my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » Does DLP chip size have an impact on image quality? (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Does DLP chip size have an impact on image quality? Jon Augustyn Film Handler Posts: 3 From: Cary, NC, US Registered: May 2013 posted 06-13-2013 02:36 PM                    Putting aside 4k and light output, do the larger chips offer better image quality? 1.2 > .98 > 0.69 ? For example, on a 20' wide screen would a Barco DP2K-12C look better than a Barco 2K-10sx? Or maybe a better example, would the DP2K-19B look better than the DP2K-19C?  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 06-13-2013 03:20 PM                     Definitely existing 0.69" machines have a somewhat lower contrast ratio. Wether that is due to the chipset itself or compromises that had to be made to increase light output, I don't know. Other than that, I think you won't realize actual image quality differences between DLPs. Lenses, contrast, MTF, sure there are measurable differences, but from the patrons seats, I don't think you will see noticeable differences. My personal criteria would be light efficiency/cost ratio (->1.2") or portability/lowest entry cost (S2k). With the advent of S2k machines, the 0.98" systems are at an even less attractive pricepoint than before. - Carsten  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 06-13-2013 06:51 PM                     From an installation standpoint...I've noted that the 1.2" machines almost always have a more crisp image (very noticeable with test patterns).  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 06-13-2013 09:30 PM                     I'm with Steve, the 1.2 inch chips found in Barco B series and Christie 2220/2230 machines put out a better image than the 0.98" chips. I haven't done much testing with the 0.69" chips yet. Still what makes more of a difference to me is a quality lens. Christie uses exclusively Minolta lenses, whereas Barco does not. So if you put up for example a Barco with one of their off-brand lenses (Fujinon, Infocus, etc) against a Christie where you are guaranteed a Minolta lens, the Christie will win hands down. With Barco only a few select lens sizes are available for Mintolas, and their B lens mount is a joke, inducing vibrations that effectively cut down the resolvable resolution, so again Christie's image quality wins again.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 06-13-2013 11:51 PM                     Thus, we're talking about the results of the presentation - like with audio: one can have the snazziest setup ever constructed, but you'd better get speakers to match the source. Thus, it can look like what audiophiles do: work backwards with speakers first then the system to match. Can this make NEC, BARCO, SONY and others be 2nd rate in presentation to Christie due to Christie uses the Minolta lens sets?  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 06-14-2013 03:42 AM                     For the most part,NEC uses Minolta too.  |  IP: Logged Marcel Birgelen Film God Posts: 3357 From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands Registered: Feb 2012 posted 06-14-2013 04:10 AM                     Shouldn't a larger chip size also reduce the screen door effect, at least if you compare two chips of equal resolution?  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 06-14-2013 05:15 AM                     That only works for the 0.98" vs. 1.2" relation - and that is why 1.2" is brighter and has slightly more contrast. AFAIK the 0.69" 2k and 1.38" 4k DLPs are based on the same production method and have identical pixel measures. The 'relative' screen-door of the the 4k is 'smaller' than that of the 1.2" 2k, and that is also why the 0.69" have an even smaller screendoor, hence less light efficiency. Same basically for 4k 1.38" , but as far as brightness is concerned that is counteracted by the larger target/Xenon efficiency. And the reason why xenon is not the optimal choice for the small 0.69" imagers. I have heard people saying that after an upgrade of their 2k DLPs to 4k light engines, the image had slighty less punch. BUT - a very sharp lens also reproduces the DLP screen door/pixelshape more exactly and introduces less 'optical smoothing'. A DLP pixel is not just a 'dot', but a complex square shape with spacing inbetween, all of these features show their own interaction with the screen perforation, depending on the projected size of the pixels. I thus feel that 1.2" 2k DLPs produce more pronounced moire artifacts with typical screen perforations. Which is bad because moire is the only image artifact left in an otherwise perfect digital presentation. Different quality lenses of course, for 0.69", 0.98", 1.2" and 1.38" (same as 1.2", but new high contrast lenses should be used for 4k) also do have an effect. - Carsten  |  IP: Logged Frederick Lanoy Film Handler Posts: 88 From: North of France Registered: Aug 2009 posted 06-14-2013 05:20 AM                     I agree with Brad and Steve. We have changed a DP2K20C for a DP2K23B to get more light on a 3 D screen. The image looks sharper and i have the feeling that the contrast ratio is also better. Yet i don't really have an explanation for the last point.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 06-14-2013 06:00 AM                     As I understand it...the .69" chips are based on taking the 4K chip design and cutting it into 1/4s so it should have similar issues as the 4K chips (4K generally has a lower contrast ratio and less "purity" on color). As for xenon and .69 and light...it is all about the size of the "point-source" for the light and the aperture you are trying to get through. The smaller the aperture, the smaller the light source has to be for efficiency. Morie is a bit more complex than some are making it out. Things that make it more pronounced are when the perforation size in the screen is on par with the pixel size. as the grids line up...Tiger-stripes develop. Since the screen grid size is based on the manufacturer's material and not screen size, it is all about the magnification of the image (larger screens will have larger pixels but the same size perforations...smaller screens will have smaller pixels but the same perforations). As for digital's "perfect" picture...please...just stop with that nonsense. Ever seen a credit scroll? How about any diagonal line? Or SXRD trying to reproduce green? And the list goes on. Morie is just a common problem that most have been frustrated with, to some degree.  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 06-14-2013 06:40 AM                     Steve, I'm not watching movies for credit scrolls ;-) From a normal viewing distance, single line aliasing is hardly visible, but moire can be visible even from the back seats, and it can be quite annoying. - Carsten  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 06-14-2013 02:05 PM                     quote: Steve Guttag As for digital's "perfect" picture...please...just stop with that nonsense Kinda shows that analog wins again, but who really cares?  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 06-14-2013 02:27 PM                     I didn't say analog wins...I merely point out that most every technology has its up and downs and digital is almost never perfect...for most things, it is an approximation. Its speed/datapath...etc. allow it to to better or worse.  |  IP: Logged Aaron Garman Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1470 From: Toledo, OH USA Registered: Mar 2003 posted 06-14-2013 02:35 PM                     But HD-DVD was PERFECT! It says so right on the disc!!! Toshiba wouldn't bullshit us! AJG  |  IP: Logged Jack Ondracek Film God Posts: 2348 From: Port Orchard, WA, USA Registered: Oct 2002 posted 06-14-2013 09:02 PM                        I wonder what baseline tests might be available to fairly evaluate lenses. With all due respect, I'm pretty happy with the results of my Barco "off-brand" lenses, and with nearly a 500-foot throw, I detect no vibrations that might reduce resolution. I've seen the Christie output in a large screen application, and I'm not sure there's that much of a detectable difference. For all I can tell, you could chalk up a certain variance to installation & calibration quality. I'm all for brand preference, and I have my favorites, but I'm not sure that merely being "not Minolta" is a particularly fair proclamation against Barco.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.