Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2015 11:21:03 GMT -5
I have two Moome cards. The first is from 2009 it says fullhd and version 0.2. The second is from 2010 it says fullhd and the version is 0.3.
I can not make a custom resolution of 1080p@ 72 that is accepted. Only when I make the timings very small at a certain point it might work but than the image shakes.
So I wonder are my Moome cards not the right version? Would be bad luck but possible.
Is it not possible to get 1080p@72 on a 9500? Perhaps people meen 800p@72?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2015 12:03:32 GMT -5
The bandwidth seems even a little better with the unmodified Moome. Unmodified:  Modified:  |
|
|
|
Post by jbmeyer13 on Jul 13, 2015 13:37:47 GMT -5
I have two Moome cards. The first is from 2009 it says fullhd and version 0.2. The second is from 2010 it says fullhd and the version is 0.3. I can not make a custom resolution of 1080p@ 72 that is accepted. Only when I make the timings very small at a certain point it might work but than the image shakes. So I wonder are my Moome cards not the right version? Would be bad luck but possible. Is it not possible to get 1080p@72 on a 9500? Perhaps people meen 800p@72? Remember when I told you how important the Moome was to this equation and you chastised me as trying to confuse people. You stated that it didn't make a big difference.
Two things here:
1) passing the signal 2) optimally displaying the signal
As for the first, a 9500 will most certainly pass 1080p/72 without some much as blinking. I run a BD player>Radiance>Moome v3 and it works great. The only problem I've had is that the Radiance is being pushed to it's actual FPGA limit and that can create some odd distortions from time to time in the image. I alter the timings to shift the raster ringing out of the image which ends up being 199.98mhz so that's as far as the Lumagen will go. You shouldn't need a modified Moome to pass 1080p/72 rather you'd be better off looking at whatever device you are using to control the timings.
As for the second, I have seen interesting results with the Moome. IIRC, in one combination (02 VIM) I used a stock filter on the green channel and modified filters on red and blue to get the best results. Then I swapped in my 03 VIM and had to make sure all 3 channels were using the modified filters to get optimal results. In still another scenario I had MP's moome and it didn't work well for me at all. As I said, lots of moving parts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2015 16:51:02 GMT -5
Ok I am also thinking this difference is bigger than it looks from the 1:1. I am still judging the image. Is it better? It is very very sharp and I see things I have not seen on any projector before but than the colours looked more saturated with the modified Moome perhaps a Mac issue. Will take some time to judge this. I think the mods did not make it worse but this happened to be a little better Moome. In fact the only mod I see is that the output buffer is completely passed with a small wire. It is possible to do this mod on my other Moome and see what happens.
I think my problem is in the Mac it is very sensitive to the cable and I bought the best displaylink to hdmi available but still I have trouble getting it to handshake. I had 1080p@72 on the Barco in the past so in principle it should be possible.
But in fact I do need 800p@72 more but that requires some vertical squeezing mod that I still did not find anywhere.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2015 5:44:48 GMT -5
Well it turns out this problem was solved by using a club 3d mini displayport to hdmi cable that has an active chip with high bandwidth. Did not work with the Apple dvi cable not with the Apple mini displayport to hdmi and not with a third party cable. www.club-3d.com/index.php/products/reader.en/product/mini-displayport-to-hdmi-active-3d-adapter-cable.htmlIt also works with the hdfury set to triple the framerate from the Mac from 24Hz to 72Hz. Also worked with an htpc. During the proces I discovered something else. After a lot of switching scanrates the picture became unstable horizontally (some lines moved left right). I suspected the htpc first than the cables than the Moome than the Vim but it turned out the the Horizontal Deflection unit caused this. Somehow the 72 Hz or all the switching broke something on that board. So if you have an unstable tearing image do not forget the HD board. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2015 6:51:14 GMT -5
One other thing I found out while switching the VIM's is the following. I have 3 VIM's by the way. One unmodified and that one had very bad bandwidth but a lot of brightness and punch. The other one was MP modified a long time ago and that one has acceptable bandwidth and a lot of brightness and punch. The third one is heavily modified and has the highest bandwidth but the image stays dark even at 85 Contrast and much higher strange thing happen.
I can life with the heavily modified VIM when I set contrast on 80 and use 72 Hz for a little more brightness and punch.
At this moment however the lightly modified VIM gives an overall better image. It somehow is more transparent there has been less f*cked with. Espescially the potting on the latest VIM I do not like.
|
|
|
|
Post by stridsvognen on Sept 18, 2015 9:16:17 GMT -5
Its important to run the VIM and neckbords that match, as the gain on the vim has changed from mod to mod, the contrast nr has no importance, just try measure light output at the max setting you can run with no blooming. My contrast is set around 95 with the boards im running, thats 12fl on screen. Its also a good idea to set your moome card to 0-255 when feeding it 16-255, as it will alow you to use the maximum dynamic range of the projector.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2015 7:39:44 GMT -5
Ok I watched an episode of doctor who that was very dark and that did not look good at all with the earlier modded vim. The light output of that vim is 12 ftL but I set it a little lower to 11 ftL. So I removed the potting from the vim with the mini board almost evrything as it was a long job. I lost blue in the process but managed to repair. Mike Parker uses a high bandwidth switch on the mini board and tnat is all. But man! I have to admid it doctor who looke good in the dark scenes and my smpte pic was allmost equal so somehow I improved that by resoldering some resistors or removing the capacity of the potting? So great news for the community. The mp vim with mini board has been hacked. So we can now repair these board without Mike. I keep the secrets for now as Mike has the copyright. But repair issues I will try to help out.   |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2015 7:48:25 GMT -5
I have some room for improvement at the neckboards as I still use clc449 and a normal transistor ther.
|
|
|
|
Post by stridsvognen on Sept 23, 2015 8:05:49 GMT -5
I never seen a VIM with potted mini board before, so no idea how that works, I know Mike has made a new mini board with a new switcher who is more stable, and works better for the purpose, ill visite Mike soon and see it in action on a NIB NOS 2011 Marquee with LUG tubes.
There is also a new moome card mod who is quite different, think Justin have one.
The other day i had luck running the Hdfury4 scaler GUI for the first time, so im exited to test it 1080P 72hz around 200Mhz, and push out all the raster ringing.
Is yours a 02, or 03 VIM,and is your mini board a 1 or 3 chip? and how much light can you put on your screen before you get blooming.?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2015 10:31:21 GMT -5
Yeah the pottng is a fucking hell Mike does it with most custommers like the wolfman too. I started removing with a soldering iron but damaged a pin on the very small switcher/ multiplexer. The whole thing seems pretty simple. The standard switcher is replaced with a high bandwidth one and than goes straight to the ad835 (02 vim). Some custom filtering that is all. Can not see much room for improvement here or it would be to use a ad834 from a 03 vim. Think I can go to 12 ftL as I had contrast at 75 with the other vim. Might need some tweaking with resistors. Say hello to Mike  not. oh forgot. I got me a hotair blower for smd work. That way it becomes pretty easy to remove potting. But under the board there is still some but it hides nothing anymore. so there is a new firmware for the hdfury to download? oh and my moome is mdofied too but I prefer the not modified for now as the filters deliver higher bandwidth. The modified has a wire straight from the chip bypassing all filtering. I do not kno for sure if it improves noise or something but it make bandwidth less. To sum it up. I am pretty impressed with the picture now |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2015 10:45:59 GMT -5
He I have the one chip seems the same as the new chip on Curts screenshot thread. On closer inspection seems that one has other pin ordening. Much more like the spdt multiplexers I found with google. So it is more stable? I have no stability issues here.
|
|
|
|
Post by stridsvognen on Sept 23, 2015 13:25:14 GMT -5
What bandtwidth Are you running on those screenshots?Be carefull that your gain and bandwidth stay's linear when tweaking. Do you have the ecrab test pattern for that? The moome card you have is one where the buffer is bypassed, it work with the right vim, if the moddet moome card have limited bandwidth, I bet some part of your video chain Is not up to speed with the moome.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2015 16:09:04 GMT -5
This moome came with this vim so it must be the right vim.
It is all very simple. There is a wire that bypasses the filters that peak on a normal moome like they should to compensate for the cables. Now I like a normal moome because it should compensate and the modified moome is wrong not to. To me it sounds like total crap that a badnwidth would be to high with the modified moome and that I would need a right vim. But ok believe what you want to.
Found another fuckup by mp in this cluster fuck up that he sold me. He removed the blue gamma. So I have to defocus more with blue than with the other vim. I will probable put the gamma back on the vim. I think he forgot he tested this vim with special neckboards with modified gamma that he did not sell me. His memory is not so good. Anyway it does not show much in the terrific picture I have right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by stridsvognen on Sept 23, 2015 16:48:12 GMT -5
What bandwidth are you running on those screenshots.? The blue gamma you should do as you prefer, with it in place it is over compensatet, and can not be corrected playing with the focus. Without the blue gamma you have the focus option to correct the gamma curve, the blue channel wil normaly have more noice and a different bandwidth tracking when the gamma is installed. If you know how, you might find a way to adjust the gamma correction on the vim. I never seen any peaking on the moome, mine is plugged direct into the VIM, so no cable to compensate, can you post a picture of that moome card. I have seen videochains behave oposit of what was expected a few times with different mods, also on a standard SONY G90, if you have peaking in your video chain, you can actually filter the moome to make a perfect 1:1 on off limiting the bandwidth, or it looks so if you just look at the SMPTE pattern. You will see that change if you change gain or bandwidth. I like to evaluate bandwidth with the SMPTE pattern looking into the lens from a good distance, as far back as the screen, when its just getting out of black, before its visible on screen, you will see everything going on on that tube face. and then slowly turn up contrast, and see if all 3 tubes track the same. You should try the SMPTE pattern from the HD basic disc, there the vertical and horizontal lines dont touch, so its better for spotting peaking or other dc unstability issues. Do you have the ecrab pattern for evaluating how the bandwidth and gain tracking behaves.? Attachments:
|
|
not.
