seen those issues with the early DLP projection systems. The digital presentations of Star Wars did have some problems with panning, and they didn't have enough resolution to support a 65 foot wide picture when viewed from the first 3rd of the seating.

But on a smaller 45' wide screen and when watching from mid-way back in the seating the digital presentation often looks better than most film, with the difference being more pronounced depending on how well the film projection equipment is maintained, and how many showings the movie has gotten. I saw EP1 up close digitally with the issues that you described when shown on a huge screen, and then again later when viewed from the back of the same theater, and the difference in percieved quality was day-and-night. :E

I had seen Toy Story 2 twice in a digital theater, and once in a multi-plex near the ending of the movie's run. The digital presentation had vibrant colors, and a steady image that felt unreal to experience in a movie theater. And the picture quality in the digital presentation was exactly the same with the 10,000th showing as the 1st, whereas if I missed seeing a movie in the first couple weeks, the film version is usually scratched, and often dirty, dramatically altering the colors and overall appearance of the movie.
The poor quality of the multi-plex film showing of TS2 was so bad that it left me longing for simply watching a DVD of the movie at home.

If you haven't seen a digital presentation in the last year, it would be worth it to revisit a digital theater (if they have upgraded their projection system).
I watched Monster House in 3D a couple months ago and I was really surprised at the improved picture quality of the newer digital projectors, and the lack of artifacts that used to be visible in pans and even during end titles. It's definitely moved much closer to pristine film quality.

While I'm not certain about all of the the digital theaters out there now, The newer ones that I've seen have gone up to 1920 X 1024 resolution, 3-chip DLP models, as opposed to the earlier 1280 X 1024, 3-chip DLPs. And they have definitely improved the compression artifacts, along with improved contrast and black levels.

I understand that it's tougher portraying live action movies with digital projection systems, and animated films alone don't tell the whole story about comparative picture quality. But during the trailers of regular movies, the color and clarity was excellent with the new digital projection systems as well.
And this was on a big (60' wide+) screen viewed from halfway back in the theater.

It REALLY got me excited about the prospect of having a native 1080p system at home, and moreover someday perhaps a 3D 1080p projector and movies. :T

[Spanky Ham]

As far as actual resolvable resolution goes, again I don't need some tweaking engineers (I'm and engineer by the way) who can carefully setup one projector to get outstanding numbers. Most CRT ratings are calculated at the lowest light levels, and once you crank up the brightness and contrast enough to get a watchable picture on a big screen, the actual resolution drops substantially. :E

Remember that I'm not talking about a lab setting, I actually owned a 7" CRT Electrohome, and 9" CRT Sony FPTV for years. And of course I have had many HT friends with CRT displays, and we have done tons of tweaking to optimize the picture quality of their and my projectors at get togethers over the years.

The optics are a chief limitiation on many units, and the ability to get the spot size focused enough takes a LOT of calibration effort (often with the case off of the unit), and then simply hooking up a PC and trying to get edge-to-edge clarity on a one-pixel-wide line at 1280 X 1024 resolution will show how difficult it is to pull 720p from a 7" CRT on a screen larger than 84".
Of course digital display owners don't have this brightness/contrast vs. resolution choice to make.

I don't want to belabor this, but since Scott (tse on the other forums) is the engineer in question and someone I consider a friend I will reply. I have been in the VDC lab and seen the test patterns displayed. Darinp from AVS was there once as well for more verification. A 9" CRT pj (in this case a 9500) will easily do 1080p at 60 with more than acceptable brightness as compared to a lot of digital pjs. It can even do 2048x1536. Better electronics and design have allowed this increase in performance, but unfortunately no new chips are or will be designed. This means CRT won't get much if any performance increases. VDC actually makes a tube that can project 1280x1024 in a 1 inch square on the tube face. It would be great if they could exploit the potential of this tube, but again unfortunately they will never get the chance. On the other end, Scott proved that an 8" tube could do 1080p. Some have been able to achieve that res with their Marquee 8500, Sony G70 or Nec 135. Personally, I think 1080p is good for digital but overrated for CRT.

I do agree that digital has become really good really fast. I think most of the digitals today would satisfy almost everyone except those that value different criteria like black level. The new JVC panels look interesting and may give that next leap. When 1080p digitals hits 20k to 1 on/off native, I can see all but the most diehard CRTers switching.

[Brandon B]

If you haven't seen a digital presentation in the last year, it would be worth it to revisit a digital theater (if they have upgraded their projection system). . . .

While I'm not certain about all of the the digital theaters out there now, The newer ones that I've seen have gone up to 1920 X 1024 resolution, 3-chip DLP models, as opposed to the earlier 1280 X 1024, 3-chip DLPs. And they have definitely improved the compression artifacts, along with improved contrast and black levels.

The projector was one of the first deployments of the current generation D-cinema 2048 x 1080 units from Barco, Christie and others. There are no newer better ones just yet.

BB

[Dean McManis]

While it's great that a few intrepid engineers have been able to squeeze a 1080p picture out of the always impressive (and once VERY expensive) Electrohome 9500.
I still seriously doubt that they are going to be lighting up a 1.3 gain, 120" diag screen with any ambient room light at that resolution, or that the measured resolution is edge-to-edge.

I had found that with my Sony FPTV with 9" CRTs could get very sharp images in the exact center of the screen (with extensive tweaking) but the edge focus/clarity was not nearly as good. Plus CRT FPTVs are prone to hotspotting if you use a higher gain screen to raise up the light levels to support a larger screen.
And of course a larger screen is what you need to fully reveal the benefit of high definition resolution when viewed from a reasonable distance.

As far as the D-Cinema projectors go, I could be looking at the next generation units as our local theaters are often a testbed for upcoming digital technologies. All that I can say for certain is that there has been a visible improvement in the picture quality that I've seen over the last year in our local digital cinemas.

[Brandon B]

Understand that Dean. But we actually buy these units so I am pretty familiar with them, and one of the places I see them is an industry test facility not open to the public. The unit I saw SW EpIII is still one of the most current units.

My point is basically that DLP has not obsoleted film completely yet. That's a few years off.

BB