| My 250w Projector with pics, the best results i've seen - Click HERE for Original Thread |
| ancorp |
| wow, you are really trying hard to show off your results.... |
|
|
| bodgy |
| yeh whats goin on, you posted this yesterday lol |
|
|
| dengez |
LMAO
Trying a little bit too hard to show off there buddy. No offense, but there are quite a few projectors on www.lumenlab.com/forums that have better quality than that of your 7" lilliput projector. Not to say that it isn't well built or perform well, but it's annoying when it's posted everyday. There are now three threads about your projector.:whazzat:
dengez |
|
|
| The_Mazta |
Some might be slightly better, but at least i aint got a 20" by 30" box sitting in the middle of my room,
:smash: :smash: :smash: :smash: :smash: :smash: |
|
|
| The_Mazta |
I mean, the bigger you go the easier it is to knock it together, i've searched throught there site before, and cannot really see any difference in the quality, people cant be that smart if they're makin massive boxes, well at least they wont need a coffin when they die aye, i mean look at aces, the 7" projects are by far the best,
cant be beaten in my mind, |
|
|
| Mikey p |
"people cant be that smart if they're makin massive boxes, well at least they wont need a coffin when they die"
What a totally inappropiate comment. Good for you that you are happy with your 7 inch Lilliput. Lots of people are happy with thier true native XGA 15 inch projectors. Now hopefully this thread will die like the rest.
Mikey |
|
|
| The_Mazta |
At the end of the day, i know i'm for one, that i do not want a big ugly box in the middle of my room, when i can make one a lot smaller, and my 7" lilliput XGA does the trick fine, the difference will not be able to bne noticed that much a tall, your talkin about a minimal difference,
and end of the day, if you want a big ugly box in the middle of the room, well good on ya, at least you have somewhere to put your feet up,
:D |
|
|
| ancorp |
| XGA has more than twice the pixels over the lilliput, thus more than a twice sharper image, with more than twice less screen door. Thus with a bright light source, you can have a bigger screen at the same clarity per inch. |
|
|
| ace3000_1 |
| quote: | | XGA has more than twice the pixels over the lilliput, thus more than a twice sharper image, with more than twice less screen door. Thus with a bright light source, you can have a bigger screen at the same clarity per inch. |
Ancorp, have you seen the difference for yourself in person? do you know the dot pitch of the lilliput compared to an xga native lcd?
Trev |
|
|
| Doon1 |
I like it. When I first started looking into DIY projectors the size was a real turn-off. That's why I got an X1. Now I want to build a portable unit that's complete with DVD player and sound. Mind if I incorporate some of your design features in mine?
John |
|
|
| ace3000_1 |
| quote: | | Mind if I incorporate some of your design features in mine? |
Of mine or The Mazdas?
Trev:) |
|
|
| The_Mazta |
| my lilliput is XGA!!!!!! |
|
|
| ace3000_1 |
| quote: | | my lilliput is XGA!!!!!! |
Compressed XGA, 800x480 native.
Trev:) |
|
|
| The_Mazta |
Thanks Trev, i needed some back up, these people love there coffin projectors too much, check aces thread out people, thats a real projector,
There you go ancorp, so i suppose my 7" lilli is **** yea, ???
:devilr: :devilr: :devilr: :devilr: |
|
|
| Doon1 |
100% ****. Small, versatile, well built, great picture. What a big stinking steaming pile. :D
John |
|
|
| bodgy |
| hey mazda, do you know what "Compressed XGA, 800x480 native" means? |
|
|
| ancorp |
sorry not screen door, pixelazation.
I didnt say the lilliput is ****. I would love to have a Lilliput projector, but I cant afford one at the time.
My guess is you dont know what compressed XGA is, 800x480 native.
It means that your lcd is widescreen vga, and the lcd's controller itself has a scaler that will scale resolutions up to XGA to the native. This feature seems useful to me only if you play some strategy games that go down to XGA minimum, or you want more desktop space, but it wont be as clear as native, from what I've seen or retail projectors, it will be quite hard to read small fonts on compressed XGA to native.
That new true XGA lilliput (8" i think...) would be the best choice I think. |
|
|
| ancorp |
| also compressed XGA on a lilliput in games can be an alternative to antializing in 3d graphics (removing jagged edges). I prefer to have my video card do that. |
|
|
| ace3000_1 |
| quote: | | I prefer to have my video card do that. |
Why? it slows your card down.
Trev |
|
|
| ancorp |
| well antializing from 1024x768 to 800x480 would probably take about as much power as running it a 1024x768, and having the lilli do the compression. Its like runnin at 800x480 and having 2x AA on. It doesnt take that much power, and is not that useful. I rather have 1024x768 native on any screen, than having 800x480 with 2AA. |
|
|
| Doon1 |
Yes it does. My X1 has a native reolution of 800x600 but I play all my games at 1024x768 with 2x AA. The image quality is better than 800x600 with 6x AA and I get about a third greater framerate.
John |
|
|
| DavidSWP |
Scaling from true XGA to a lower resolution like with the liliput bears absolutely no resemblance what-so-ever to antialiasing performed by video cards!!!! Antialiasing softens edges and makes pixelisation less apparent among other things. Scaling down resolutions does pretty much the opposite!
Both small box projectors and large box projectors have their place. At the moment big box projectors generally give a better image but that doesn't make them 'better' than small ones, it depends what you want it for. |
|
|
| ace3000_1 |
| quote: | | well antializing from 1024x768 to 800x480 would probably take about as much power as running it a 1024x768, and having the lilli do the compression. |
Huh?, the lilliput is what does the compresion, the controller takes information out of the xga native signal so it can fit on an 800x480 screen scalled to size.
| quote: | | Scaling down resolutions does pretty much the opposite! |
Thats right because your taking informaion out of the image rather then adding it.
| quote: | | Both small box projectors and large box projectors have their place. |
I agree and there is no comparison, we should all be thankful of each others progress no matter how its built rather then to compete.
Trev:) |
|
|
| HiLLBiLLY |
I have been gaming for more years than i care to admiit..when it comes to anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering i have them both turned OFF ... obviously there is slight loss of image quality ..but for gaming when you strive for fps ...its a small sacrifice.
Mazta..your projector is good... be happy with it and enjoy it.
No need to pay out on those that choose a different route than you ie. 15 inch "coffin projectors' as you put it... I think Ace says it best
"I agree and there is no comparison, we should all be thankful of each others progress no matter how its built rather then to compete."
(very "pollitically correct there Trev hehe) p.s show us ya 7'inch lol
What suits one person may not suit another Mazta ... deal with it. and maybe stop shoving your "the best results i have ever seen" down everyones throats. IMO and im sure in many others its wearing a tad thin matey. Just enjoy your projector you have done well :-) |
|
|
| ace3000_1 |
| quote: | | p.s show us ya 7'inch lol |
Sure, its commin matey lol, asoon as i can get this wood!!!
Trev:) |
|
|
| HiLLBiLLY |
hehe ah Trev..but you know it will never be as good as a 15inch...after all..its size that counts not how you use it..lol soz mate couldn't resist that...
Eagerly awaiiting a looksee at ya new projector bud..shall be a ripper :-) |
|
|
| ace3000_1 |
| quote: | | That new true XGA lilliput (8" i think...) would be the best choice I think. |
Heya ancorp, there isnt one, they are compressed also. The closest thing you will find in an 8inch down for a reasonable price is 800x600. Xga at those sizes and down cost $800+ for the lcd alone without the controller.
Trev:) |
|
|
| ancorp |
hmm wow, i do remember someone talking about the "new" lilliput recently with 1024x768..... whatever.
My video card is one of the most powerful cards that still used the old Supersampling method. Example - 1024x768 with 4x AA - its actually running at 2048x1536, and than scales down. That is now replaced by multi-sampling, I belive that it rotates the pixel grid or something like that....
Take a screenshot in 3d at 1024x768 with no AA. Now resize it in photoshop or paintshop or what not (not paint or anyother basic program) to 800x480 or 640x480. The edges look smoother.
I too run games without AA or AF. My card is getting older, and the new games are too graphically advanced for it to use AA and AF too! |
|
|
| ace3000_1 |
| quote: | | Take a screenshot in 3d at 1024x768 with no AA. Now resize it in photoshop or paintshop or what not (not paint or anyother basic program) to 800x480 or 640x480. The edges look smoother. |
Are you doing this with a crt monitor?
Trev:) |
|
|
| ancorp |
| Um, yes, perhaps there is some CRT theory behind that, but when I zoom into the screen shot, the pixels are faded between (for example - a black object's edge on a white background will have some gray pixels around it, but will still have decent sharpness.) This will work for LCD, im sure of that. |
|
|
| ace3000_1 |
Ok, well first of all you cant compare a crt to a lcd, they are working totally different.
I have a puzzle for you. There are 6 squares, ( the o's we will call squares). Try to fit the 15 squares (Fig.2) into the 6 (Fig.1).
OOO Fig.1
OOO
OOOOO Fig.2 (image)
OOOOO
OOOOO
Fig.1 is a 3x2 reso lcd while the Fig.2 is a 15x3 resolution image.
The answer is you cant, unless you take some squares out of Fig.2. Thats exactly how lcd compresion work's. The lcd is a block of pixels, you can only fit so much into that certian sized block, and the way this is done with compresion is by taking data out of an image.
This is why text on the lilliput looses quality being compressed rather then being run nativley.
Trev:) |
|
|
| ace3000_1 |
| quote: | | but when I zoom into the screen shot, the pixels are faded between (for example - a black object's edge on a white background will have some gray pixels around it, but will still have decent sharpness.) This will work for LCD, im sure of that. |
Thats from an option in your imaging program which you can turn on and off and that is called antilising. If you want an example of image antilising i can surley arange one with the difference of the 2.
Trev:) |
|
|
| ancorp |
| from what Ive seen, running on more than native, it blends the pixels together, not takes out some, but I guess that depends on the quality of the controller. |
|
|
| ace3000_1 |
| quote: | | from what Ive seen, running on more than native, it blends the pixels together, |
On a lcd? hardly, it maybe your eyes, run up some text on a lcd and run it compressed, if the text is broken so will be the image.
| quote: | | it blends the pixels together, not takes out some, |
I think you need to realise that the physical size of a pixel cant change size, can you change the size of you finger to fit into a keyhole?
| quote: | | but I guess that depends on the quality of the controller. |
That has somthing to do with it, now your getting on the right track. Most controllers use antilising to make a compressed image look smoother and to enhance colour. Most lcd's are only 18bit native colour, they are enhanced to 24bit via the controller.
Now with that being said, a compressed image looks no where near as clear, sharp, and vibrant as it being run nativley. Just think, the image is pixel perfect, with it compressed, its not and image data is taken out so it fits the sceen size.
Trev:) |
|
|
| ancorp |
Thats not what I meant.
Lets say you have a source of 640x480, but your lcd can only do 320x240, it does 640x480 compressed. On the VGA source, you have 2 black pixels and 2 white pixels forming a square
like so:
:darkside: :darkside:
:clown: :clown:
the controller should blend them together to an even color - gray
Theres your one pixel from the for on the 4 times the higher res source.
:apathic: |
|
|
| ace3000_1 |
| quote: | | Theres your one pixel from the for on the 4 times the higher res source. |
640x480 isnt 4x higher the 320x240, try 2. What your saying is turning an image into a blur. If you mix black with white you get grey yess, but isnt the image suposed to be black and white?
Your trying to change the very meaning of compresion, take a look at mp3 music compresion, data is taken out to acheive a smaller file size, they dont make the O's and I's smaller in the data, they can only take them out. Its the exact same thing with an lcd.
Trev:cool: |
|
|
| The_Mazta |
Bigger is NOT better mate, at the end of the day, its the quality of the LCD, and the build itself, i mean, you could have the best LCD in the world and get bad results, if you got bad optics, and its a bad build, then hey, what can you do,
:smash: :smash: :smash: :smash: that is a possibilty |
|
|
| ancorp |
| quote: | Originally posted by ace3000_1
640x480 isnt 4x higher the 320x240, try 2. What your saying is turning an image into a blur. If you mix black with white you get grey yess, but isnt the image suposed to be black and white?
Your trying to change the very meaning of compresion, take a look at mp3 music compresion, data is taken out to acheive a smaller file size, they dont make the O's and I's smaller in the data, they can only take them out. Its the exact same thing with an lcd.
Trev:cool: |
Try 4.
320x240 is 76800 pixels
640x480 is 307200 pixels
Divide 307200 by 76800, you'll get 4.
Answer me this. If you have an image at 640x480, and there is a checkerd board pattern of a white pixel, than a black pixel, and so on. Now "compress" it to 320x240. How will you "Take out data" from that? Will the image be all white or all black?
MP3 is a whole different story.
And its 0's and 1's not O's and I's.
Wow, this thread turned into a debate of image compression from showing off awfully fast :D |
|
|
| The_Mazta |
| quote: | Originally posted by ancorp
Answer me this. If you have an image at 640x480, and there is a checkerd board pattern of a white pixel, than a black pixel, and so on. Now "compress" it to 320x240. How will you "Take out data" from that? Will the image be all white or all black?
t :D |
the image is manipulated along with the pixels,
BW
WB
B = black
W = White
now it will stay the same, yet the size of each square will be doubled all that has happened is the image has doubled in size, allowing more pixels per square in order to show the image at this res...... so there are now twice as many pixels in each square than there was at the higher resolution, so if the process is reversed, the image is halfed in size and the pixels spread out more,
Now, with an LCD the process is the same, answer me this, you have a 12" pizza, to make it into a 9" pizza, we simply take out some slices, and cut them to size, we wouldnt mush them up, This technique is similar to the LCD compression, of course if you are trying to prove picture wise on a CRT monitor there's no point as they are 2 diff technologies,
Now, all LCD's are built with compression algorithm chips, this allows the screen to be manipulated and show various different resolutions, if you have your image, shot in SVGA (800 x 600) and you want to view it in XGA (1024 x 768) it basically averages out the pixels. There are only 800 dots, but it shows 1024 dots by going 1 (Drop one) 2 ( drop one) 3 4 (drop one ) 5 6 (.drop one) 7 8 etc. It then takes the actual pixels and the “dropped pixels," smooths it out as best it can, and your eyes see the image.
Also, i mean it, if your watchin movies, depends on the quality of them also, at the end of the day, the pixles on the LCD will always be there, and no matter what reso you have it at, there still there, the key issue here is how the LCD manipulates these in order to show larger res's. hence the compression algorithm chips.
From what i've read, the information is simply taken out, with the mp3, actual frames are taken out, not 1's and 0's. MP3 files are segmented into zillions of frames, each containing a fraction of a second's worth of audio data, ready to be reconstructed by the decoder. by taking out these frames reduces the size, hence MP3.
Anyway i'm mashed so i'll stop my rant, and i didnt start this thread as you say to show off, if you think that, you must be dissapointed with your results, as i was just passin my results round to encourage people to use a lillliput, as lets face it, your coffins are MASSIVE, so if you have a flood, at least you have transport,
:devilr: :devilr: :devilr: :devilr: :devilr: |
|
|
| The_Mazta |
| the image is manipulated, so the image will be blured into grey around each of the origonal black square's, if you make a small grid like this in 1024x768 and zoom into it, it becomes blured, there not squares anymore they are diamond shapes, as the picture has been manipulated to fit the pixels, there are now more pixels to each origonal pixel size square dot.how do you explain this manipulation if the origonal picture is not edited???? |
|
|
| ancorp |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
now it will stay the same, yet the size of each square will be doubled all that has happened is the image has doubled in size, allowing more pixels per square in order to show the image at this res...... so there are now twice as many pixels in each square than there was at the higher resolution, so if the process is reversed, the image is halfed in size and the pixels spread out more,
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Doubled? we're talking about making the image smaller.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, all LCD's are built with compression algorithm chips, this allows the screen to be manipulated and show various different resolutions, if you have your image, shot in SVGA (800 x 600) and you want to view it in XGA (1024 x 768) it basically averages out the pixels. There are only 800 dots, but it shows 1024 dots by going 1 (Drop one) 2 ( drop one) 3 4 (drop one ) 5 6 (.drop one) 7 8 etc. It then takes the actual pixels and the “dropped pixels," smooths it out as best it can, and your eyes see the image.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, thats sometimes known as smart resize, still now what Im talking about
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway i'm mashed so i'll stop my rant, and i didnt start this thread as you say to show off, if you think that, you must be dissapointed with your results, as i was just passin my results round to encourage people to use a lillliput, as lets face it, your coffins are MASSIVE, so if you have a flood, at least you have transport,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am very impressed with your results, but a third thread just seems unnecissary. Im tired too, and am going to sleep. I dont have an lcd projector yet, I have to sort things out with my panel.
"your coffins"...hmmm....
----------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
| ancorp |
| quote: | Originally posted by The_Mazta
the image is manipulated, so the image will be blured into grey around each of the origonal black square's, if you make a small grid like this in 1024x768 and zoom into it, it becomes blured, there not squares anymore they are diamond shapes, as the picture has been manipulated to fit the pixels, there are now more pixels to each origonal pixel size square dot.how do you explain this manipulation if the origonal picture is not edited???? |
Thats also smart resize, not what im talking about.
BTW. whats with the evil faces? |
|
|
| ace3000_1 |
| quote: | | if you have your image, shot in SVGA (800 x 600) and you want to view it in XGA (1024 x 768) it basically averages out the pixels. There are only 800 dots, but it shows 1024 dots by going 1 (Drop one) 2 ( drop one) 3 4 (drop one ) 5 6 (.drop one) 7 8 etc. It then takes the actual pixels and the “dropped pixels," smooths it out as best it can, and your eyes see the image. |
Thats correct.
| quote: | | Yes, thats sometimes known as smart resize, still now what Im talking about |
Ancorp do you know what your talking about? if you do, why dont you tell us the name of it?
| quote: | | Answer me this. If you have an image at 640x480, and there is a checkerd board pattern of a white pixel, than a black pixel, and so on. Now "compress" it to 320x240. How will you "Take out data" from that? Will the image be all white or all black? |
Are you kidding? the amount of whites will be taken out the same as the blacks to keep the same grid pattern and keeping the same colours of a black and white grid pattern resized to the size of the screen. The Mazda answered that question for you.
Ancorp, ive prety much had enough of this discusion, i feel like im wasting my time trying to help you. Compresion for lcd monitors has been discused in here manny times before, please search the forum. If you want to argue the point with other fellow members in here then i sujest you find some medium to back up your statment as i have the forum to back up mine.
Trev:) |
|
|
| The_Mazta |
Wow, i went on a mad one last night, my degree is kicking in finally lol,. i cant see what your argument is ancorp. and yes doubled, open paintbrush, and make a shape, now lower your resolution, what happens, the size of that shape has now increased, check for yourself,
evil faces rock thats why!!!!
:devilr: :devilr: :devilr: :devilr: |
|
|
| ace3000_1 |
| quote: | | From what i've read, the information is simply taken out, with the mp3, actual frames are taken out, not 1's and 0's. MP3 files are segmented into zillions of frames, |
Whats all computer data made up of? 1's and 0's isnt it? lol, Maybe i went abit too basic there, frames of audio data are taken out yess, a better description somwhat then mine.
Trev:) |
|
|
| ancorp |
I see this is going nowhere. Let me just try once more.
Here is a 800x600 image of the pattern that I am talking about
Here is the image "compressed" to 4 times less the size, 400x300, using a basic Microsoft Photo Editor at school. It becomes gray!:)
IF THE LINKS DONT WORK, RIGHT CLICK AND SAVE AS...
"Yes, thats sometimes known as smart resize, still now what Im talking about"
That NOW word should be a NOT. Typo...
"if you have your image, shot in SVGA (800 x 600) and you want to view it in XGA (1024 x 768) it basically averages out the pixels. There are only 800 dots, but it shows 1024 dots by going 1 (Drop one) 2 ( drop one) 3 4 (drop one ) 5 6 (.drop one) 7 8 etc. It then takes the actual pixels and the “dropped pixels," smooths it out as best it can, and your eyes see the image."
Yes that is correct, for making an image bigger, but arent we talking about making an image smaller?
"and yes doubled, open paintbrush, and make a shape, now lower your resolution, what happens, the size of that shape has now increased, check for yourself, "
What does that have to do with compression?:xeye:
I dont want this thread to become a rant or anything like that.:whazzat:
:) |
|
|
| ace3000_1 |
Ancorp, a lcd controller isnt the same as Photo Shop lol
Unless you have a lcd running in vga and conduct the experiment yourself, you wont clearly see the difference. We are not talking about photoshop here, we are talking about lcd compression.
A certain sized resolution must have data added or removed to fit into a given area of pixels. Text on a lcd is a perfect example of what happends when we compress. If the resolution is native its pefectly pixel alighned, if the resolution is smaller it doubles pixels, if the resolution is higher, it takes them out so it fits, its that simple.
Trev:) |
|
|
| ancorp |
| yes i know what you are talking about, but im pretty sure that decent lcds that can compress higher resolutions should blent the ones it takes out... I just remembered that this is all just because I wanted to explain what compressed resolution is. lol:D |
|
|
| ace3000_1 |
| quote: | | but im pretty sure that decent lcds that can compress higher resolutions should blent the ones it takes out... |
They all do, its antalising, some pixels become half of an edge so they flicker on and off at different shades depending on the colour. As i said, a compressed image is no where near as sharp, vibrant and clear as a image run nativly.
Trev :) |
|
|
| ace3000_1 |
Its got nothing to do with what your talking about lol, your photoshop resizes the image, ours is scalled to a grid that stays the same size all of the time. If i had my projector on right now id take u a pic of the pixels and show you exactly what happends.
But getting back to how you said an xga image is clearer compressed then a native image, im still lost on how you figured that one out.
Trev:) |
|
|
| ancorp |
when did i say that its clearer compressed?
photoshop and lcd compression does work the same. If I view that compressed grid at 400x300 resolution, ill have the same size as when I view the uncompressed one at 800x600. |
|
|
| ace3000_1 |
| quote: | | when did i say that its clearer compressed? |
Page 3, post 21, atleast thats the impression i got, thats not the only post btw.
| quote: | | photoshop and lcd compression does work the same. If I view that compressed grid at 400x300 resolution, ill have the same size as when I view the uncompressed one at 800x600. |
The grid is the lcd, it cant change size. Photoshop changes the size of the image against the desktop resolution, the xga you are running your crt at, you can only see the difference running that resolution and not on a crt monitor, what you see on the crt are artifacts not lcd pixels. Photoshop works similar but not the same, period, end of story.
Trev:) |
|
|
| ancorp |
I didnt mean the grid on a montor, i meant a picture of a black pixel, white pixel grid that I posted.
End of story? Fine:dodgy:
lol:) |
|
|
| The_Mazta |
Now Now boys, calm down!
:devilr: :bigeyes: |
|
|
| HiLLBiLLY |
haha ...ah Trev...it's simialr to banging your head against a brick wall...starts to hurt before too long. ..lol
Personally I have found the 'debate' enjoyable...hehe |
|
|
| SGSeeker |
| in some areas, ancorp was explaining the same things as ace...but they aren't making it clear enough for the other person. I think they just need to forget what they know and try reading the other person's post without criticizing it. If I read it one way, they're both wrong. If I read it another, they're both correct. Its all how you perceive what the person's saying. Communication can be a hard thing ;) |
|
|
| The_Mazta |
| who's this other person, |
|
|
| DavidSWP |
| quote: | Originally posted by ancorp
yes i know what you are talking about, but im pretty sure that decent lcds that can compress higher resolutions should blent the ones it takes out... I just remembered that this is all just because I wanted to explain what compressed resolution is. lol:D |
I can't quite believe that after an LCD reduces an image in resolution from say XGA to VGA it then antialiases the output. Antialiasing relies on having as high a resolution image as possible so it can use 'spare' pixels to make smooth transitions. Doing it on a low resolution image will simply make it look blurred. Maybe that would be ok for films or photographic images, but it would make text unreadable. |
|
|
|
|
