As for “hobbies”, I’m currently hard at work testing the latest generation of home theater 3D video projectors. Related to that, I will soon (ahem) post a review of a brand new piece of cool technology which will certainly be making waves in home theaters all around the world.

Don’t forget to drop by every now and then.

Zbox HD-ND22 (note that there are several different versions of Zbox available) is quite miniscule. Its dimensions are 188x188x44 millimeters and it weighs next to nothing, especially when first unpacked since it comes without HDD and memory. I decided to install a 2.5″ SSD drive along with 4 gigabytes of RAM, although 2 gigabytes might have sufficed. SO-DIMM’s are quite affordable at the moment so I figured why not. The SSD drive can be considered overkill on a nettop and severely drives up the total cost of the system, but I didn’t have a regular 2.5″ spinner on hand.

Inside the packaging there are two installation mounts. One is a stand for vertical tabletop installation as seen in the next two images. The second mount is a VESA mount which can be used as a wall mount or for mounting on an LCD monitor stand. In the latter case Zbox is installed behind a PC monitor so the nettop is completely hidden from view.

A circle lights up on the side of the Zbox to show it’s powered up and ready for action.

Rear panel is densely populated with connectors. You’ll find 4 USB ports, an RJ45 for 10/100/1000 Mbps Ethernet, an eSATA connector, DVI and HDMI outputs and an S/PDIF audio output.

Majority of connectors are located in the back.

There’s an additional USB port on top of the unit. Next to it is the grill which allows airflow for cooling. The internal fan is quite small and while it could be described as “low noise”, it was not completely silent. While running a CPU stress test, I could clearly hear its mid-pitch whining from a distance of 1,5 meters.

Zbox has four rubber feet for horizontal installation.

On the front panel you’ll find the power button, one more USB port, LED indicators for WiFi and HDD activity, two jacks for microphone and headphone/audio out, as well as a 6-in-1 memory card reader (SD/SDHC/MMC/MS/MS Pro/xD).

It might look crowded inside, but installing RAM and HDD could not have been much easier.

Let’s look at some numbers
I know benchmark results mean a lot to some folks so I ran freeware benchmarking software on the Zbox and a bunch of other PCs I came across for comparison. Here you go:

Novabench results for Zbox (left) and Asus eeePC 901 (right).

Novabench results for an MSI GX710P laptop (left) and my Core i7-920 based tower PC (right).

I also ran PCMARK05 on all four PCs but the jpegs turned out a bit too large. I’ll c/p the PCMark results here and you can go take a look at the PCM05 images in the gallery if you’re so inclined.

PCMARK05 results
Asus eeePC: 1,692
Zbox: 4,753
MSI GX710P: 5,225
Core i7-920: 13,928

Zbox gets quite close to the MSI laptop and that’s not a bad result, considering the MSI GX710 used to be quite a high-end laptop some years ago. It’s equipped with a Turion 64 X2 TL58 dual-core CPU running at 1.9GHz and cost me almost 10x the price of Zbox back in the day. In fact, Zbox does a much better job playing HD video files and Blu-rays than the GX710.

CPU usage during HD playback
Nvidia’s ION offers hardware acceleration for video playback. Its performance is quite good indeed and it leaves the CPU free for other tasks. I connected an external Blu-ray drive to Zbox’s eSATA connector and grabbed some Task Manager screencaps to demonstrate:

Playing a 720p MKV video file on PowerDVD 10 Mark II Ultra.

Playing a self-authored (no AACS encryption) Blu-ray Disc on ArcSoft’s Total Media Theatre 5.

Playing a commercial Blu-ray Disc on Total Media Theatre 5 while decoding 24-bit TrueHD audio to multichannel PCM for HDMI output.

Playing a commercial BD on PowerDVD 10 while decoding 24-bit TrueHD audio to multichannel PCM for HDMI output. Spike at the end is caused by shutting down PDVD10 to enable Windows’ PrtScn functionality.

Forcing 24p Blu-ray output
I had connected Zbox to a 63-inch Samsung 3D plasma via HDMI and noticed that the signal remained 1080p60 during Blu-ray playback. This causes visible motion artefacts during slow pans. A better solution would be to output Blu-ray’s 23.976fps video as-is to the TV. This can be achieved by messing about in Nvidia’s Control Panel. Under Change Resolution is listed “1080p (native)” which offers several framerates from 25 to 60Hz. However, none of them output 23.976fps during Blu-ray playback.

Several framerates on offer, but none output 23.976fps.

The solution is to select another instance of “1080p” which offers framerates of 23 and 24Hz. One would imagine that “24Hz” is the correct choice, but no. Nvidia’s Control Panel does not list fractions of Hz and rounds down. In other words, if you want 23.976fps output, you’ll have to choose “23Hz”. Some Blu-rays, especially over here in Europe, have been authored at 24.00fps which is what you get by selecting “24Hz”.

Select “23Hz” for 23.976fps and “24Hz” for 24.00fps output.

Go Green
The packaging for Zbox makes a big deal about low power consumption. Thanks to Intel CULV (Consumer Ultra-Low Voltage) technology Zbox is supposed to be quite thrifty when it comes to spending watts. To test this, I located my trusty Voltcraft Energy Monitor 3000 and installed it between the Zbox and the power outlet. Here’s a list of peak watt values measured during various operations.

Booting to Windows: 25W
Idle in Win7 after 1 minute: 22.1W
Idle in Win7 after 3 minutes: 20.7W
Playing 720p MKV video on PowerDVD 10: 23W
Playing commercial Blu-ray & decoding 24-bit audio to PCM for output: 24W
CPU Stress Test at 100% load after 2 minutes: 24.3W

Those are very low figures, no matter how you slice it. The Zbox is definitely a miser when it comes to sucking up the ol’ electricity, which is very good news indeed.

Conclusion
There’s a lot to like about the Zbox. It’s light, tiny, offers flexible installation options and plays full HD video files and Blu-ray Discs without breaking a sweat. It’s also very easy on your electric bill which is nothing to scoff at these days.

You’ll notice I didn’t test any games on the Zbox. It’s because that would’ve been more or less pointless. I’m sure Zbox runs casual browser games just fine, but it would definitely struggle with any modern first person shooter. Zbox was designed for a purpose other than gaming, pure and simple.

As for its purpose, I was somewhat disappointed to learn that this particular version of Zbox does not accelerate Blu-ray 3D playback in hardware. Attempts to play BD 3D led to stuttering and dropped frames as the Intel Celeron CPU is not powerful enough for the task. Zbox models HD-ID40 and HD-ID33/34 have a Next Gen ION GPU which supports Blu-ray 3D in hardware.

Another wee disappointment came when I wanted to pass lossless HD audio in bitstream format from Blu-ray to an A/V receiver. Both PowerDVD 10 and TMT5 offered decoding to multichannel PCM and DD/DTS core passthru only. It appears that the fault lies with Nvidia ION which can’t do lossless HD audio bitstreaming.

On the whole, Zbox is a nice proposition for a tiny, lightweight nettop which is also capable of HD video playback. It can manage video and photo processing thanks to Nvidia’s CUDA technology which also accelerates video transcoding when used with CUDA-enabled software like the included Badaboom Media Converter. Install a USB remote and a suitable media player GUI, and Zbox might even replace that hulk of a HTPC filling out the cabinet.

So I fired up the recently purchased JVC DLA-X7, switched on the PS3 and in went the disc. First things first: the OS had to be updated to version 3.55. No biggie, all the update files were on the disc. Some minutes later I’m looking at the warning screen saying how 3D might harm very young children. None of those here, onwards. Nice intro animation, but not in 3D. Hmm. Finally the main menu appeared and I immediately went to Options… which reported there was no 3D display detected. That’s funny, since I had used the exact same PS3 to view some Blu-ray 3Ds just a couple of days earlier.

The fix was easy, although I shouldn’t have been forced to perform it. Back to XMB, open Display settings and start the wizard which handshakes with the display to find out what resolutions it supports. Set highest resolution, 1080p indeed, and then PS3 asks for the size of the screen since it has deemed the display as 3D compatible. 110 inches, por favor.

2nd attempt
Right, let’s try again. Main menu, Options and there it is, 3D setting which defaults to off. Turn it on and the projector does a double-take, blanking out for a second, only to bring the image back in 3D. You can then set 3D depth, which I set to 80%. Rather disappointly the image looks very dark indeed, even with the projector lamp set to high power. There’s a built-in brightness adjustment in Options menu and you’re supposed to set the brightness so the on-screen logo can barely be seen. I had to increase in-game image brightness to maximum and bring the projector’s brightness setting up a notch. The X7 has enough lumens for 3D movies but apparently Killzone 3 is somewhat more demanding.

Once 3D was switched on, all in-game graphics, intro animation included, are in 3D. Pre-rendered animations look quite nice, although there’s quite a bit of crosstalk due to the projector still warming up (X7 can take up to an hour to warm up properly, and crosstalk diminishes the entire time). Once you get control of your character, the 3D effect is a bit, well, not ruined as such, but… compromised.

The good
Image depth is nice and you can very easily tell pretty much everything on screen is in positive depth, i.e. behind the screen plane. Closed environments, such as large hangars and rooms, form a clear and distinct volume which helps you immerse yourself in the world. On a shooting range the targets move in depth, and by this time the 3D feels so natural there’s no need to gawk at the effect. Nice use of depth and immersive environments carries on to firefights and moving among the ruins of a nuked city.

…and the bad
But, and I bet you could see that one coming, there’s a problem and it’s to do with resolution. There’s not enough of it. When you do a game in 3D, you’re basically rendering the graphics twice, once per eye. And what do you do when your graphics engine is squeezing off all the available power of the PS3 in 2D already? You compromise, by either dropping the framerate or by lowering resolution. I didn’t notice any obvious signs of low framerates. In fact, the gameplay felt very smooth all the way. But there were many obvious signs of lowered resolution in sight.

Jaggies. Lots of them. But not all over the image, or on all depth levels, which is a bit odd. At times you can see jaggies only in certain objects, or at a certain distance. I suspect the developer has worked a clever system which does not require twice the rendering power of 2D. A system that decides on-the-fly which graphics elements are rendered in full-ish resolution and which at a lower resolution. There were moments when a close-up shot of a sharp outline looked both high-res and low-res at the same time; you could see a nice round curve overlaid with a very blocky approximation of the curve simultaneously. Unfortunately jaggies have a tendency to draw the attention of the eye, and there’s very little you can do about it. On the other hand one tends to forget all about jaggies during intense firefights, as your eyes and brain have more important things to do.

Not quite there yet
All in all I’m not blown away by the use of 3D in Killzone 3. Sure, environments feel more alive, more believable and the depth helps you in figuring out where everything and everyone is, but the overall murkiness and compromises in image quality outweigh the positives ever so slightly. I think I’ll have another go a bit later, but on a 3D plasma TV, just to see if the experience differs in any way.

When it came time to buy more glasses, I was a bit shocked by how expensive JVC’s 3D glasses are. I proceeded to buy a pair of Xpand’s X103 “universal” glasses and learned that Xpand also manufactures JVC’s glasses. One of the several compatibility modes X103s offer is for Xpand equipped movie theaters that, I assume, use Xpand’s IR-emitters. As it turned out, that particular mode is compatible with JVC’s IR-emitter as well. Funny, that.

December 2010, and I’m on my way to a 3D event arranged by the Nordic Blu-ray Forum. Present were reps from home video distributors and CE manufacturers. Philips was there to show their new 21:9 aspect ratio 3D HDTV. My attention was not grabbed as much by the TV as it was by the active shutter glasses on the table. It was obvious at first glance the glasses were made by Xpand. But since TV manufacturers tend to make sure their glasses are not compatible with anyone else’s TV, I didn’t spare it another thought.

Until last week, that is. A hypothetical question popped into my mind. What if, it began, Philips has taken a similar route as JVC and licensed Xpand’s IR-emitter for their 3D HDTVs? That would mean Philips’ 3D glasses are compatible with the IR-emitter JVC uses on their video projectors.

I contacted Philips PR rep immediately and asked her to send me a pair of Philips 3D glasses for testing. The glasses arrived a few days later. Like JVC glasses, they don’t have the tiny compatibility mode selection button found on Xpand X103s. Unlike JVC glasses and the X103s, the frames are not shiny black plastic but have a slightly blue-ish matte finish. The design is otherwise identical.

I fired up the DLA-X7, placed Shrek 4 3D into an Oppo BDP-93 Blu-ray player and left the room to pick the Philips glasses up from another room where I’d taken a few photos of them. I put the glasses on and the moment I walked into the home theater room, the glasses switched themselves on automatically and I was looking at a language selection screen in glorious 3D. I went on to view the movie in 3D for 10 minutes to verify the glasses would stay on and everything was hunky-dory.

And it was. QED, Philips 3D glasses are compatible with the IR-emitter JVC sells for use with their 3D video projectors.

This is fantastic news for owners of a JVC 3D video projector. Not only are Philips glasses a lot cheaper than JVC glasses, they are also quite a bit cheaper than Xpand X103s. I did a quick googling for “Philips PTA03″ and found an online vendor selling them for under 80 Euros — almost 100 Euros less than what JVC glasses cost here in Finland. That’s a massive difference, no matter how you slice it.

One word of warning, though, and it’s about polarization. Most active shutter glasses employ a horizontal or vertical polarizing filter in the lens. JVC uses horizontal filters in its active shutter glasses, but Xpand X103s and Philips glasses have vertical filters. This is not an issue if your screen does not maintain polarization. AVS Forum has a good discussion on which screens maintain polarization and to what degree.

Addendum: Philips also offers a 3D upgrade kit, PTA02, which comes with two pairs of Xpand-made 3D glasses and an IR-emitter for Philips 3D-ready TVs. While the glasses are compatible with JVC video projectors, the IR-emitter is not. The connector on Philips emitter has six pins whereas the JVC connector has only three pins.

And wouldn’t you just know it: I’ve now been hired to write an article about 3D for another magazine. Luckily for me I need to approach the subject from a slightly different point of view for the 2nd article, so it’s not going to be a simple re-hashing of the first one. Not that I wouldn’t mind that at all; it would save a bit of time. Maybe. Or more likely not.

Anyhoo! I’ve had a whale of a time doing research for the article(s) and I’ve learned a lot of new things. It’s what makes life living for, I’d say. I’m well chuffed about the whole 3D lark, to be honest. Can’t remember the last time something got me quite this excited! You see, I’ve learned not only how to shoot, edit and post 3D, but I’ve had a number of rather intriguing ideas and, dare I say, epiphanies. And I will do my best to share them all with you, once I get my hands on a few missing pieces of information, hardware and software.

So, prepare yourself for a series of long-ish blog posts about what you can achieve with a remarkably small amount of money and carefully scavenged knowledge. Coming soon… ish.

I hesitated between Glidetrack HD and the more expensive but obviously sturdier XD model. In the end I went for the HD, thanks to Alastair assuring me that it can take the weight of a RED One camera easy.

Once I had placed the order and paid for it, FedEx delivered the parcel in a couple of days. Size of the shipping tube impressed (as you can see in the photo gallery) but so did the ease with which Glidetrack was assembled. A couple of screws to install the feet at both ends of the rail, and it’s ready for mounting on a tripod(s).

I don’t have any demo footage to share yet, but there’s plenty to see on Glidetrack’s website. I took a bunch of photos of the assembly and mounting options; you’ll find them in the photo gallery.

I had to move the drive into another PC. So, I popped open the PC chassis, took hold of the freely dangling drive with my right hand and proceeded to remove first the power connector, then the SATA cable. I must’ve done this same procedure maybe hundreds of times with SATA drives in the past. At this point I didn’t notice anything out of the ordinary. It was only when I was trying to re-connect the drive that I noticed something was amiss.

Unfortunately I didn’t fathom the exact nature of the problem right away and actually made the damage worse by using the same cable, which unbeknownst to me had a piece of plastic stuck inside the connector. One of the pins on the drive got slightly bent and my jiggling of the ill-fitting connector damaged another tiny piece of plastic next to the drive connector.

Puzzled by the connector’s behaviour I took a closer look at the cable and noticed there was something inside the connector. Comparing the drive’s SATA connector to another drive I immediately saw the guide had come off with the cable. This had never happened to me before, and I still can’t say with 100% certainty why it happened now. My guess is that the SATA cable had been applying pressure on the guide at an angle, the plastic had weakened under the pressure and the guide snapped off when I removed the cable.

When I tried to remove the guide from inside the connector with tiny tweezers, my first attempt was rewarded by a tiny piece of the guide breaking off, leaving the rest of the guide in the connector. I had applied very little force, and the plastic guide simply crumbled when grabbed with the tweezers. The plastic used by OCZ has to be the weakest I’ve ever seen; no way should it be this brittle and easy to break.

Things took a turn for the worse when I contacted the retailer for warranty repairs. According to OCZ, their warranty does not cover physical damage so there’s nothing they can do. To fix the problem they’d have to replace the entire PCB, OCZ replied, and it’s apparently something they’re not willing to do.

So, where does this leave me? With a lump of modern storage technology worth 250 Euros that’s been rendered totally useless by the breaking off of a very tiny piece of plastic. Imagine that.