# What do you use for your CIH screen: an anamorphic lens or zoom method?



## Kain

Just wondering what everyone uses to display CinemaScope content on their CIH screen.


----------



## bud16415

I voted zoom method because there was no option for I would like to use an A-lens but I would never spend that much money on a lens. Or I really wished someone would make a reasonably priced true scope projector (yes I know there is no scope native content material) Maybe there should be? But a cropping scope projector that applies all the lumens to the scope frame would be nice. Or a projector with an A-lens built in would be nice also. Those things don’t exist and an A-lens is out of my budget so I voted #2 zoom method.


----------



## jeahrens

With the dramatic increases we're seeing with lumens and the pixel density of 4K, I really don't see any compelling reason for a lens going forward. There's no 4K anamorphically mastered content and some of newer projectors don't scale 4K content for use with a lens. About the only argument that you can still make for a lens is for HDR/Dolby Vision and the need for extreme lumens. But from what little I have read it sounds like even today's lamps would need to be throwing a very small image to hit the targets needed for it. Maybe an alternative light source would do it. Lasers do seem to be gaining traction finally.

I'm certainly with you on a 21:9 native projector. I think the projector market would have a better chance of success vs. the TV experiments they've tried. Although having used my JVC RS46 zoomed and watched a JVC RS500 zoomed with e-shift, I think the 4K class of projectors will make me happy. A native 21:9 would be so nice though.


----------



## R Harkness

I use both A-lens and zoom method. Most often the zoom method.


----------



## NxNW

No option for "shrink" method?


----------



## coolrda

jeahrens said:


> With the dramatic increases we're seeing with lumens and the pixel density of 4K, I really don't see any compelling reason for a lens going forward. There's no 4K anamorphically mastered content and some of newer projectors don't scale 4K content for use with a lens. About the only argument that you can still make for a lens is for HDR/Dolby Vision and the need for extreme lumens. But from what little I have read it sounds like even today's lamps would need to be throwing a very small image to hit the targets needed for it. Maybe an alternative light source would do it. Lasers do seem to be gaining traction finally.
> 
> I'm certainly with you on a 21:9 native projector. I think the projector market would have a better chance of success vs. the TV experiments they've tried. Although having used my JVC RS46 zoomed and watched a JVC RS500 zoomed with e-shift, I think the 4K class of projectors will make me happy. A native 21:9 would be so nice though.


All the advantages of a Cylindrical A lens are still in place. Pixel density(clearly discernible with true 4K projector) brightness, larger screen size per given throw, instantaneous scaling, etc. The best widescreen projected picture available today is through a Cylindrical A Lens. We have had this discussion here for fifteen years. The answer remains the same. With a Prism based lens you have an argument, with Cylindrical, no way. You can rationalize it anyway you want. The answers the same. Look I get it. $3-6k for a cylindrical is a good projector. But how long do those last. You can spin this forever and the answer's the same. If I gave anyone my Isco 3L, I know you'd prefer that picture. Until you owned and lived with a cylindrical day in and day out, the above comments are meaningless. It like me saying my Aerial 7b's are just as good as MBL 101e's. That would be ridiculous on my part. Cost is the barrier to ownership for me otherwise they'd be sitting at home. The one exception is a native widescreen panel. That's been tried and done five years back. That experiment has failed and that ship has sailed for good. 16x9 has won out. So the top shelf project/Cylindrical A lens remains the top dog solution for finest widescreen media playback.


----------



## GetGray

coolrda said:


> All the advantages of a Cylindrical A lens are still in place. Pixel density(clearly discernible with true 4K projector) brightness, larger screen size per given throw, instantaneous scaling, etc. The best widescreen projected picture available today is through a Cylindrical A Lens. We have had this discussion here for fifteen years. The answer remains the same. With a Prism based lens you have an argument, with Cylindrical, no way. You can rationalize it anyway you want. The answers the same. Look I get it. $3-6k for a cylindrical is a good projector. But how long do those last. You can spin this forever and the answer's the same. If I gave anyone my Isco 3L, I know you'd prefer that picture. Until you owned and lived with a cylindrical day in and day out, the above comments are meaningless. It like me saying my Aerial 7b's are just as good as MBL 101e's. That would be ridiculous on my part. Cost is the barrier to ownership for me otherwise they'd be sitting at home. The one exception is a native widescreen panel. That's been tried and done five years back. That experiment has failed and that ship has sailed for good. 16x9 has won out. So the top shelf project/Cylindrical A lens remains the top dog solution for finest widescreen media playback.


I agree. And for what it's worth, I have a handful of NOS Isco IIIL's I just acquired. This is still the best 1.33 lens there is, I'd take it over a XL due to the case design. Rare to find these new. Offering at a steal compared to New XL prices.


----------



## jeahrens

coolrda said:


> All the advantages of a Cylindrical A lens are still in place. Pixel density(clearly discernible with true 4K projector) brightness, larger screen size per given throw, instantaneous scaling, etc. The best widescreen projected picture available today is through a Cylindrical A Lens. We have had this discussion here for fifteen years. The answer remains the same. With a Prism based lens you have an argument, with Cylindrical, no way. You can rationalize it anyway you want. The answers the same. Look I get it. $3-6k for a cylindrical is a good projector. But how long do those last. You can spin this forever and the answer's the same. If I gave anyone my Isco 3L, I know you'd prefer that picture. Until you owned and lived with a cylindrical day in and day out, the above comments are meaningless. It like me saying my Aerial 7b's are just as good as MBL 101e's. That would be ridiculous on my part. Cost is the barrier to ownership for me otherwise they'd be sitting at home. The one exception is a native widescreen panel. That's been tried and done five years back. That experiment has failed and that ship has sailed for good. 16x9 has won out. So the top shelf project/Cylindrical A lens remains the top dog solution for finest widescreen media playback.


The only widescreen panel projectors I know of were priced extremely high. That isn't a recipe for success. As far as the lens argument goes, I have seen a Sony 55Es with a Panamorph, Sony VW600ES 4K and a JVC RS500. Even the e-shift JVC was producing a pixel size so small it isn't discernible past a foot from the screen. I could see the benefits of the Panamorph paired with the Sony vs. zooming with my JVC (2K panel), but they were slight. So, no I don't believe that any lens is going to make the picture of a 4K panel or even an e-shift implementation noticeably better. The cost/benefit ratio certainly isn't there. Except for lumens it's pretty much non-existent at this point.

If you have a nice lens, there's certainly no reason not to use it. However I would not recommend anyone buy one in the current climate.


----------



## bud16415

I agree the scope projector that was tried used a larger chip and disregarded the unused pixels and then added an optical element to compress the light down to scope AR on the chip. Was a great idea but not worth $20K IMO I don’t see why someone won’t do the same with a 4k chip. In fact if someone could make it so you could have the best of both worlds in the same projector. Whatever this light funnel is if it could switch in and out between scope, 16:9 and 4:3 wouldn’t that be cool. Max lumens for whatever AR you were watching. 

One thing I never got on my projector being 16:10 when I’m in 16:9 mode the extra pixels are shut off. When I put a scope movie in the BD player the unused pixels are also turned off. What I can’t understand is why are the 16:10 unused pixels quite a bit darker than the unused 16:9 pixels? Seems like all off pixels should be equally as gray.


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> I agree the scope projector that was tried used a larger chip and disregarded the unused pixels and then added an optical element to compress the light down to scope AR on the chip. Was a great idea but not worth $20K IMO I don’t see why someone won’t do the same with a 4k chip. In fact if someone could make it so you could have the best of both worlds in the same projector. Whatever this light funnel is if it could switch in and out between scope, 16:9 and 4:3 wouldn’t that be cool. Max lumens for whatever AR you were watching.
> 
> One thing I never got on my projector being 16:10 when I’m in 16:9 mode the extra pixels are shut off. When I put a scope movie in the BD player the unused pixels are also turned off. What I can’t understand is why are the 16:10 unused pixels quite a bit darker than the unused 16:9 pixels? Seems like all off pixels should be equally as gray.


Weird, it sounds like brightness is set to high or your input is mismatched (0-255 vs. 16-235).


----------



## bud16415

jeahrens said:


> Weird, it sounds like brightness is set to high or your input is mismatched (0-255 vs. 16-235).


The 16-235 is what I’m thinking also it is if the projector blacking out is using 0-255 in turning off the unused pixels in 16:10 and the black sent from the BD player is using 16 as its level for the black bars.


----------



## coolrda

jeahrens said:


> The only widescreen panel projectors I know of were priced extremely high. That isn't a recipe for success. As far as the lens argument goes, I have seen a Sony 55Es with a Panamorph, Sony VW600ES 4K and a JVC RS500. Even the e-shift JVC was producing a pixel size so small it isn't discernible past a foot from the screen. I could see the benefits of the Panamorph paired with the Sony vs. zooming with my JVC (2K panel), but they were slight. So, no I don't believe that any lens is going to make the picture of a 4K panel or even an e-shift implementation noticeably better. The cost/benefit ratio certainly isn't there. Except for lumens it's pretty much non-existent at this point.
> 
> If you have a nice lens, there's certainly no reason not to use it. However I would not recommend anyone buy one in the current climate.


Seeing a demo does nothing. You need an A/B comparison. I've done many with my setup. Even using this argument of pixel density the Cylindrical wins. I can easily pick the A lens picture just as I can see the the difference between 4K and 8k panels. You can never have too many pixels. You need to see this with two identical projectors to see the difference. The difference is remarkable. There a reason these are used in the finest home theater and bought by DIYers. There's Been several CA lens owners here that have tried the zoom method, myself included, but they go back to using the CA lens. You have no real experience with a CA lens. I'm not sure how you can make assumptions, draw a conclusion and give advice without experience. This has been one of the best purchases I've ever made. That was the case when it fronted my Benq W5K and it's still the case three projectors later. I've seen nothing on the horizon that has leads me to believe anything will change in the coming years and projector replacements. Again this comes down to one thing only, money. If CA Lenses were a $100 you'd be lining up around the block. I get that. Even so, I'm not gonna tell you that buying a Ferrari is a waste of money, even if thats my opinion. I don't own one. I don't want one but I get that if you want that kind of performance, it's worth it. It's been mentioned that the ultimate would be a 21x9 projector and I agree a hundred percent with that. With my setup I have that with the added benefit of being able to upgrade the projector.


----------



## jeahrens

coolrda said:


> Seeing a demo does nothing. You need an A/B comparison. I've done many with my setup. Even using this argument of pixel density the Cylindrical wins. I can easily pick the A lens picture just as I can see the the difference between 4K and 8k panels. You can never have too many pixels. You need to see this with two identical projectors to see the difference. The difference is remarkable. There a reason these are used in the finest home theater and bought by DIYers. There's Been several CA lens owners here that have tried the zoom method, myself included, but they go back to using the CA lens. You have no real experience with a CA lens. I'm not sure how you can make assumptions, draw a conclusion and give advice without experience. This has been one of the best purchases I've ever made. That was the case when it fronted my Benq W5K and it's still the case three projectors later. I've seen nothing on the horizon that has leads me to believe anything will change in the coming years and projector replacements. Again this comes down to one thing only, money. If CA Lenses were a $100 you'd be lining up around the block. I get that. Even so, I'm not gonna tell you that buying a Ferrari is a waste of money, even if thats my opinion. I don't own one. I don't want one but I get that if you want that kind of performance, it's worth it. It's been mentioned that the ultimate would be a 21x9 projector and I agree a hundred percent with that. With my setup I have that with the added benefit of being able to upgrade the projector.


I don't need to see a cylindrical lens in action to know that it won't make an invisible pixel structure (at any sane viewing distance) more invisible. So that being the case, what gain are you getting besides lumens? I'm genuinely curious. 

If a CA lens was $100 I may consider it with my 2K setup (although I'm pretty happy with it). With a 4K or e-shift projector I doubt I would see a benefit, so no I wouldn't be interested.

The Ferrari analogy is an interesting one to make. They are a car I've lusted after for a very long time. But as a practical matter their performance envelope is matched by much less expensive cars. Their fit and finish is matched by other marque's, again, with less cost. Certainly there is a status and mystique to the brand as well as their beautiful design. But in absolute performance they aren't a bargain and aren't even the most capable (though I would love to have one).

For home theater, I'm not interested in status or mystique. Just the image on the screen. And I don't see how making a pixel structure I can't see less visible is something worth paying for. Let alone paying a LOT for.

http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

Looks like you need to be about a 8' from a 140" screen to see the full benefit of 4K. At what distance/screen size could you see the difference in the 4K and 8K panels?


----------



## bud16415

jeahrens said:


> I don't need to see a cylindrical lens in action to know that it won't make an invisible pixel structure (at any sane viewing distance) more invisible. So that being the case, what gain are you getting besides lumens? I'm genuinely curious.
> 
> If a CA lens was $100 I may consider it with my 2K setup (although I'm pretty happy with it). With a 4K or e-shift projector I doubt I would see a benefit, so no I wouldn't be interested.
> 
> The Ferrari analogy is an interesting one to make. They are a car I've lusted after for a very long time. But as a practical matter their performance envelope is matched by much less expensive cars. Their fit and finish is matched by other marque's, again, with less cost. Certainly there is a status and mystique to the brand as well as status. But in absolute performance they aren't a bargain and aren't even the most capable (though I would love to have one).
> 
> For home theater, I'm not interested in status or mystique. Just the image on the screen. And I don't see how making a pixel structure I can't see less visible is something worth paying for. Let alone paying a LOT for.
> 
> http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html
> 
> Looks like you need to be about a 8' from a 140" screen to see the full benefit of 4K. At what distance/screen size could you see the difference in the 4K and 8K panels?


I started a thread a couple weeks ago about this topic and somewhat changed my viewpoint over the course of the thread. 

You may find it an interesting read and I kind of summarized it in the first page but some of the supporting stuff is deeper in the thread. 

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/68-di...ting-distance-720-1080-uhd-visual-acuity.html


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> I started a thread a couple weeks ago about this topic and somewhat changed my viewpoint over the course of the thread.
> 
> You may find it an interesting read and I kind of summarized it in the first page but some of the supporting stuff is deeper in the thread.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/68-di...ting-distance-720-1080-uhd-visual-acuity.html


Sorry I'll try to read through the thread as time permits, but if I am interpreting your findings correctly on a 140" image the pixels on a 4K image start to be visible between 3-4'. Correct?


----------



## coolrda

jeahrens said:


> I don't need to see a cylindrical lens in action to know that it won't make an invisible pixel structure (at any sane viewing distance) more invisible. So that being the case, what gain are you getting besides lumens? I'm genuinely curious.
> 
> If a CA lens was $100 I may consider it with my 2K setup (although I'm pretty happy with it). With a 4K or e-shift projector I doubt I would see a benefit, so no I wouldn't be interested.
> 
> The Ferrari analogy is an interesting one to make. They are a car I've lusted after for a very long time. But as a practical matter their performance envelope is matched by much less expensive cars. Their fit and finish is matched by other marque's, again, with less cost. Certainly there is a status and mystique to the brand as well as their beautiful design. But in absolute performance they aren't a bargain and aren't even the most capable (though I would love to have one).
> 
> For home theater, I'm not interested in status or mystique. Just the image on the screen. And I don't see how making a pixel structure I can't see less visible is something worth paying for. Let alone paying a LOT for.
> 
> http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html
> 
> Looks like you need to be about a 8' from a 140" screen to see the full benefit of 4K. At what distance/screen size could you see the difference in the 4K and 8K panels?


Comparing an 75" 4k to an 85" 8k. Average was 8-10'. There was absolutely no pixelization on either. The 8k looked much smoother and better. It looked more real. 4K will be replaced by 8k and 16k. With each step will come increased picture quality at the same view distance. I'm gaining picture quality. Are you saying 1600 pixels are the same as 2160? The four major areas that CA lens use improves are light, scaling speed, size per throw distance and pixel density. This isn't a status symbol or gimmick. This is about putting the best widescreen pic on screen. This argument has been going on here for 15 years. If it didn't make an overwhelming improvement I would have sold it a long time ago. What your describing is sharpness and lack of pixel structure. What I'm describing is picture quality and all the elements that make that up. 

Again you have no experience with a CA Lens. If you had spent a couple months with one, then came and posted you hated it or saw no improvement and it's a complete waste of money, at least that would be a valid opinion or viewpoint. But you don't even have that which makes your opinion meaningless. You may want to look over some of these discussion here in the past. There's more to it than lack of pixel structure. i wish all the projectors that came and went gave me the value this lens has.


----------



## jeahrens

coolrda said:


> Comparing an 75" 4k to an 85" 8k. Average was 8-10'. There was absolutely no pixelization on either. The 8k looked much smoother and better. It looked more real. 4K will be replaced by 8k and 16k. With each step will come increased picture quality at the same view distance. I'm gaining picture quality. Are you saying 1600 pixels are the same as 2160? The four major areas that CA lens use improves are light, scaling speed, size per throw distance and pixel density. This isn't a status symbol or gimmick. This is about putting the best widescreen pic on screen. This argument has been going on here for 15 years. If it didn't make an overwhelming improvement I would have sold it a long time ago. What your describing is sharpness and lack of pixel structure. What I'm describing is picture quality and all the elements that make that up.
> 
> Again you have no experience with a CA Lens. If you had spent a couple months with one, then came and posted you hated it or saw no improvement and it's a complete waste of money, at least that would be a valid opinion or viewpoint. But you don't even have that which makes your opinion meaningless. You may want to look over some of these discussion here in the past. There's more to it than lack of pixel structure. i wish all the projectors that came and went gave me the value this lens has.


I'm not saying that 1600p is the same as 2160p. What I'm saying is that at a normal viewing distance (9+') from an average screen (100-150") 4k already has an invisible pixel structure. Even when zoomed for scope. So increasing the pixel density considering normal visual acuity doesn't seem to be necessary or beneficial. I've not seen any hard science that contradicts this either. I can back away from the UHD vs. HD display at Best Buy and the sharpness advantage of 4K disappears. I don't see how the picture looks more real when your eye ceases to be able see the extra information. 

I've already given you that there will be a lumen advantage. Scaling speed? If you foregoing the lens you aren't scaling anything. Yes a lens can help with help with a short throw. Pixel density I covered above. Past a certain point what is the benefit? Is the lens helping with contrast? No, in fact some hurt it slightly(yours may not). Is it helping with color? No. Contrast? No. So I come back to the lumens being the tangible benefit (or if you have a very short throw).

If you have a quality 2k setup a lens is the best picture you're going to get. I've never argued that. I didn't mean to imply that it is a status symbol without tangible gains in that application. However I don't see the benefit with today's 4K projectors (other than lumens). I don't need to directly observe a CA lens to look at the data and what I have observed and draw a conclusion. Would I love to see one? Sure. Call my opinion meaningless if you want. But until I see some hard data to contradict it, I'm not change it or quit offering it. And I suspect you will continue to enjoy your lens. Which is great for you.


----------



## coolrda

jeahrens said:


> I'm not saying that 1600p is the same as 2160p. What I'm saying is that at a normal viewing distance (9+') from an average screen (100-150") 4k already has an invisible pixel structure. Even when zoomed for scope. So increasing the pixel density considering normal visual acuity doesn't seem to be necessary or beneficial. I've not seen any hard science that contradicts this either. I can back away from the UHD vs. HD display at Best Buy and the sharpness advantage of 4K disappears. I don't see how the picture looks more real when your eye ceases to be able see the extra information.
> 
> I've already given you that there will be a lumen advantage. Scaling speed? If you foregoing the lens you aren't scaling anything. Yes a lens can help with help with a short throw. Pixel density I covered above. Past a certain point what is the benefit? Is the lens helping with contrast? No, in fact some hurt it slightly(yours may not). Is it helping with color? No. Contrast? No. So I come back to the lumens being the tangible benefit (or if you have a very short throw).
> 
> If you have a quality 2k setup a lens is the best picture you're going to get. I've never argued that. I didn't mean to imply that it is a status symbol without tangible gains in that application. However I don't see the benefit with today's 4K projectors (other than lumens). I don't need to directly observe a CA lens to look at the data and what I have observed and draw a conclusion. Would I love to see one? Sure. Call my opinion meaningless if you want. But until I see some hard data to contradict it, I'm not change it or quit offering it. And I suspect you will continue to enjoy your lens. Which is great for you.


AR changes are instantaneous with lenses, zooming makes for slow AR changes. As far as hard data there's plenty of that, if you want to research it. NHK has done extensive testing and has chosen 8k for its future broadcast standard. Nvidia and AMD tested and found visual reality with 20/20 visual acuity is achieved with 48,000,000 pixels on screen or 6k X 8k. 16k is perfection but most say there's little to no discernable difference compared to 8k. However everyone clearly can see a difference between 4K and 8k. Looking at a 4K vs 8k display of an oil painting and live action of Manhattan really showed the superiority of 8k and why I believe 4K will have a short shelf life. Back to the 4K vs 8k. Looking at the 4K v the oil painting, the 4K looked perfect. I could pick out the oil painting easily but it was very very close. With the 8k it was freaky freaky. It wasn't a panel. It became which one is a forgery, not which was real vs a panel. It had me looking behind the panel, truly jaw dropping. From 10ft to one inch away there's no artifacts. I will say this though, without seeing the 8k I would have never imagined that 4K could be bested. There's tons of white papers about all of this. Fill rate or pixels per inch makes a big difference in perceived picture quality even when there's no screen door effect. The image is more organic. I could clearly see the superiority of 8k over 4K ever from 10ft back which is optimal view distance if these panels were 1080p. 2160 beats 1600 and 4320 beats 2160 easily even though there's no pixel structure with either. Pixel fill does indeed makes a difference up to 8k and beyond.


----------



## bud16415

jeahrens said:


> Sorry I'll try to read through the thread as time permits, but if I am interpreting your findings correctly on a 140" image the pixels on a 4K image start to be visible between 3-4'. Correct?


Correct in terms of pixel size. 

The chart that’s widely used is the Carlton Bale chart that I never truly understood. It is based loosely around the Snellen eye chart that says the smallest E you can see what direction the E is pointing determines your visual acuity and 20/20 was thought of as ideal vision. The chart was to be placed 20’ from the viewer and the line width of the E was to take up 1/60 of one degree of our vision and the height and width of the E is 5/60 of one degree. It is fine for testing eyes as a standard (black on white, brightly lit etc.) but kind of a leap relating that to any kind of a pixel size. The Carlton Bale chart wasn’t then to “address” pixel size but rather “Viewing distance where resolution becomes noticeable”. 

I asked the questions in that thread and some of the members here answered my questions based on their understandings and testing done by others. 

Come to find out when a resolution becomes noticeable compared to a viewing reality is quite a bit more distance than based on the Snellen measurements. In fact, about 5 times greater distance. The distances actually become great enough that it doesn’t matter at all up to and including 4k all better resolutions will look closer to reality in any room / seating distance. I kind of confirmed this for myself although not real scientific comparing 1080 and 4k flat panels from across the store at great distances. It was hard to factor out the different content they play and also the greater range of brightness etc. but it’s kind of clear there is improvement way past the distance I can see any pixels in any of the displays. So with that chart somewhat meaningless to me as it is the threshold of improvements more or less and I’m sure more is always going to be better for some folks I still pondered then how come I can derive so much pleasure out of a WXGA image still when the world is telling me how awful it has to be. I might add I have 20/20 vision without correction.

I started looking at what would condemn a resolution for me or a better point being the first beginnings of condemning a resolution and that would be based around pixel size and the ability of our vision with blended color pixels we might find in a real movie not a test chart. That is the chart I then came up with, again based around information other members offered and I tried to best judge the validity by my own eyes. That chart came out to be roughly 10X closer than when resolution becomes noticeable distance. 

I am also convinced different people watch in different modes of vision and most of us that think about this stuff start using a more critical type of vision where we don’t become all immersed in the content instead we tend to study the PQ. On my WXGA setup at home if I put up a test image like a ANSI checkerboard I can see pixels or just begin to see pixels at my seating distance. They are not disturbing to me because I know in the content of a movie I never see them nor do my guests. We are seeing past pixels and viewing the combined image as a whole. 

That’s a brief explanation of the two charts I made and made for my reference only. If someone else wants to use them as a point of reference to decide what resolution will best suit their screen size, seating distance and budget that’s fine with me.


----------



## coolrda

Good post Bud. Our eyes are truly remarkable and it's amazing how the adapt even with less than perfect vision. The key word is reality. From what I've read the consensus is 16k sourced 8k [email protected] is reality on a 150" at 12ft. 

Here's a paragraph that described it well from NHK's experiments.
_
NHK’s research presents a very different picture of the value of high resolution. Viewers of Super Hi-Vision system frequently report strong sensations of depth. An analysis of brain activity measured by fMRI (Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging) showed significant activity in the area responsible for monocular depth perception. More relevant to the UHD naysayers, tests showed that higher-resolution images facilitate a sensation of depth even when the resolution difference is not detectable _by the viewer.

This accurately describes what I've seen.


----------



## jeahrens

coolrda said:


> AR changes are instantaneous with lenses, zooming makes for slow AR changes. As far as hard data there's plenty of that, if you want to research it. NHK has done extensive testing and has chosen 8k for its future broadcast standard. Nvidia and AMD tested and found visual reality with 20/20 visual acuity is achieved with 48,000,000 pixels on screen or 6k X 8k. 16k is perfection but most say there's little to no discernable difference compared to 8k. However everyone clearly can see a difference between 4K and 8k. Looking at a 4K vs 8k display of an oil painting and live action of Manhattan really showed the superiority of 8k and why I believe 4K will have a short shelf life. Back to the 4K vs 8k. Looking at the 4K v the oil painting, the 4K looked perfect. I could pick out the oil painting easily but it was very very close. With the 8k it was freaky freaky. It wasn't a panel. It became which one is a forgery, not which was real vs a panel. It had me looking behind the panel, truly jaw dropping. From 10ft to one inch away there's no artifacts. I will say this though, without seeing the 8k I would have never imagined that 4K could be bested. There's tons of white papers about all of this. Fill rate or pixels per inch makes a big difference in perceived picture quality even when there's no screen door effect. The image is more organic. I could clearly see the superiority of 8k over 4K ever from 10ft back which is optimal view distance if these panels were 1080p. 2160 beats 1600 and 4320 beats 2160 easily even though there's no pixel structure with either. Pixel fill does indeed makes a difference up to 8k and beyond.


Good information and observations. Me personally the difference between 2K and 4K disappears on the demos I've seen after I get so far back (probably ~6'). Granted I don't think the panels they're doing it on are bigger than 50". The VW600ES demo had 4K samples from the supplied Sony drive and they looked great. But the differences between that and upscaled 2K wasn't enormous (resolution wise). I'm not knocking 4K, I will be moving there, but I'm just saying that from what I've seen it already seems to be sliding towards the end of diminishing returns with regards to resolution (the expanded color gamut and other additions are at least as exciting for me as the resolution bump). 

As far as the lens goes I guess it would depend on how much you perceive resolution differences at your screen size and seating distance. Both the Sony VW600ES and the JVC RS500 employing e-shift made an image smooth enough that I doubt I personally would see the difference the extra fill the lens would give me. It's just not the leap that 1080p was for me, it's much more subtle. Just take my own screen. It's 120x51" (130" 2.35:1 screen). That's roughly 6000 sq inches. A resolution of 3840x1600 gives me 32 pixels per inch (my current 1920x800 gives me 16 ppi). From my 9-10' viewing distance 32 ppi is going to be tough for me to discern the individual pixels or honestly see any additional pixels (then add picture motion on top of it). 

However if a person can see the extra ~34% fill in their setup and wants to spend the money on the lens that's certainly up to them. My own observations are that 4K is has a high enough density that I wouldn't recommend a lens (except for extreme lumens or throw cases). However, you certainly give anyone reading this food for thought to explore the option. It's another case where your own perception, setup and preference will ultimately be the guide. It's definitely a good conversation to have and gives anyone pondering how to go forward with CIH things to consider.


----------



## bud16415

coolrda said:


> Good post Bud. Our eyes are truly remarkable and it's amazing how the adapt even with less than perfect vision. The key word is reality. From what I've read the consensus is 16k sourced 8k [email protected] is reality on a 150" at 12ft.
> 
> Here's a paragraph that described it well from NHK's experiments.
> _
> NHK’s research presents a very different picture of the value of high resolution. Viewers of Super Hi-Vision system frequently report strong sensations of depth. An analysis of brain activity measured by fMRI (Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging) showed significant activity in the area responsible for monocular depth perception. More relevant to the UHD naysayers, tests showed that higher-resolution images facilitate a sensation of depth even when the resolution difference is not detectable _by the viewer.
> 
> This accurately describes what I've seen.


Thanks. 

I will read more about that study when I can. I actually fall on both sides of this argument or I can see both sides. I am old enough that most of my love for cinema came from the time of film and projectors and although the images of today are so much closer to reality than ever before and I do adore the realism in many sources I also find a film like image much to my liking. I guess I’m very obsessed with some aspects of home theaters and on the other hand not that obsessed with the quest for realism in my images. I look at my own rather humble home theater and the overall results it obtains for me and of course any guests I have over. I wouldn’t mind having a higher level of technology and I’m sure I will as things march on as I understand the differences now. I also agree jeaherns idea of diminishing returns only in my case it is the returns on the whole movie going experience in my theater. When people remark the experience was excellent I wonder how many times more excellent can something be and what words do we have to explain that. Much in the way I drive a Kia Soul as my daily driver and feel the overall driving experience is excellent. 

We all know some people in all hobbies this one included become driven to the highest levels the hobby will support. Then there are the masses in the hobby and lastly there are people like me that take pleasure in doing more with less. My goal has always been to be able to totally forget about the image and the equipment for the two hours or so a movie is playing.


----------



## coolrda

jeahrens said:


> Good information and observations. Me personally the difference between 2K and 4K disappears on the demos I've seen after I get so far back (probably ~6'). Granted I don't think the panels they're doing it on are bigger than 50". The VW600ES demo had 4K samples from the supplied Sony drive and they looked great. But the differences between that and upscaled 2K wasn't enormous (resolution wise). I'm not knocking 4K, I will be moving there, but I'm just saying that from what I've seen it already seems to be sliding towards the end of diminishing returns with regards to resolution (the expanded color gamut and other additions are at least as exciting for me as the resolution bump).
> 
> As far as the lens goes I guess it would depend on how much you perceive resolution differences at your screen size and seating distance. Both the Sony VW600ES and the JVC RS500 employing e-shift made an image smooth enough that I doubt I personally would see the difference the extra fill the lens would give me. It's just not the leap that 1080p was for me, it's much more subtle. Just take my own screen. It's 120x51" (130" 2.35:1 screen). That's roughly 6000 sq inches. A resolution of 3840x1600 gives me 32 pixels per inch (my current 1920x800 gives me 16 ppi). From my 9-10' viewing distance 32 ppi is going to be tough for me to discern the individual pixels or honestly see any additional pixels (then add picture motion on top of it).
> 
> However if a person can see the extra ~34% fill in their setup and wants to spend the money on the lens that's certainly up to them. My own observations are that 4K is has a high enough density that I wouldn't recommend a lens (except for extreme lumens or throw cases). However, you certainly give anyone reading this food for thought to explore the option. It's another case where your own perception, setup and preference will ultimately be the guide. It's definitely a good conversation to have and gives anyone pondering how to go forward with CIH things to consider.


Thanks. It's because of the cost that I spent so much time weighing it all, the better part of a year. A couple of Iscos did show up in the classifieds here and in Videogon but we're gone quickly and I was indecisive on a "s" lens which was a good thing looking back as it would be unusable with my current throw. Even after I purchased the lens I went back and forth questioning if the purchase was the right move, especially with native 2.35 projectors on the horizon. Looking back I'm so glad I bought the lens. It's on its fourth projector with all previous proj's failing. I can't say if I would have gone this route just for increased light or pixel density or aspect changes. Currently the most important feature is max screen size which is a necessity now that I have a short throw distance. But when all of those advantages are group together, and I switch between the two, zoom and lens, the lens is much better, picture wise and in function. Is it worth the cost? For me yes. My equipment comes and goes and my Lens is the oldest piece in the room now. It could very well be in use for years or another decade to come. When you average cost over that period of time it makes it one of the best purchases I've made. Unfortunately this is one of those esoteric items you can't test drive, you just gotta jump in and that sucks. At least those just getting into this today have the zoom memory option.


----------



## Spygg

I'm using the zoom method with my Epson EH-LS10000 laser projector on my 114" 2.35:1 screen, and have no wishes to do anything else. The main reason is that I always want the picture as wide as possible, and fact is - there is more aspect ratios than 1.78:1 and 2.35:1. For example Netflix's tv series "House of Cards" and "Marco Polo* which both have a 2.00:1 aspect ratio. And then you have all the 1.85:1 movies, plus the 2.20:1, 2.24:1, 2.76:1 etc.
I can store ten lens memories in my projector, so I have all those covered. Plus - is there really an anamorphic lens that's so good it doesn't ruin the 4K (or in my case Faux K) resolution? Also - with the zoom method I don't have to scale the picture in any way.

For me - the only advantage an anamophic lens would have is the extra brightness, but in my setup - my LS10K gives me all the light I need.

(sorry if my grammar's not perfect - I'm Swedish)


----------



## DavidHir

I use the zoom method with my JVC RS4810. Very pleased.


----------



## coolrda

Spygg said:


> The main reason is that I always want the picture as wide as possible, and fact is - there is more aspect ratios than 1.78:1 and 2.35:1. For example Netflix's tv series "House of Cards" and "Marco Polo* which both have a 2.00:1 aspect ratio. And then you have all the 1.85:1 movies, plus the 2.20:1, 2.24:1, 2.76:1 etc.
> I can store ten lens memories in my projector, so I have all those covered. Plus - is there really an anamorphic lens that's so good it doesn't ruin the 4K (or in my case Faux K) resolution? Also - with the zoom method I don't have to scale the picture in any way.


Isco 3L is transparent perfection. That's why they cost what they do. Saw a jaw dropping demo with a $165,000 Barco 4K with the lens in and out. No difference other than with the lens in was a brighter and smoother pic. The long throw makes a huge difference on flat screens and A lens. At that point I had to have it. I still have every zoom ratio available with or without lens in.


----------



## Spygg

coolrda said:


> Isco 3L is transparent perfection. That's why they cost what they do. Saw a jaw dropping demo with a $165,000 Barco 4K with the lens in and out. No difference other than with the lens in was a brighter and smoother pic. The long throw makes a huge difference on flat screens and A lens. At that point I had to have it. I still have every zoom ratio available with or without lens in.


Well - since a Isco 3L costs MORE than my $7,999 projector (Epson EH-LS10000) - this isn't really an option for me. But if I was rich as hell - sure - I'd try that. But did you test it with movies or test discs? It's hard to compare for example sharpness with just movie scenes.


----------



## coolrda

Spygg said:


> Well - since a Isco 3L costs MORE than my $7,999 projector (Epson EH-LS10000) - this isn't really an option for me. But if I was rich as hell - sure - I'd try that. But did you test it with movies or test discs? It's hard to compare for example sharpness with just movie scenes.


Yes Hundreds of hours on four different projectors including DLP, DILA and LCD. It doesn't cost that much. Over here I've seen them go for as low as $3000 though its rare. You can find one in the $4K to $4.5K range pretty easy. Heres a system for you.
Top of the 2.35 Food Chain


----------



## jeahrens

coolrda said:


> Isco 3L is transparent perfection. That's why they cost what they do. Saw a jaw dropping demo with a $165,000 Barco 4K with the lens in and out. No difference other than with the lens in was a brighter and smoother pic. The long throw makes a huge difference on flat screens and A lens. At that point I had to have it. I still have every zoom ratio available with or without lens in.


One thing to point out, unless you are going to crop the other AR's to scope, you'll only be using the lens for scope. I know that's inferred, just wanted to make sure folks reading this understood that.


----------



## jeahrens

Spygg said:


> Well - since a Isco 3L costs MORE than my $7,999 projector (Epson EH-LS10000) - this isn't really an option for me. But if I was rich as hell - sure - I'd try that. But did you test it with movies or test discs? It's hard to compare for example sharpness with just movie scenes.


Well unless you need the lumens (and you likely don't) or will notice the extra resolution I can't imagine it being worth it for you. From everything I have read that projector is outstanding. If it's anywhere near the image quality of the JVC e-shift models (which it's supposed to be) I can't image you find it lacking when zoomed for scope.


----------



## coolrda

jeahrens said:


> One thing to point out, unless you are going to crop the other AR's to scope, you'll only be using the lens for scope. I know that's inferred, just wanted to make sure folks reading this understood that.


I don't wanna hear about other AR's. They can go find their own forum. This is the 2.35. We only except 2.35 and above.


----------



## microwiz

Never considered an anamorhic lenses but I can't even tell the resolution difference when zoomed out vs the original with eshift engaged. I do notice a loss of brightness though but I have some room to spare.


----------



## CAVX

coolrda said:


> I don't wanna hear about other AR's. They can go find their own forum. This is the 2.35. We only except 2.35 and above.


Another Anamoprhic Lens user here.

All ARs are the same height on my system until they go beyond the max AR of 2.37:1. So I don't mind smaller ARs so long as they are the same height as everything else.


----------



## Kelvin1965S

I went from a JVC X35 plus Isco II lens to an X500 and zooming. 

I compared them side by side, both fully calibrated (using a Lumagen 2041), same peak white, etc. I only gained 1% brightness using the lens (since I'm at absolute minimum zoom in the projector I gain brightness just coming off the end stops). I think the brightness gain can sometimes be overstated, especially since the ideal set up with a lens is to have minimum zoom on the projector for least pincushion and to avoid vignetting.

In my case the e-shift feature covers the pixel density/visibility side and a dark surround to the screen covers black bar overspill. 

Of course I have lens memory on the X500, but also scaling in my Lumagen so I can do an instant 'shrink' for 16:9 menus and trailers once I've already zoomed to 2.35:1. I have other aspects covered with the lens memory so I can watch without scaling on those.

I just don't get any benefit in my set up using a lens now (though I did prefer it over zooming an older JVC HD350 that I had when I first bought the Isco). It took quite a while to sell as well, so I think I may have timed it right.


----------



## CAVX

I prefer instant AR changes. 

The last time I played with a JVC, it seemed to go through all the steps I had used to set up the Scope mode, rather than just zooming in and adjusting the lens shift.


----------



## bud16415

No zoom no lens

Over the last couple days, I have been using my PC running VLC media player with a black skin made by a 3rd party called darkvoodoo it is a skin that allows resizing the image without a frame around it. I set my PC up with the desk top being 0,0,0 black and the projector being a continuation of my desk top with nothing on it except the VLC. Set the zoom to Imax and can do CIH with just a click and drag of the mouse. No remote control required it is all controlled with the mouse. And no masking required as the 0,0,0 of the desk top blends perfect with the 0,0,0 of darkvoodoo skin. 

I wrote more about the idea on my PIA thread.


----------



## Kelvin1965S

CAVX said:


> I prefer instant AR changes.
> 
> The last time I played with a JVC, it seemed to go through all the steps I had used to set up the Scope mode, rather than just zooming in and adjusting the lens shift.


That’s why I use the Lumagen to scale 16:9 menus and trailers after zooming to 2.35:1. It’s instant (quicker than moving a lens for that matter, especially my Isco II which wasn’t really designed for CIH anyway). 

Since most of my viewing is 2.35:1 then I don’t need to use the JVC lens memory very often, but I find it works well when I do. Certainly doesn’t make me want to get another lens just so I can scale 16:9 content at the push of a button, when I can do that already. 

If I’m watching a whole 1.85:1 film then I use the lens memory once at the start of viewing and switch to another Lumagen memory which has 1:1 pixel mapping and a separate calibration to account for the differences. Later this year I will have side masking sorted out too, so I can enjoy the same crisp black borders that I have with 2.35:1 content.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

bud16415 said:


> No zoom no lens
> 
> Over the last couple days, I have been using my PC running VLC media player with a black skin made by a 3rd party called darkvoodoo it is a skin that allows resizing the image without a frame around it. I set my PC up with the desk top being 0,0,0 black and the projector being a continuation of my desk top with nothing on it except the VLC. Set the zoom to Imax and can do CIH with just a click and drag of the mouse. No remote control required it is all controlled with the mouse. And no masking required as the 0,0,0 of the desk top blends perfect with the 0,0,0 of darkvoodoo skin.
> 
> I wrote more about the idea on my PIA thread.


I started using HTPC back in 2000, and that worked really well with CIH. I ended up with Zoomplayer and that would automatically scale etc with my A lens so all I had to do was select the movie from the hard drive, and Zoomplayer would do the rest. Perfect 

I'll probably end up doing the same thing with my new set up. I just love the flexibility and server ability a PC gives.


----------



## Kelvin1965S

Gary; if you end up with a 4K UHD playing PC then I'll be pestering you for help. My last HTPC drove me mad with updates messing up all my careful settings at regular intervals, hopefully things have improved since then...

(I'll still zoom though  ).


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

I found that in the early days it did need a bit of tweaking etc and could have the problems you mention, but as the years went on and PCs were becoming more video/music oriented, those problems became less and less. Maybe I had a bit more luck and/or a bit more patience as I enjoyed getting it how I wanted and I don't remember it being that problematic.

I'll probably end up zooming too (with 4k), but I do like the flexibility an HTPC can give. To start with, I'll probably go with MadVR upscaled BD before going to UHD. Looking at some of the madvr pics, there's not a lot in it, especially with fauK.

If the UHD Oppo is only $500, that may be £500 which would be a nice surprise, and probably cheaper than building a 4k HTPC, so that might be a better route for 4k and keep the HTPC for BD


----------



## Kelvin1965S

My issues were mostly related to me using a Satellite card so I could watch the early BBC HD broadcasts and record various films to hard drive in HD (since at that time I only had a DVD player and the format wars were still raging). 

Between that card/it's related software and graphics card drivers if I installed any updates it would mess up the settings and I'd either get no picture or some other weird effect until I rebuilt the PC again and then only install the working updates. In the end I used a hard drive cloning software as it was quicker than a windows reinstall, but it got old fairly quickly (plus BBC HD started repeating the same films over and over).

I think MadVR looks interesting and it's fans claim it is equal or better than a Lumagen (but then when something is free I have to question if it's just a price thing). I'd probably keep a BluRay player in the rack though just to make things easier for the rest of the family, but I could get a HTPC working without all the hassle of the past then it would be good just as a source for the projector.


----------



## neoridium

I have to say that when I use my A-Lens with my Epson LS10000 and Jriver(using madVR) to vertically stretch the content on my HTPC, zooming just doesn’t compare . I can see a very distinguishable difference (even my wife can). However, I am not sure if this is because of how madVR vertically stretchs the content.


----------



## jjcook

My impression is that MadVR can definitely (up)scale content with superior results (albeit much more computationally expensive, e.g. supersampling) but of course it only works on select content being played via your PC. As I have a Radiance 2143 my plan is to utilize it for most of my scaling needs from Bluray, TiVO, etc., but to also have my HTPC with MadVR for the superior results when watching select content.


----------



## KBMAN

JVC DLA-RS20 with a Panamorph, PS100U vertical stretch lens. In place at all times. I got the lens for free. Works like a champ! The main advantage with this setup (for me) is the ability to turn letterboxed 4:3 material, into a 'native' 16:9. This works incredible for the original STAR WARS LASERDISCS, which is my only go-to when seeing the original trilogy. I don't worry about pixels, brightness, rez, like I used to...It looks GREAT  

PS..I rounded about 6,000 hours so far on my JVC


----------



## CAVX

Kelvin1965S said:


> Gary; if you end up with a 4K UHD playing PC then I'll be pestering you for help. My last HTPC drove me mad with updates messing up all my careful settings at regular intervals, hopefully things have improved since then...
> 
> (I'll still zoom though  ).


I'm glad I was not the only one who suffered through this. The idea of using a PC was awesome in theory, but a PITA in real life. You'd sort out the bugs and everything worked for a few days, then another update and suddenly, no sound or something dumb, not to mention the math needed to work out all the different ARs. 

Stand alone players don't have the control, but are much less of headache. I often describe the OPPO as a PC in a box solution that just works.


----------



## ht guy

Great thread, and right on topic for my current situation.

Already have a Panamorph UH480 complete with motorized sled, used for the last 9 years with a Panasonic ae2000 (which, to my knowledge, didn't do zooming) and a Carada 128" 2.35.

Recently picked up an Epson 5040 that does zooming

There will be extra expense (hopefully only labor, assuming the Panamorph adapter plate will work) to put the A lens/transport back up. (Oppo BD203 will do the vertical stretch.)

The primary use is movies - and more 2.35 than not.

To be honest, I'm not as concerned with the change in picture quality as I am with how the black bars will look when projected onto the spaces above and below the screen. Whether dark curtains or flat black walls, I want those spaces to be as dark as the (non-zoomed) light falloff will allow.

So, do I bother? Or just sell the Panamorph setup?


----------



## coolrda

My take is that you should absolutely use the lens. Not for the typical reasons posted here but rather because of sensitivity of black level. I've had my 203 for a week know and between having some of the issues and prioritizing watching the stack of UHDBR's I have , I haven't had time to calibrate or do much comparison. Even with having a non HDR projector, it's the black levels that stand out as what needs to be improved. Any component lighting has a far greater effect hitting the screen than I ever noticed with bluray. With bluray I've needed the lamp in high for awhile and it's always been about the need for more light. With UHD low is the preferred setting and it seems brighter. I don't know if it's because the DR is converted from a higher source having better blacks or if some of that DR sneaks through in the HDR/SDR process. With almost all of these movies I've watched, I prefer low lamp. The other thing is the letterbox is bothersome. I have a 2.37 curved screen so it's always been of no consequence having the slightest LB with. Little more with 1.85 movies. Never bothered me before but it does now and so I overscan. This is subjective as I haven't done much comparison testing but something to think about with the gear you have.


----------



## ht guy

Thanks! Much appreciated.


----------



## drunkpenguin

I've been using a Prismasonic lens (sp?) since 07 and have never looked back.


----------



## Kelvin1965S

drunkpenguin said:


> I've been using a Prismasonic lens (sp?) since 07 and have never looked back.


How do you know it's still there then? 

I've just gone 2.40:1 fixed AT screen since my earlier post and I'm loving it zoomed. I'm currently getting light spill on the wall below the screen, but this is currently only painted with a base coat of white ready for wallpaper (and eventually a black velvet covered fold down 'flap'). 

I've gone from drop down non AT 16:9, to drop down non AT 2.35:1, with lens and then without once I went e-shift with my X500, now to AT 2.40:1 and IMHO this is the best I've had and the room isn't even properly finished yet.


----------



## Brian Hampton

I recently obtained a 2.35:1 screen.

I use a 1080p projector (Sony HW45ES) ... so I have no FauxK or supersampling or stuff like that.

The ONLY souce component is a HTPC.

I send 1080p but use a 1920x812 space within that fits the 2:35 screen. (MadVR is set to mask to this and keep content within)

no lens.

I bought Velvet to absorb the light spill .

MadVR puts everything in the screen with the proper AR and no overscan.


-Brian


----------



## blastermaster

I love my UH480 lens and curved screen. I'm keeping it even when I upgrade to a 4k pj. It's just so easy to switch ARs. I find it so clear I don't even bother moving the lens out of place. Maybe that will change with 4k. Guess I'll see.


----------



## AMartin56

Can't change my poll answer but I just moved from a 40ES and lens to zoom method on a JVC. While it seems a bit Jethro when the menus etc extend past the screen I don't care when the movie starts. No quality difference in my theater as I have brightness overhead to spare. I prefer zoom to the lens. Best thing is perfect geometry with my 130 inch screen and 15 foot throw.


----------



## Goran

I have a very small home theater and with my short throw range I could get a nice sized 16:9 picture, but the size of a 2.35:1 picture was to small for my liking. I ended up getting a 2.35:1 screen and I´m using an Isco IIIL to get to the scope size I wanted. Image width for scope is just under eye to screen distance, and the whole thing is just great. Having CIH without compromising on either 16:9 or 2.25:1 with my short throw distance would not have been possible without lens.

I know that my situation is special, but I think that for some installations an anamorphic lens is still a great solution. I agree that is isn´t cheap (I had to upgrade from Prismasonic (older prism version) to Isco IIIL in my setup before I was happy), but it gives unique possibilities. I know there are short throw projectors or lens upgrades that could have been used in my situation, but that seriously limits the number of available projectors. With my current solution I can pick what ever projector I want, the lens and screen will still be the same.

Regards
Gøran


----------



## Skylinestar

For those using the zoom method, do you re-focus your projector after zooming?


----------



## Brian Hampton

Skylinestar said:


> For those using the zoom method, do you re-focus your projector after zooming?


I guess you could say I use the zoom method but after zooming I'm done. I fit everything else into the 2.35 space. 

So, ... yeah,.. I did adjust the focus after. I don't think anyone uses a projector for long without adjusting the focus.


----------



## jeahrens

Skylinestar said:


> For those using the zoom method, do you re-focus your projector after zooming?


Projectors with lens memory, like my JVC, zoom and refocus for you when switching ARs.


----------



## Josh Z

jeahrens said:


> Projectors with lens memory, like my JVC, zoom and refocus for you when switching ARs.


Yeah, but how accurate is it? When I use lens memory on my Sharp projector, the zoom, image shift and focus are all "ballpark" adjustments. You can do it 5 times in a row and get 5 different results. I have to manually fine-tune all of them every time I use a lens present.


----------



## R Harkness

Skylinestar said:


> For those using the zoom method, do you re-focus your projector after zooming?


No. I have not been able to notice the necessity for re-focusing either from viewing focus patterns up close or from watching movie content. So I do not include re-focusing in my zoom memories. (I figure there's probably more chance of variability over time by asking the mechanism to re-focus constantly, than there would be leaving the focus alone).


----------



## jeahrens

Josh Z said:


> Yeah, but how accurate is it? When I use lens memory on my Sharp projector, the zoom, image shift and focus are all "ballpark" adjustments. You can do it 5 times in a row and get 5 different results. I have to manually fine-tune all of them every time I use a lens present.


The focus is very accurate. I've checked it periodically and haven't had to readjust. The shift on the other had needs a tick or two to recenter periodically. Though it's a very small variance. Not something you would notice without the grid being up.


----------



## sfm

Until recently I had been using a Panamorph UH440 and motorized sled with my JVC RS-56 (and previously with a RS-20 and Sharp XV-20000). Once I remembered that the RS-56 supported lens memory I gave zooming a try for scope viewing... and subsequently promptly removed the lens and sled from my installation to sell.

While impossible to properly A/B in my case the zoom method yielded, IMO, better brightness, no pincusion (obviously) and no internal reflections (a problem with both my JVC projectors and I had even sent my 440 back to panamorph to address this issue which helped but didn't totally eliminate it). Like others have mentioned I have a Lumagen in the chain so I can quickly revert to 16x9 for menus, extras when zoomed (if needed). I find the lens memory (zoom, focus, etc.) to be accurate enough that I find no reason to mess with it. 

My screen, a Carada (RIP) Masquerade, has a wide border with felt which is surrounded by GOM black cloth so no issues with overspill.

The only thing I don't like is the annoying choice that JVC made to display the grid instead of whatever video image is displayed while zooming (IIRC the RS-600 my brother has does not do this). But a small price to pay for what I perceive to be a much better scope viewing experience.


----------



## Brian Hampton

Josh Z said:


> Yeah, but how accurate is it? When I use lens memory on my Sharp projector, the zoom, image shift and focus are all "ballpark" adjustments. You can do it 5 times in a row and get 5 different results. I have to manually fine-tune all of them every time I use a lens present.


I was thinking that could be as issue. I used to use a projector with motorized focus controls and now I have a manual and honestly I prefer the manual controls for accuracy.


----------



## R Harkness

sfm said:


> Until recently I had been using a Panamorph UH440 and motorized sled with my JVC RS-56 (and previously with a RS-20 and Sharp XV-20000). Once I remembered that the RS-56 supported lens memory I gave zooming a try for scope viewing... and subsequently promptly removed the lens and sled from my installation to sell.
> 
> While impossible to properly A/B in my case the zoom method yielded, IMO, better brightness, no pincusion (obviously) and no internal reflections (a problem with both my JVC projectors and I had even sent my 440 back to panamorph to address this issue which helped but didn't totally eliminate it). Like others have mentioned I have a Lumagen in the chain so I can quickly revert to 16x9 for menus, extras when zoomed (if needed). I find the lens memory (zoom, focus, etc.) to be accurate enough that I find no reason to mess with it.
> 
> My screen, a Carada (RIP) Masquerade, has a wide border with felt which is surrounded by GOM black cloth so no issues with overspill.
> 
> The only thing I don't like is the annoying choice that JVC made to display the grid instead of whatever video image is displayed while zooming (IIRC the RS-600 my brother has does not do this). But a small price to pay for what I perceive to be a much better scope viewing experience.


As I've said before, my A-lens is there mainly because I didn't have quite enough throw distance for my JVC to produce the widest image on my screen. If I had the throw distance to not need the A-lens, I would go with strictly the lens memory method. 

BTW, you can go to the Lens menu in the JVC and turn off that grid pattern. I turned it off on mine so when the lens re-zooms it's just the picture re-sizing, no grid.


----------



## mtbdudex

From this survey and other info seems the heyday of anamorphic lens is past us?

I use my a-lens currently - my setup is 8 years old and "light lumens challenged", however like many here when I upgrade to a true 4k HDR bright PJ I'll re-assess the zoom vs a-lens.

So, people who even used a-lens were the 1% or so of HT's ..... .....


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Just for fun, today I dug out my old ISCO and tried it on my Epson LS10000. I used the 4k scaling from my Denon amp which is OK but tends to add some image noise which tends to pull me out of the movie (so I don't use it), but thought I'd try it for testing purposes. With the A lens in place the image noise seems reduced and the image possibly a tad more 'solid' in appearance compared to without the lens, but it's a small difference. With true 4k source material and no image noise it could look better, but it may also not look a great deal different as I was using the image noise as the most obvious improvement factor. Without the noise from true 4k it may be harder to tell the difference.

So unless you already have an A lens or can get a good one at a good price, it may not be a worthwhile addition any more (especially as 4k pixels are smaller than 1080 pixels with an lens if BD is your primary source). With 4k source material and a 4k display, an A lens does allow you to use 2 million more display pixels which could be something like 1.5 million with an eshift display, and that is a lot of display pixels to add to an image. It's just how visible the difference would be compared to zooming, and if you're sitting close enough to notice (2xSH for me)


----------



## drunkpenguin

mtbdudex said:


> So, people who even used a-lens were the 1% or so of HT's ..... .....


Yes, at one time we were the elite! My wife still gives me crap for buying a lens that was a grand or 2, I don't remember what I paid for it.

I think now we are the old relics. The ones that kept their old PJs and never upgraded to 3D or 4K. We once ruled the world! But now we are past our prime and all we have are stories from our hay day!


----------



## R Harkness

drunkpenguin said:


> Yes, at one time we were the elite! My wife still gives me crap for buying a lens that was a grand or 2, I don't remember what I paid for it.
> 
> I think now we are the old relics. The ones that kept their old PJs and never upgraded to 3D or 4K. We once ruled the world! But now we are past our prime and all we have are stories from our hay day!


Indeed.

I'm in a weird place with my A-lens. I think it's a superb product, from an excellent company, and I'm very grateful it exists. 

But frankly I wish I could get rid of it. It's an added bunch of weight on my projector lift, it makes positioning of my projector more finicky, makes replacing projectors all the more trouble (re-setting up with the A-lens), adds to the complexity of my remote system, adds more effort in terms of trying to adjust out distortions when introducing an A-lens, and just adds more complication overall. I wish I could get rid of it. However, it helps me solve a real problem for my throw distance, and since I won't be moving any time soon, and projectors are unlikely to arrive with a zoom ratio wider than the current JVCs, I'm stuck with it.


----------



## drunkpenguin

I've had my pj lens combo for 10 years now. If and when the PJ dies I'll look at my options. I too wouldn't mind getting rid of it. I've spent many a nights trying to get the image just perfectly adjusted. I still have a tad bit of keystone that won't go away, but nobody seems to notice it but me. 

I also recently went back to drywall on the front wall and removed all my fabric panels that surrounded the screen, so a zoom method might be bad for me, not sure.


----------



## Kelvin1965S

If I still had my A-lens then I wouldn't have been able to hide my projector as I have now done. Much cheaper than a projector lift, though I have yet to add a 'door' that will open when I use the projector.


----------



## drunkpenguin

Kelvin1965S said:


> If I still had my A-lens then I wouldn't have been able to hide my projector as I have now done. Much cheaper than a projector lift, though I have yet to add a 'door' that will open when I use the projector.


Does that light spin? It looks cool!


----------



## Kelvin1965S

drunkpenguin said:


> Does that light spin? It looks cool!


Unfortunately not.  I was pleased to find that it didn't interfere with the projector's image though as it saved me a lot of hassle moving it and another one at the other end of the room.


----------



## Friendly Fire

I've been curious about anamorphic lenses for a while, but the cost has kept me from exploring it more deeply. For the heck of it I zoomed out to 2.40:1 on a letter boxed image, spilling past the edges of my 130" diagonal 16:9 screen and was intrigued. I had a 168" diagonal 2.40:1 screen built and dang, I never watch 16:9 in the theater room any more. I have an old Sony HPW30 projector but there is 100% light control in the room. 18 1/2 feet of throw. Viewing distance ~ 16 feet.


----------



## dschulz

Friendly Fire said:


> I've been curious about anamorphic lenses for a while, but the cost has kept me from exploring it more deeply. For the heck of it I zoomed out to 2.40:1 on a letter boxed image, spilling past the edges of my 130" diagonal 16:9 screen and was intrigued. I had a 168" diagonal 2.40:1 screen built and dang, I never watch 16:9 in the theater room any more. I have an old Sony HPW30 projector but there is 100% light control in the room. 18 1/2 feet of throw. Viewing distance ~ 16 feet.


Nicely done. Curious about one thing, though: you say you never watch 16:9. Do you mean you avoid TV shows that are 16:9 or movies that are flat (rather than widescreen), or do you mean when you watch TV or flat movies you stretch them or crop them to fill your 'Scope screen?


----------



## bud16415

I posted to this thread back in 2016 and now I’m doing a different method than I was then but I guess it falls into zoom method. 

I’m zooming by moving the ceiling mounted projector on an inclined rail a DIY project I made. The slide provides zoom and the incline provides vertical image shift. With moving the projector focus remains constant. 

I start at full zoom at the back of the slide for max light output and those lumens never change as I don’t adjust the projectors zoom. Thus max light output at all times. 

Works good and lets a cheap entry level projector be a CIH projector.


----------



## Friendly Fire

dschulz said:


> Nicely done. Curious about one thing, though: you say you never watch 16:9. Do you mean you avoid TV shows that are 16:9 or movies that are flat (rather than widescreen), or do you mean when you watch TV or flat movies you stretch them or crop them to fill you 'Scope screen?


Dshulz,

For example Game of Thrones shot in 16:9 has been relegated to the flat panel in the family room. It is easy enough to fit a 16:9 onto the 2.40:1 screen and either mask or look past the vertical side bars, but after watching shows on the wall sized 168" diagonal, anything else isn't satisfying. The experience just isn't the same. 

Unexpectedly 3D programming does amazingly well on the 168". Less ghosting, better depth. Avengers Infinity War is just striking. I've watched the movie a dozen times in 2D, but that 3D version is remarkable.

But whatever I watch in the theater room it has to be 2.40:1 going forward.

Thanks.


----------



## doctormyeyes

I have an ISCO II lens, which has been gathering dust in a storage closet. I switched to zooming years ago. Even with my old Panasonic AE3000 I found the picture good enough by zooming to forego the hassles of using the lens (and I had a simple installation- just placed it on a shelf in front of the projector). With my JVC RS540, it has been unnecessary. I'm using a 120" diagonal Dalite High Power screen and do not need the extra brightness the lens provides. I think whether you use a lens or not depends on many factors - projector, screen size and gain, room color, etc. 

I originally bought the lens to use with an NEC 4:3 projector, to convert it to 16:9, and found it worthwhile, as well, with a Panasonic 720p projector. With newer projectors, in my room and with my screen, I have not found the added benefit to be worth the hassle, and would sell it if I knew how to post things on ebay.


----------



## ask4me2

bud16415 said:


> I posted to this thread back in 2016 and now I’m doing a different method than I was then but I guess it falls into zoom method.
> 
> I’m zooming by moving the ceiling mounted projector on an inclined rail a DIY project I made. The slide provides zoom and the incline provides vertical image shift. With moving the projector focus remains constant.
> 
> I start at full zoom at the back of the slide for max light output and those lumens never change as I don’t adjust the projectors zoom. Thus max light output at all times.
> 
> Works good and lets a cheap entry level projector be a CIH projector.


interesting "Zoom" solution, but you write that "With moving the projector focus remains constant." 

I do not understand why you do not need to refocus the projector lens between the different trow distances? Do you use the projector lens in it's hyper-focal range or something?

The lumens never change from the projector itself using it like that, but on the screen the fL will drop with the longer throw/bigger picture area, and using only ~66% of the light (and resolution) from the 16:9 ship on 2.35:1 material that shod be viewed with the biggest picture area wil be a lot dimmer than viewing 16:9 contents.. 

If like others here using the lens zoom method, the zoom lens often sends more light trough when zoomed (due to different F Numbers at different Focal Lengths) , so that will reduce the fL. drop differences between 16:9 and 2.35:1 in the CIH setup.

I use both the ISCO II and ISCO 4XL (IIIL) lens in my setup, and have the JVC RS520 on he 4XL and a RS2 on the II. 

ISCO II does not like the ISCO 4XL support an easy inn and out of the light path use, so that needs to be setup a little differently. the II also have a rather small input element, so will not fit projectors with lens deep retracted setups etc.

Have tried the lens memory zoom method on projectors that support that, but like using A-lenses better...

I apsolutly love the ISCO 4XL combined with the Cinesled. 
https://vimeo.com/336977541


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Not long after my last post in this thread, I bought a Panasonic UHD player. I found it's upscaling to be excellent and doesn't add any image noise. Combined with my old ISCO II find I still prefer the image vs without (zooming) so it's stayed in use. I used to use an HTPC for scaling with the ISCO in my previous set up, and I think I may try going back to that again, as it allows scaling of ratios like 2.20:1 and 2.0:1 without cropping if leaving the a lens in place, so doesn't require it to be removed and the image zoomed for those movies if you don't want to crop and view them as scope.


----------



## bud16415

ask4me2 said:


> interesting "Zoom" solution, but you write that "With moving the projector focus remains constant."
> 
> I do not understand why you do not need to refocus the projector lens between the different trow distances? Do you use the projector lens in it's hyper-focal range or something?
> 
> The lumens never change from the projector itself using it like that, but on the screen the fL will drop with the longer throw/bigger picture area, and using only ~66% of the light (and resolution) from the 16:9 ship on 2.35:1 material that shod be viewed with the biggest picture area wil be a lot dimmer than viewing 16:9 contents..
> 
> If like others here using the lens zoom method, the zoom lens often sends more light trough when zoomed (due to different F Numbers at different Focal Lengths) , so that will reduce the fL. drop differences between 16:9 and 2.35:1 in the CIH setup.


You can try it yourself. Take a piece of white paper and hold it to your screen and it will be in focus. Notice the pixel grid as a focus indicator. Now move the paper 3-4’ closer to the projector and see what you get. 

Yes FL will increase as the projector gets closer. At my full back zoom position my zoom is also at its widest for max lumen output. At that position I have the FL I want for lights out totally black room movie viewing of scope and IMAX movies. The majority of what I zoom in to watch is TV and most of our TV watching we like less immersive and brighter as we also have some light added back into the room more conducive to socializing and more of a living room lighting. It is also a nice way to boast the output for the few 3D showings we do. 

We watch academy and flat movies more like CIA most of the time. For me there is a bit more selection about immersion level than most folks in this forum. As an example being a fan of classic movies and little known movies that may only have poor transfers available sometimes DVD is the best that can be found, a little less immersion improves PQ a lot. 

The biggest advantage to my method is for someone on a limited budget wanting a method to get to better presentation. An A-lens and HTPC and scaling devices and high end projectors with lots of programmable adjustments is all great and maybe even the best. There are all these new ARs and AR changing movies going on to deal with. The idea of the slide took me just a few hours to construct and now I have added counter balance to it. It will work with projectors in the $500 up price range it is a quick and simple thing to adjust. It takes less than 10 seconds for me to accomplish a full zoom and I don’t need to climb a ladder and fiddle with adjustments. Some weeks it hardly gets moved and other days it gets adjusted several times for back to back showings. 

There is another advantage to my system and that is individual preferences. I have several older family members that just have a distaste for full on immersion regardless how good the PQ. They have been sitting near the back of commercial theaters their whole lives. When I know they are coming to enjoy a movie with us I view the variable immersion as seating selection and just as we would do if we went with them to a commercial theater we sit in the back row with them. 

I know I have a different take in varying image sizes than most here in the CIH forum. there is no variable image size forum and my method does do CIH well so I share it here.


----------



## ask4me2

bud16415 said:


> You can try it yourself. Take a piece of white paper and hold it to your screen and it will be in focus. Notice the pixel grid as a focus indicator. Now move the paper 3-4’ closer to the projector and see what you get.


Yes that is a quick method to test this to see the Depth of field (DOF) for the projector setup.

Know from the good old days with CRT projectors that the DOF when focusing the optic can be real narrow 2-3cm, and often used a paper to check the center, corner and Scheimpflug adjustments.

These two projectors (HD1 vs G90) will for example react quite differently to the white paper test (not taking the CRT convergence problems into the equation).



Think Different digital projectors with different resolution Chip/pixel size, throw distance use of lens focal length and Aperture f-number will have different DOF properties. A native 4K projector with almost the same lens and setup like the NX5 vs X7900 will have a quite different size on the pixels and circle of confusion, and that again will be the case between the new JVC 4K models where the NX9 with that great lens will get an even a smaller DOF than the N5/N7 models due to its higher light/aperture setting. 

So all of these factors will come to play if the projector is moved or how much the white paper cold be moved before the pixel grid get out of focus.

Actually the focus plane where the projector screen get to be at "100%" (if that exist for a 3chip projector) in focus is only at one particular focus distance, but because of the DOF where the circle of confusion still is small enough to still show the pixel grid correctly there is an usable sliding area where the focus still seems to be ok. 

Just tested with a "white paper" on my [email protected] throw from the 2.35:1 format 120" screen now with and without the A-lens, and can with optimal focus on the screen get about 1' (~30cm) of A4 paper movement shorter throw before it gets out of focus. Switching the A-lens in and out of the light path only reminded me how good and razor sharp that ISCO 4XL realy is...

The "rule" for DOF is that you will get a bigger usable distance further behind the focus plane than in front, (it's about 1/3 in front vs 2/3 behind) so I guess with a slight refocus with this in mind, the total distance cold be about 2' +-1' for that RS520 setup. 

If i had to go for a similar variable projector throw setup, I wold try to make it a remote controlled one, maybe build around a slightly modified carport opener or something.

Think a variable projector throw setup is a great idea if the correct projector, zoom and throw distance is used, and it sounds to me like you have a nice one bud16415.

One idea I have played with a little, is to use a shorter throw distance (with or without a necessary lens memory refocus) , is to add a good tab tension remote controlled 16:9 projector screen to my setup.

This is to get the best out of those great movies where there is some variable AR between parts filmed with imax and 2.35:1. So if the screen is situated a little closer to the viewing position, and is large enough, that relay will get that big "imax" feeling, and will be fun to try out.


----------



## darksets

I use the zoom method by choice. I believe a Lumagen processor is a better investment than an anamorphic lens. DTM can alleviate brightness shortcomings of projectors for 4k movies without any of the sharpness degradation effects of an anamorphic lens.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

darksets said:


> I use the zoom method by choice. I believe a Lumagen processor is a better investment than an anamorphic lens. DTM can alleviate brightness shortcomings of projectors for 4k movies without any of the sharpness degradation effects of an anamorphic lens.


That's not my experience of A lenses, otherwise I wouldn't use one.

Sometimes people confuse the increased pixel density with a loss of sharpness, but that's probably down to using more pixels to render the image and smoothing out things like diagonal lines or circular content. Using more and smaller pixels vs less and larger pixels does make a visible difference. With UHD content you'd be using 2 million more pixels to render the image and that's the same amount of pixels an entire Blu Ray disk uses. With zooming you have larger pixel gaps and an image that looks 'thin' in comparison.

There are advantages to using a Lumagen, such as not having to use the lens memories which often don't return accurately and allow the focus to drift, and any aspect ratio can be catered for, just like with an HTPC (but is generally easier to use). I think the ultimate solution would be an A lens with a Lumagen or HTPC.


----------



## bud16415

ask4me2 said:


> Yes that is a quick method to test this to see the Depth of field (DOF) for the projector setup.


You are correct it is a DOF issue and my reason in doing this was to provide a CIH or CIH+IMAX or CIA / variable area solution for people on the budget end of HT. 

Most of the cheaper shorter throw entry-level DLP projectors use a small chip, small lens system and bright light sources. Just like the pinhole cameras we used to make as a kid out of a shoebox to watch the eclipse that worked with infinite DOF these projectors are closer to that than the old CRT projectors with their massive lens systems. The other thing with a shorter throw projector less movement causes greater zoom. 

In my case in my small theater room I have a max throw of 8’9” and the Viewsonic Pro 7827HD will produce a 110” image and I sit eyes to screen at 8’. That’s about 1.7 x Screen height for IMAX content and given 1080p resolution works best for us. Scope is of course 2.4 x SH and is quite nice. Given the small size to the room and single row seating and what is out there in fairly good quality shorter throw projectors it’s the best we could do for immersion and it feels big enough and theater like. We use the room for a mixture of viewing and we use the slider zoom to watch most 1.85 flat movies just a little taller than CIH. We watch some Academy movies at IMAX height or less depending on the media and transfer quality. If it is a great movie and all we have is scaled DVD of a poor transfer we will watch it around 3 x SH or as small as we have to go to make it look good. That removes immersion but doesn’t harm the entertainment value all that much of that type movie. TV as I mentioned, most of it doesn’t need to be all that huge. Most people with flat panel TVs sitting 8’ away would have a 60” set and enjoy it and that’s about what we do. The added FL makes it more TV like even. 

There are a few great 4k budget projectors hitting main stream now that are shorter throws so that will likely be our next upgrade. As I can’t make the room larger I might push the seating up a few inches at that time. 

I guess I should in the future refer to my method as the DOF method when recommending such a rig for anyone on a CIH budget. IMO it is such and improvement over CIW what most people are doing entering this hobby. 

I like your two screen solution for IMAX there are a few others here doing that. For my method to work best for me I went with a stealth screen of no given size or AR and I let the dark gray surface do self masking. This is another budget friendly method for someone to get around 4 way masking. Not perfect but also not to bad.


----------



## darksets

Gary Lightfoot said:


> That's not my experience of A lenses, otherwise I wouldn't use one.
> 
> Sometimes people confuse the increased pixel density with a loss of sharpness, but that's probably down to using more pixels to render the image and smoothing out things like diagonal lines or circular content. Using more and smaller pixels vs less and larger pixels does make a visible difference. With UHD content you'd be using 2 million more pixels to render the image and that's the same amount of pixels an entire Blu Ray disk uses. With zooming you have larger pixel gaps and an image that looks 'thin' in comparison.
> 
> There are advantages to using a Lumagen, such as not having to use the lens memories which often don't return accurately and allow the focus to drift, and any aspect ratio can be catered for, just like with an HTPC (but is generally easier to use). I think the ultimate solution would be an A lens with a Lumagen or HTPC.


You are ignoring the fact that in order for the anamorphic lens to present the correct aspect ratio, the image must be expanded vertically first. That means processing/scaling of the image, it's no longer a 1-1 pixel mapping. Assuming a high enough resolution to start with, the loss of the extra pixels is insignificant compared to the softening of the image resulting from processing. And that doesn't even take into account the geometry/color aberration and other effects of inserting another lens in the path. I stand by my statement that Lumagen by itself is better than an anamorphic lens and the lens should be avoided unless there is a severe lack of luminance.


----------



## Killroy

darksets said:


> You are ignoring the fact that in order for the anamorphic lens to present the correct aspect ratio, the image must be expanded vertically first. That means processing/scaling of the image, it's no longer a 1-1 pixel mapping. Assuming a high enough resolution to start with, the loss of the extra pixels is insignificant compared to the softening of the image resulting from processing. And that doesn't even take into account the geometry/color aberration and other effects of inserting another lens in the path. I stand by my statement that Lumagen by itself is better than an anamorphic lens and the lens should be avoided unless there is a severe lack of luminance.


Are your conclusions based on comparing the same projector with and without a quality a-lens or are you just basing this on your perceptions of what video processors can accomplish? I read back and could not find anything where you stated that you had compared both via actual tests of the same source with and without the lens. If you have done this can you please state which equipment you used so I can continue further conversation about your conclusions. Thanks.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

darksets said:


> You are ignoring the fact that in order for the anamorphic lens to present the correct aspect ratio, the image must be expanded vertically first. That means processing/scaling of the image, it's no longer a 1-1 pixel mapping. Assuming a high enough resolution to start with, the loss of the extra pixels is insignificant compared to the softening of the image resulting from processing. And that doesn't even take into account the geometry/color aberration and other effects of inserting another lens in the path. I stand by my statement that Lumagen by itself is better than an anamorphic lens and the lens should be avoided unless there is a severe lack of luminance.


I'm not ignoring anything but you're clearly ignoring my earlier comments - I've been using A lenses since 2004 so I'm fully aware of what is required and how they perform compared to zooming - I've seen quite a few over the years and a good lens like an ISCO doesn't degrade the image as you suggest - cheaper lenses might though of course - just like a cheap prime lens in a projector can have CA or poor focus uniformity (the ISCOs for example are probably far better than the prime lens in the projector), and as Killroy has said, it sounds like you haven't even seen an A lens or made any direct comparisons yourself, otherwise you wouldn't be making those comments. In my experience, people who think they only add brightness or think they all degrade the image have never seen one.

I've made plenty of comparisons to determine which methods produce the best results, and the A lens always has the advantage for the reasons I mentioned earlier. With my new set up (after a house move) I was zooming to start with and then after finding my ISCO lens in the loft a few months later I did some comparisons and found that just as before the A lens still produces better results, so I've kept it in place. If zooming was better I wouldn't use the lens - I have the choice so naturally choose the better image. If zooming was better I'd sell the lens as there would be no reason to keep it. I don't want or need any extra brightness and in my case the lens reduces my image brightness by approx one lux vs zooming. I use the lens simply for the improved image quality.

If you're zooming, why do you think a Lumagen will produce better results? A Lumagen is a scaler just like an HTPC, so if you're using the shrink method for CIH then you're scaling a zoomed image for everything other than 2.40 content, so the pixels are always large with larger pixel gaps (so a coarser image with far less pixel density which looks 'thin' in comparison) - I've seen a set up of my projector with a Lumagen using the shrink method so I know what it's like and still prefer the image from the A lens. The only thing the lumagen has as an advantage over zooming is that the aspect ratio changes are quick and with no image or focus drift over time. An HTPC will do the same - I was using an HTPC before and will add one again at some stage. An A lens with a Lumagen or HTPC would be the best choice.

Pixel to pixel isn't the advantage people think IMHO - when you compare pixel to pixel (zooming) vs an A lens with scaling the added pixel density and smoother more natural image has a visible advantage (hence why most people who do a comparison buy the lens if they can afford one). Zooming is like moving your seating 33% closer. If pixel to pixel was really that important people wouldn't be using e-shift projectors, and in the past, people wouldn't be scaling DVD or BD to fit displays that aren't of the same resolution - people scale DVD to fit 720, 1080 and 4k displays and don't render them as a pixel to pixel window - people scale everything to fit the panel or screen. No one renders it pixel to pixel in a window and zooms the image to fit the screen either, they always scale it. Even in post production they're constantly scaling with different algorithms that destroy every single original pixel and replace them with new. A good scaler just does the same thing.

Last year I had a few people round for demos at different times, and one guy liked what the A lens could do so he went out and bought a used ISCO III for approx $3000 - why would he do that if it made the image worse? He certainly didn't buy it for my benefit.

Another guy who had a JVC N5 on pre order went to my local dealer for a demo to see what it was he was buying, and right after came round to see my set up. He then cancelled his N5 and now has the same pj as me because he thought it was better. Seems an eshift pj plus an A lens compares extremely well to a native 4k projector.

Alan Roser always used an A lens and HTPC with the Sim2 projectors at demos because he wanted to show the best possible image to sell the projector. If zooming was better he would have done that instead. - if you're trying to sell a product you always want to show it at its best and zooming wasn't going to do that.


----------



## darksets

Killroy said:


> Are your conclusions based on comparing the same projector with and without a quality a-lens or are you just basing this on your perceptions of what video processors can accomplish? I read back and could not find anything where you stated that you had compared both via actual tests of the same source with and without the lens. If you have done this can you please state which equipment you used so I can continue further conversation about your conclusions. Thanks.


No, I have not used an anamorphic lens and have not done a comparison. Enjoy your conversations of the type "This projectors looks fantastic!", "The black levels look terrible" , "Last night I watched ... and it looked amazing using my ....".


----------



## darksets

Gary Lightfoot said:


> I'm not ignoring anything but you're clearly ignoring my earlier comments - I've been using A lenses since 2004 so I'm fully aware of what is required and how they perform compared to zooming - I've seen quite a few over the years and a good lens like an ISCO doesn't degrade the image as you suggest - cheaper lenses might though of course - just like a cheap prime lens in a projector can have CA or poor focus uniformity (the ISCOs for example are probably far better than the prime lens in the projector), and as Killroy has said, it sounds like you haven't even seen an A lens or made any direct comparisons yourself, otherwise you wouldn't be making those comments. In my experience, people who think they only add brightness or think they all degrade the image have never seen one.
> 
> I've made plenty of comparisons to determine which methods produce the best results, and the A lens always has the advantage for the reasons I mentioned earlier. With my new set up (after a house move) I was zooming to start with and then after finding my ISCO lens in the loft a few months later I did some comparisons and found that just as before the A lens still produces better results, so I've kept it in place. If zooming was better I wouldn't use the lens - I have the choice so naturally choose the better image. If zooming was better I'd sell the lens as there would be no reason to keep it. I don't want or need any extra brightness and in my case the lens reduces my image brightness by approx one lux vs zooming. I use the lens simply for the improved image quality.
> 
> If you're zooming, why do you think a Lumagen will produce better results? A Lumagen is a scaler just like an HTPC, so if you're using the shrink method for CIH then you're scaling a zoomed image for everything other than 2.40 content, so the pixels are always large with larger pixel gaps (so a coarser image with far less pixel density which looks 'thin' in comparison) - I've seen a set up of my projector with a Lumagen using the shrink method so I know what it's like and still prefer the image from the A lens. The only thing the lumagen has as an advantage over zooming is that the aspect ratio changes are quick and with no image or focus drift over time. An HTPC will do the same - I was using an HTPC before and will add one again at some stage. An A lens with a Lumagen or HTPC would be the best choice.
> 
> Pixel to pixel isn't the advantage people think IMHO - when you compare pixel to pixel (zooming) vs an A lens with scaling the added pixel density and smoother more natural image has a visible advantage (hence why most people who do a comparison buy the lens if they can afford one). Zooming is like moving your seating 33% closer. If pixel to pixel was really that important people wouldn't be using e-shift projectors, and in the past, people wouldn't be scaling DVD or BD to fit displays that aren't of the same resolution - people scale DVD to fit 720, 1080 and 4k displays and don't render them as a pixel to pixel window - people scale everything to fit the panel or screen. No one renders it pixel to pixel in a window and zooms the image to fit the screen either, they always scale it. Even in post production they're constantly scaling with different algorithms that destroy every single original pixel and replace them with new. A good scaler just does the same thing.
> 
> Last year I had a few people round for demos at different times, and one guy liked what the A lens could do so he went out and bought a used ISCO III for approx $3000 - why would he do that if it made the image worse? He certainly didn't buy it for my benefit.
> 
> Another guy who had a JVC N5 on pre order went to my local dealer for a demo to see what it was he was buying, and right after came round to see my set up. He then cancelled his N5 and now has the same pj as me because he thought it was better. Seems an eshift pj plus an A lens compares extremely well to a native 4k projector.
> 
> Alan Roser always used an A lens and HTPC with the Sim2 projectors at demos because he wanted to show the best possible image to sell the projector. If zooming was better he would have done that instead. - if you're trying to sell a product you always want to show it at its best and zooming wasn't going to do that.



If you are of the school of thought that it's just a question of subjective evaluation then like with Killroy we don't have much to talk about since I haven't used an anamorphic lens. I believe that the subjective experience must be supported by scientific facts. There are people who claim they have seen ghosts and other supernatural phenomena. I dismiss their claims even though I can't dispute their experience. In the video world we have things like sharpness control and edge enhancement which give the appearance of a sharper image although scientific analysis shows that it has the opposite effect. TV manufacturers and stores boost the colors in the settings so that the TVs will look better in the showroom. So arguments of the type such and such dealer does this to improve sales are not going to fly where I'm concerned.

Now regarding your arguments about pixel density and scaling, let's first clarify some facts. I have a 4k projector and a 2.35:1 screen. Using a Lumagen we have the following scenarios:

- With 4k sources, if the aspect ratio is 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 there is no scaling and we have 1:1 pixel mapping. That's the vast majority of scope movies and the reason I have a scope screen. When the source has an aspect ratio less than 2.35:1 there is scaling.

- With 1080p sources, for 2.35:1 (and possibly 2.40:1 I'm not sure about that) there is doubling which is the most benign form of scaling. Again for aspect ratios less than 2.35:1 there is scaling.

- With lower resolution sources there are various forms of scaling.

Your main argument is about pixel density and it boils down to whether the higher pixel density compensates for the scaling and other lens effects (geometry, color etc.). We are not in the old days of the terrible screen door effect, modern 4k projectors have extremely high pixel density. You have the advantage of having done comparisons and I can't dispute your preference. It may well be that the extra density does more than compensate for the other artifacts but even then it would be a function of screen size and sitting distance. If you sit far enough you can't see the pixel gaps but you can always see chromatic aberration. I find comfort in the thought that the image I see is the closest possible to the source.

Finally a couple of words on your comments about scaling in post production. Just because they introduce some distortion doesn't mean we should pile on some more on top of it. Every image altering step we put in the path degrades the image further and we want to have as few as possible. I can't control what goes into the blu-rays I buy, in choosing my video equipment my goal is to reproduce what's in the source as faithfully as possible.


----------



## Killroy

darksets said:


> No, I have not used an anamorphic lens and have not done a comparison. Enjoy your conversations of the type "This projectors looks fantastic!", "The black levels look terrible" , "Last night I watched ... and it looked amazing using my ....".


I just can't understand how you can tell people that the PQ on a a-lens is inferior to zooming, due to any reasons that you stated, if you have never compared the two side-by-side. That's like telling people that Fords are horrible cars if you have never owned one or even driven one.

I was also an a-lens skeptic but this was due to the fact that I was comparing it using some pretty cheap or less than stellar quality optics. 10-15 years ago there so many a-lenses on the market that were reasonably priced that everyone was trying them out but the results were not that substantial. A quality cylindrical lens such as the ISCOs were way out of my budget so I had never sat down to compare them since I knew I could not afford one.

As time went on the prices on the ISCOs used market began to fall out and eventually they can be had for under $2k pretty much all the time. I got a brand new "old stock" ISCO IIIL with a slider for a steal.

The PQ difference from those old prism lenses to the ISCO was pretty much night & day. And now with the updated video processor technology, the difference is even greater.

I can see you telling us that zooming works for you and you love it, cause I was on that boat with you for a long time, but I cannot see how you can tell us that people are not really seeing any good results with their a-lenses if YOU have not seen those results firsthand.


----------



## darksets

Killroy said:


> I just can't understand how you can tell people that the PQ on a a-lens is inferior to zooming, due to any reasons that you stated, if you have never compared the two side-by-side. That's like telling people that Fords are horrible cars if you have never owned one or even driven one.
> 
> I was also an a-lens skeptic but this was due to the fact that I was comparing it using some pretty cheap or less than stellar quality optics. 10-15 years ago there so many a-lenses on the market that were reasonably priced that everyone was trying them out but the results were not that substantial. A quality cylindrical lens such as the ISCOs were way out of my budget so I had never sat down to compare them since I knew I could not afford one.
> 
> As time went on the prices on the ISCOs used market began to fall out and eventually they can be had for under $2k pretty much all the time. I got a brand new "old stock" ISCO IIIL with a slider for a steal.
> 
> The PQ difference from those old prism lenses to the ISCO was pretty much night & day. And now with the updated video processor technology, the difference is even greater.
> 
> I can see you telling us that zooming works for you and you love it, cause I was on that boat with you for a long time, but I cannot see how you can tell us that people are not really seeing any good results with their a-lenses if YOU have not seen those results firsthand.


I am simply saying that subjective experience must be supported by the underlying science. The image without an anamorphic lens is closer to the source than the image with an anamorphic lens in the path. I have given a more extensive analysis in my answer to Gary Lightfoot. It's quite possible that even I would find the picture with an anamorphic lens more appealing but the knowledge of the underlying processing artifacts would bother me like a thorn in my thumb.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

darksets said:


> If you are of the school of thought that it's just a question of subjective evaluation then like with Killroy we don't have much to talk about since I haven't used an anamorphic lens.


In which case you can't comment or make any conclusions and your assumptions are hardly scientific in nature - part of the definition of the word 'science' is _*facts learned through experiments and observation*_ none of which have been done by you, so therefore your approach is not scientific. 

In science theories have to be tested and proved, as the theorised science may not always be correct, much like in your case here.



darksets said:


> I believe that the subjective experience must be supported by scientific facts. There are people who claim they have seen ghosts and other supernatural phenomena. I dismiss their claims even though I can't dispute their experience. In the video world we have things like sharpness control and edge enhancement which give the appearance of a sharper image although scientific analysis shows that it has the opposite effect. TV manufacturers and stores boost the colors in the settings so that the TVs will look better in the showroom. So arguments of the type such and such dealer does this to improve sales are not going to fly where I'm concerned.


See my comments above regarding the definition of science. If the science says one thing but the testing shows something else, then the underlying science is wrong - that's how a lot of science has evolved over the years and why testing has to be done. The Hadron Colider was built for that very purpose - to prove the scientific theories.

Because video tends to be a visual medium, doing testing and comparisons of real things is a good way to determine image quality IMHO. Bringing ghosts and other nonsense into the discussion to undermine other peoples actual testing (compared to your lack of any) is hardly a valid comparison. It also sounds like you've never met Alan Roser and don't know who he was.

An ISCO lens for example is made from good quality glass optics and is better than many prime lenses found in projectors and can also cost more than the projector - some Sony projectors use a plastic final element in their lens but I wouldn't judge the projector solely based on that fact - I'd have to see the image for myself.



darksets said:


> Now regarding your arguments about pixel density and scaling, let's first clarify some facts. I have a 4k projector and a 2.35:1 screen. Using a Lumagen we have the following scenarios:
> 
> - With 4k sources, if the aspect ratio is 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 there is no scaling and we have 1:1 pixel mapping. That's the vast majority of scope movies and the reason I have a scope screen. When the source has an aspect ratio less than 2.35:1 there is scaling.
> 
> - With 1080p sources, for 2.35:1 (and possibly 2.40:1 I'm not sure about that) there is doubling which is the most benign form of scaling. Again for aspect ratios less than 2.35:1 there is scaling.
> 
> - With lower resolution sources there are various forms of scaling.


I guess the 'benign' scaling you're referring to is nearest neighbour? In which case you're using 4 smaller identical pixels to recreate one on a larger scale which just makes the image coarser so is the worst type of scaling - you may be better off zooming the single pixel as four smaller pixels will have more gaps and less image over the same area (or stick with a 1080 pj for Blu Ray if pixel to pixel is that important to you). All other forms of scaling you are using are making all new pixels, so no real difference between what you're doing and what an A lens user is doing (except they are using more pixels), making your 1:1 pixel mapping argument moot in the most part. If scaling is bad why are you doing it and not just zooming the native image all the time, or do you agree that scaling makes for a better image than native and zooming the non 2.40 ratios?

Other algorithms often look better than nearest neighbour IIRC which will look blocky/coarse in comparison. I don't know if you know Madshi and MadVR but this post shows how much better some scaling algorythms are compared to NN:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/24-d...-laser-projector-confirm-12.html#post46304233

Although it's not discussing A lenses, the scaling element of the discussion is relevant.



darksets said:


> Your main argument is about pixel density and it boils down to whether the higher pixel density compensates for the scaling and other lens effects (geometry, color etc.). We are not in the old days of the terrible screen door effect, modern 4k projectors have extremely high pixel density. You have the advantage of having done comparisons and I can't dispute your preference. It may well be that the extra density does more than compensate for the other artifacts but even then it would be a function of screen size and sitting distance. If you sit far enough you can't see the pixel gaps but you can always see chromatic aberration. I find comfort in the thought that the image I see is the closest possible to the source.


You assume that a lens adds artefacts and that they are visible despite having been told that not all lenses do. I thought you preferred a more scientific approach than just guessing, but don't appear willing to do any form of testing yourself or listen to those who have. 

Using more pixels with an A lens and good scaling to render the image does indeed produce better results than using less pixels and zooming them larger. Even with 4K displays, even though the pixels are smaller, the result is the same when comparing an A lens with zooming, just more subtle compared to lower res displays.



darksets said:


> Finally a couple of words on your comments about scaling in post production. Just because they introduce some distortion doesn't mean we should pile on some more on top of it. Every image altering step we put in the path degrades the image further and we want to have as few as possible. I can't control what goes into the blu-rays I buy, in choosing my video equipment my goal is to reproduce what's in the source as faithfully as possible.


This is an interesting watch - part two in particular:

http://yedlin.net/ResDemo/#

Given that you seem happy to be scaling as well and don't appear to have any issues with it, I think it's safe to say that those who use lenses with scaling are having an equally issue free image as a result as well.


----------



## ask4me2

darksets said:


> I am simply saying that subjective experience must be supported by the underlying science. The image without an anamorphic lens is closer to the source than the image with an anamorphic lens in the path. I have given a more extensive analysis in my answer to Gary Lightfoot. It's quite possible that even I would find the picture with an anamorphic lens more appealing but the knowledge of the underlying processing artifacts would bother me like a thorn in my thumb.


darksets, If you do not like the anamorphic stretch scaling , that is OK, but find it peculiar you like what the extra Lumagen prosessor/scaler is doing in the equation then. Your statement that the " Lumagen by itself is better than an anamorphic lens"... when you have no experience with A-lenses on your own, also sounds a little strange to me... 

One reason why i chooses the A-lens path, was to get rid if the " thorn in my thum" feeling knowing about how the chip(s) in the light engine is used when I ~90% of the time is running scope movies on the projector. 
Have you done some thinking about how only 66% of the projectors resolution and light output is used, and how the static black bars makes the light engine be heated differently when showing a scope movie where 33% of the pixles on the screen is stuck in one position for hours...? well I did. That is probably not a big problem for the projector, and there is not a big burn in or retention problem doing this, but cannot help for the feeling of doing this to the light engine... 

Having used both A-lenses and the zoom method over the years, and because I also like to view the screen watching movies at a distance between 1.5-2x image heights from my e-shift JVC projector and found out that the zoom method looked "more digital" than using the ISCO lenses. So cannot agree with you about any underlying processing artifacts for vertical stretch either. If you want to think about processing when watching a movie, then i hope you know about the processing needed to get the color resolution Chroma that is only 1/4 of the luma resolution from the 4:2:0 source to be a nice looking color image.

You did not mention the make and model of your 4K projector, but if it has a native 4096 x 2160 light engine, a 1.25x stretch or a 0.8 squeeze A-lens will give the projector the full use of its light and resolution potential on scope source material, and using the brilliant Lumagen, i guess there will be rely hard to see any processing artifacts even up close to the screen if you want to do some pixel peeping to ease the thorn in the thumb feeling.

When it comes to how native and 1x1 pixel mapping, we are able to view our BD and 4K UHD BD movies, think Gary Lightfoot have covered a little bit of that earlier.

If we think about the history of movie making and what kind of lenses that is used on the film makers cameras when we typically get the blue horizontal anamorphic 



 lines, that is even added digitally in movies today. I think we shod not be afraid using rely good A-lenses in the home cinemas too, and good A-lenses will not add any noticeable flares when projecting a picture from a digital projector today.

Screenshot from Terminal


Screenshot from Christine




My point of bringing the use of anamorphic lenses on digital cameras, is that even in the first stage of getting the "original" camera pixels, there is often an optical stretch that need to be digitally done to create the correct AR. The A-lens flare in the movie industry is almost like what the guitar tube amp. distortion in rock music.


----------



## darksets

Gary Lightfoot said:


> In which case you can't comment or make any conclusions and your assumptions are hardly scientific in nature - part of the definition of the word 'science' is _*facts learned through experiments and observation*_ none of which have been done by you, so therefore your approach is not scientific.
> 
> In science theories have to be tested and proved, as the theorised science may not always be correct, much like in your case here.


Your understanding of science is severely lacking. I don't have time to expand on it but the central concept is that experiment is supposed to verify the core theories not their application. Observation of projected image is not supposed to cast doubt on the principles of optics.



Gary Lightfoot said:


> I guess the 'benign' scaling you're referring to is nearest neighbour? In which case you're using 4 smaller identical pixels to recreate one on a larger scale which just makes the image coarser so is the worst type of scaling - you may be better off zooming the single pixel as four smaller pixels will have more gaps and less image over the same area (or stick with a 1080 pj for Blu Ray if pixel to pixel is that important to you). All other forms of scaling you are using are making all new pixels, so no real difference between what you're doing and what an A lens user is doing (except they are using more pixels), making your 1:1 pixel mapping argument moot in the most part. If scaling is bad why are you doing it and not just zooming the native image all the time, or do you agree that scaling makes for a better image than native and zooming the non 2.40 ratios?



I get it, you are obsessed with gaps between the pixels and you don't care about creating a pixel that doesn't exist in the source. In your opinion replicating a pixel in the source is worse than creating a new one that wasn't there because of the gaps between the pixels. This is the core of our disagreement.



Gary Lightfoot said:


> You assume that a lens adds artefacts and that they are visible despite having been told that not all lenses do.


Wow, that's great news for the optics industry and all those people who try to make lenses that minimize image distortion. Please tell your secrets to lens manufacturers for vision glasses. Also, since you are so scientifically inclined, please publish your discoveries in Physics journals and advise people to correct the relevant chapters in books, such as Feynman's "Lectures On Physics" Volume 1 Chapter 27 (paragraph 27-6 on aberrations especially).


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

darksets said:


> Your understanding of science is severely lacking. I don't have time to expand on it but the central concept is that experiment is supposed to verify the core theories not their application. Observation of projected image is not supposed to cast doubt on the principles of optics.


Oh dear.

Well, considering I'm the one that has done some testing to verify which method produces the best image (after all, this is a visual medium), I don't think I'm the one that is lacking anything. You're the one without the knowledge and experience, not me.

In theory, pixel to pixel should look better, in practice (because of zooming), it doesn't. That's science and research for you - you should try it some time. It can prove if theory is wrong.




darksets said:


> I get it, you are obsessed with gaps between the pixels and you don't care about creating a pixel that doesn't exist in the source. In your opinion replicating a pixel in the source is worse than creating a new one that wasn't there because of the gaps between the pixels. This is the core of our disagreement.


I just care about what gives the best image with what I have available to me within my budget. My next step will probably be adding an HTPC back into the set up.

Pointing out the deficiencies in your method isn't an obsession, it's just a statement of fact based on observation and a little common sense. You don't understand the benefits of scaling over just making pixels larger and that's the the point you are missing (even though you use scaling and that's fine when it suits you). You need to do some research - this subject has been covered numerous timed on on this forum and if you had bothered to look at the links I provided and the images they contain you may learn something.

Again, the point is that when you make the pixels 33% larger they become visibly coarser (and as Ask4Me has said, the image also appears more digital). When scaling using more (smaller) pixels it creates a better image that looks closer to the intent, so in this case, keeping as close to the source is actually the worst thing you can do with respect to a pleasing image: 

This image is just an example of the differences between nearest neighbour and two other types of scaling. It should (hopefully) give you an idea of why NN is bad, and why other forms of scaling are better (see the link in my earlier post, and please watch the video)












darksets said:


> Wow, that's great news for the optics industry and all those people who try to make lenses that minimize image distortion. Please tell your secrets to lens manufacturers for vision glasses. Also, since you are so scientifically inclined, please publish your discoveries in Physics journals and advise people to correct the relevant chapters in books, such as Feynman's "Lectures On Physics" Volume 1 Chapter 27 (paragraph 27-6 on aberrations especially).


With continuous tone images (video) having a good A lens in the light path is invisible to the image we see. However, if you remove the lens and zoom, you will notice the image looks coarser and more digital and less pleasing. So in this case, no lens results in an image that appears distorted (because it's coarse and blocky) compared to the image with the lens (which appears more natural).


Like Ask4Me I also sit approx 2xSH back from my scope screen, but without the lens it's more like 1.5xSH. Without the lens the image is still watchable (I remove the lens for taller IMAX content), but the image is better with the lens in place so that's why I now continue to use it after having been zooming for 6 months - zooming is OK, but the image from the lens is better.

Rather than argue about something you have no experience or understanding of, why not do what others have done and test and compare?


----------



## ScottAvery

Gary, thanks for showing the detailed scaling samples. The doubling comment made my brain melt a little.

I assume there must be an illusory sense of sharpness created by pixel spacing because LCD and DLP reviews are always touting sharpness without acknowledging the significant pixel pitch increase over LCOS solutions which give a more film-like image, especially with an A-lens.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

ScottAvery said:


> Gary, thanks for showing the detailed scaling samples. The doubling comment made my brain melt a little.
> 
> I assume there must be an illusory sense of sharpness created by pixel spacing because LCD and DLP reviews are always touting sharpness without acknowledging the significant pixel pitch increase over LCOS solutions which give a more film-like image, especially with an A-lens.


Hi Scott,

With scaling for an A lens which is just a 33% enlargement, a good scaler will scale up to around double, and then scale back down. That gives better results than just scaling by 33%.

I think LCDs sharpness comments emanate from the greater pixel spacing, even with eshifting (like with the Epsons), and DLP because its usually single chip which doesn't have convergence issues. One thing I found many years ago was keeping image brightness down to cinema levels (12fL or less back in the day of DVD) tended to help with DLP and give that more of an analogue look, but I agree that when I first saw the JVC HD1 back in 2007, it did look very close to the Sony G90 CRT I'd seen just days before. That's changed a little since they started driving the panels digitally and added eshift.

I think how we see the images is a result of illusion anyway, especially with how DLP works, but at the end of the day it's what we see and what we like that counts.


----------



## ScottAvery

Gary Lightfoot said:


> Hi Scott,
> 
> With scaling for an A lens which is just a 33% enlargement, a good scaler will scale up to around double, and then scale back down. That gives better results than just scaling by 33%.
> 
> I think LCDs sharpness comments emanate from the greater pixel spacing, even with eshifting (like with the Epsons), and DLP because its usually single chip which doesn't have convergence issues. One thing I found many years ago was keeping image brightness down to cinema levels (12fL or less back in the day of DVD) tended to help with DLP and give that more of an analogue look, but I agree that when I first saw the JVC HD1 back in 2007, it did look very close to the Sony G90 CRT I'd seen just days before. That's changed a little since they started driving the panels digitally and added eshift.
> 
> I think how we see the images is a result of illusion anyway, especially with how DLP works, but at the end of the day it's what we see and what we like that counts.


I'm in your camp on this, but for me there simply was no choice as I wanted CIH with a wider scope screen than I could reach with the natural throw of my room, so a horizontal explansion A-lens lets me go 33% wider. I can't afford a Lumagen but the Oppo 203 at least scales for all of my sources for ratios 2.37 and greater. It would be nice to have custom scaling for all resolutions -- it would make install simpler, for sure -- but the Oppo covers the important ratios for me.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

ScottAvery said:


> I'm in your camp on this, but for me there simply was no choice as I wanted CIH with a wider scope screen than I could reach with the natural throw of my room, so a horizontal explansion A-lens lets me go 33% wider. I can't afford a Lumagen but the Oppo 203 at least scales for all of my sources for ratios 2.37 and greater. It would be nice to have custom scaling for all resolutions -- it would make install simpler, for sure -- but the Oppo covers the important ratios for me.


I had the choice as my room is quite long compared to the width, but as the lens gave better results over zooming I kept it. 

I'm using a Panasonic player which scales BD quite well but I also use the projectors own internal anamorphic modes which works fine with scope and 1.85, but with an HTPC I'll be able to scale all other ratios equally well.


----------



## ScottAvery

Gary Lightfoot said:


> I had the choice as my room is quite long compared to the width, but as the lens gave better results over zooming I kept it.
> 
> I'm using a Panasonic player which scales BD quite well but I also use the projectors own internal anamorphic modes which works fine with scope and 1.85, but with an HTPC I'll be able to scale all other ratios equally well.


I'm going off topic, I am sure, but am I correct in thinking there is no good way to input to an HTPC to use it to scale external input? Need a solution for Netflix' weird ratios ranging all over between 2.35 and 1.78 and I thought Netflix did not work well out of an HTPC.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

ScottAvery said:


> I'm going off topic, I am sure, but am I correct in thinking there is no good way to input to an HTPC to use it to scale external input? Need a solution for Netflix' weird ratios ranging all over between 2.35 and 1.78 and I thought Netflix did not work well out of an HTPC.


Currently you're correct, though there may be a MadVR Envy product that will allow that in the not too distant future. 

I haven't really looked into Netflix, but I think the problem is that it's restricted to being held within a browser, and most people seem to say that set top boxes or Panasonic players for example do a better job, so we may have to wait a while yet for it to become more HTPC friendly, which is a shame.


----------



## darksets

Gary Lightfoot said:


> Oh dear.
> 
> Well, considering I'm the one that has done some testing to verify which method produces the best image (after all, this is a visual medium), I don't think I'm the one that is lacking anything. You're the one without the knowledge and experience, not me.
> 
> In theory, pixel to pixel should look better, in practice (because of zooming), it doesn't. That's science and research for you - you should try it some time. It can prove if theory is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just care about what gives the best image with what I have available to me within my budget. My next step will probably be adding an HTPC back into the set up.
> 
> Pointing out the deficiencies in your method isn't an obsession, it's just a statement of fact based on observation and a little common sense. You don't understand the benefits of scaling over just making pixels larger and that's the the point you are missing (even though you use scaling and that's fine when it suits you). You need to do some research - this subject has been covered numerous timed on on this forum and if you had bothered to look at the links I provided and the images they contain you may learn something.
> 
> Again, the point is that when you make the pixels 33% larger they become visibly coarser (and as Ask4Me has said, the image also appears more digital). When scaling using more (smaller) pixels it creates a better image that looks closer to the intent, so in this case, keeping as close to the source is actually the worst thing you can do with respect to a pleasing image:
> 
> This image is just an example of the differences between nearest neighbour and two other types of scaling. It should (hopefully) give you an idea of why NN is bad, and why other forms of scaling are better (see the link in my earlier post, and please watch the video)



This is hilarious! You are citing the first row of pictures as proof of your claims? They exactly prove the distortion produced by these scaling methods. Imagine a picture of a 2-d coordinate system where everything before x


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

darksets said:


> This is hilarious! You are citing the first row of pictures as proof of your claims?


They _are_ proof.

The images clearly prove that optically zooming or using a box filter/nearest neighbour scaling (the first image) provides the worst type of image and worst type of scaling, and why using an A lens with scaling produces visibly better results because you're using more pixels with good scaling.



darksets said:


> They exactly prove the distortion produced by these scaling methods. Imagine a picture of a 2-d coordinate system where everything before x


----------



## jeahrens

Modern scaling is for the most part excellent. No one watches a 1080P Blu Ray floating in the middle of the screen on a 4K projector. They scale it. Same with a 2K projector and a lower resolution source.

I use full panel scaling (17:9) for the extra light with ARs wider than 1.85:1 on my NX7 and it looks excellent. Same goes for all 3 anamorphic lenses I've seen in person, scaling is excellent and there are zero visible issues.

The only real drawback to a quality anamorphic lens is price. The cost is to high for the benefit provided in my opinion, so I don't own one. But having said that it IS the best scope experience you're going to get. More light for HDR and a smoother picture overall.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Yes, I think the price to performance can make buying a new A lens seem like poor value, but you can get them much cheaper (though can still be relatively expensive) on the used market. I was lucky to get my ISCO at a good price from this forums classifieds, and they do come up for sale both here and on ebay from time to time.


----------



## Killroy

jeahrens said:


> The only real drawback to a quality anamorphic lens is price. The cost is to high for the benefit provided in my opinion, so I don't own one. But having said that it IS the best scope experience you're going to get. More light for HDR and a smoother picture overall.


Define too high (price). 

I have kept track of used prices and they are nearing an all time low since lots of people don't think they need them with a 4k projector and they have been sitting unused for months/years.

I would say that ISCO IIIL prices are settling under 2k for gently used but sometimes you can find new-old stock for the same...like mine.


----------



## darksets

Gary Lightfoot said:


> I think most people who have read your posts can see that you have no experience or understanding of what's being said here (you even admit to have never seen an A lens in action), and even you use scaling and don't zoom everything to retain pixel to pixel 'accuracy', so I'm not really sure what your argument is. If scaling is a bad thing, why do you use it for none scope content?


I use scaling, when necessary, because I don't want to watch a tiny picture in the middle of my screen and I don't want my projector to be zooming in and out all the time. I just want to sit back and change the channel/input and my projector to stay at a fixed zoom setting. That's why I got a Lumagen.

I feel we are going in circles here. Somehow you've made this an argument about scaling methods. My point is that all scaling adds some distortion and I want to keep it to a minimum. Adding an anamorphic lens adds an extra scaling step (among other distortions) when the source resolution and the projector resolution are the same. If we exclude the extra light, your only valid point in favor of the A-lens is the smaller gap between the pixels. I argue that for high resolution projectors that gap is insignificant, so the distortion it adds (scaling being part of it) is a net negative. That's the bottom line and the rest is obfuscation on your part.


----------



## jeahrens

Killroy said:


> Define too high (price).
> 
> I have kept track of used prices and they are nearing an all time low since lots of people don't think they need them with a 4k projector and they have been sitting unused for months/years.
> 
> I would say that ISCO IIIL prices are settling under 2k for gently used but sometimes you can find new-old stock for the same...like mine.


For me it would have to hit


----------



## Craig Peer

A good anamorphic lens will last ( with a little care ) - pretty much forever. So while expensive initially, they certainly add picture quality and enjoyment over time. Anyway, define expensive? We live in a world where a really good bicycle can cost $10K. Or even $20K. In fact, I have two road bicycles that cost more than my DCR lens did ( street prices ). And my wife has a tri bike that cost more too.


----------



## ask4me2

darksets said:


> I use scaling, when necessary, because I don't want to watch a tiny picture in the middle of my screen and I don't want my projector to be zooming in and out all the time. I just want to sit back and change the channel/input and my projector to stay at a fixed zoom setting. That's why I got a Lumagen.
> 
> I feel we are going in circles here. Somehow you've made this an argument about scaling methods. My point is that all scaling adds some distortion and I want to keep it to a minimum. Adding an anamorphic lens adds an extra scaling step (among other distortions) when the source resolution and the projector resolution are the same. If we exclude the extra light, your only valid point in favor of the A-lens is the smaller gap between the pixels. I argue that for high resolution projectors that gap is insignificant, so the distortion it adds (scaling being part of it) is a net negative. That's the bottom line and the rest is obfuscation on your part.


In theory i agree with your 1:1 pixel mapping without any scaling way of showing the best possible picture in a setup. I say in theory, because in reality the pixels we get from our source material is not 1:1 true all the way from the camera pixlels (may use a RGGB chip), lossy compression etc. So if the creating of new pixels is something to be afraid of, I think we need to get the RAW format from the movie makers to get it as close to the source as possible. (if the movie is made with the use of anamorpic lenses, the first scaling might be to convert that)

There is some pixel recreating processing from the BD and UHD 4K BD sources until we get a RGB signal the projector use to show the picture. The negative impact you might get from the additional anamorpic prosessing uing an A-lens and getting more pixcles to play with may not be as big as the better picture quality we get with the better use of the resolution and light output the light engine in the projector when setting up a 17:9 or 16:9 chip to be filled with the 2.35:1 scope source. 

From my experience there may be wise to actually see these effect in real life, instead of only having a theoretic understanding that 1:1 pixel mapping is the best and the extra processing and an additional lens in the light path is doing more damage than good. 

If i remember correctly from reading in other threads here you got the Sony VPL-VW995ES/870ES 4K Laser projector, and in a setup like that you may not need the additional resolution and light output like us that have FullHD with e-shft, but i think the best way to find out is to try or get a demo from someone with the same high end projectors and see if the theory matches the real life experience.

I do think the biggest risk of trying a A-lens is the economic impact that can come out of the experience of that....


----------



## kungfuman

I recently added an cylindrical anamorphic lens to my Epson TW9400 (5050/6050UB) to see if any additional improvements can be gained so thought I will share my experience here. I managed to secure a ISCO III lens second hand at a reasonable price so thought it was worth a shot, worst case was I could sell it at minimal loss. I run quite a largish screen size (width of 3.4m/11ft which can accomodate a 150" 16.9 size or a 145" 2.39 size (it is a diy screen and max width/height I can accomodate) so thought any improvements are maybe more noticeable.

At first it was a right pain to get it mounted to my current set up and the initially set up took a long time to get the image right, to the point I had a moment of buyers remorse and thought of giving up. But I preservered and got it all lined up, focus correctly and mimised any pin cushion distortion. Firing up my favourite scenes, I did initially find it difficult to spot much difference. I was maybe 'pixel peeping' too much and looking it up close the screen to spot the difference and the image was already quite sharp just zooming. 

Some mention there could be light gained using a lens and I was able to measure this as I had a camera flash meter that does this. Versus the zoom method I measure a light gain of 3-4%, which is minimal but at least it was good to know there was no light loss using the lens.

Having now spent a couple of weeks using the lens and watched a few films, I would say there is a subtle and good improvement using it. It is not a night and day difference, but the image just seems a bit richer and 'denser' when compared to zooming. I think someone mentioned in a forum the image is less 'thin' when compared to zooming and I would describe it the same. I was surprised that even my wife commented that the image seems better which is good to know. I'm definately keeping mine and be using an A Lens from now one, however it is one of those things that you have to see to appreciate for yourself if it makes a difference or not especially given the cost.


----------



## Eskimo1

kungfuman said:


> Some mention there could be light gained using a lens and I was able to measure this as I had a camera flash meter that does this. Versus the zoom method I measure a light gain of 3-4%, which is minimal but at least it was good to know there was no light loss using the lens.


I'm truly surprised there wasn't quite a bit more light gain. I figured since using the zoom basically discards what.. 40% of the picture, that there'd be a similar amount of light gained. Thanks for doing that testing!


----------



## Josh Z

Eskimo1 said:


> I'm truly surprised there wasn't quite a bit more light gain. I figured since using the zoom basically discards what.. 40% of the picture, that there'd be a similar amount of light gained. Thanks for doing that testing!


Using the full pixel panel (without wasting pixels on letterbox bars) will give you a net gain in brightness, but projecting an image through additional layers of glass will inevitably cause some light loss. It's worth doing so long as the gain is more than the loss.


----------



## Friendly Fire

I've auditioned a couple of CIH rigs with lenses and wound up just zooming to 2.40 at home. I couldn't arrange a meaningful side by side comparison, but I couldn't justify the expense of a lens and sled. What sank the boat was I ran across several posts from guys who had good money in lenses whose projectors had aged out, who were lamenting that for one reason or another they couldn't find a modern projector that met their needs and would work with their lens and sled. 

I love the 2.40 aspect ratio, and my screen stands at 168" diagonal. The images are immense and immersive to a degree that flat panels can't get close too. 

Hopefully someday I'll see a configuration that really sells me on an outboard lens. Until then I'll keep zooming.


----------



## Vern Dias

A sled is certainly not a requirement for an anamorphic lens install. You can leave the lens in place and do everything you need to do with an HTPC or scaler and have a far more flexible installation in the bargain.

If you want to handle all of the aspect ratios that were commonly used (and some are still used today), then you need to be able to scale the following aspect ratios to fill the screen height:
1.77:1
1.85:1
2.00:1
2.20:1
2.35:1
2.40:1
2.55:1
2.76:1
Granted, several of those are legacy, but it seems like the streaming services are resurrecting several of them.

I am using a 1.5X anamorphic lens (shown in my avatar) and a 2.76:1 curved screen.


----------



## Friendly Fire

Granted, several of those are legacy, but it seems like the streaming services are resurrecting several of them.

Amen to that. Increasingly I am seeing several format changes within a given show. They can put a sock in it. Good to know about the sled -- that makes things easier.


----------



## kungfuman

Eskimo1 said:


> I'm truly surprised there wasn't quite a bit more light gain. I figured since using the zoom basically discards what.. 40% of the picture, that there'd be a similar amount of light gained. Thanks for doing that testing!


I believe the light gain with cylindrical expansion lenses are sometimes misqouted. When I worked it out, the theoritical difference between the zoom verses lighting a 16.9 area 'pre-lens' yielded a 38% brighter area. But by the time you move the A lens in place, you have to light up an additional 33% surface area which pretty much correllates to my measurement and with the minimal light loss from an ISCO.

I think if you are after light gain using an A lens you have to be looking at vertical compression lenses (such as Paladin DCR) as they will yield better gains.


----------



## Eskimo1

kungfuman said:


> I believe the light gain with cylindrical expansion lenses are sometimes misqouted. When I worked it out, the theoritical difference between the zoom verses lighting a 16.9 area 'pre-lens' yielded a 38% brighter area. But by the time you move the A lens in place, you have to light up an additional 33% surface area which pretty much correllates to my measurement and with the minimal light loss from an ISCO.
> 
> I think if you are after light gain using an A lens you have to be looking at vertical compression lenses (such as Paladin DCR) as they will yield better gains.


Thanks for the explanation. I'll admit in the 12 years I've been using a CIH screen, I've never looked deeply into an anamorphic lens - just making do with powered zoom.


----------



## Josh Z

Vern Dias said:


> If you want to handle all of the aspect ratios that were commonly used (and some are still used today), then you need to be able to scale the following aspect ratios to fill the screen height:
> 1.77:1
> 1.85:1
> 2.00:1
> 2.20:1
> 2.35:1
> 2.40:1
> 2.55:1
> 2.76:1
> Granted, several of those are legacy, but it seems like the streaming services are resurrecting several of them.


2.20:1 is a popular aspect ratio for streaming shows (The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina, Lost in Space, Doom Patrol, etc.) and is even making inroads onto the broadcast networks (Stargirl and Superman & Lois on The CW use that ratio). 

I've also seen 2.10:1 used on several streaming series (The Spy on Netflix, Hitmen on Peacock, See on Apple TV+), and there's no theatrical equivalent for that. We're at a point where content producers can and will pick any arbitrary aspect ratio they feel like for their work.


----------



## dschulz

Josh Z said:


> 2.20:1 is a popular aspect ratio for streaming shows (The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina, Lost in Space, Doom Patrol, etc.) and is even making inroads onto the broadcast networks (Stargirl and Superman & Lois on The CW use that ratio).
> 
> I've also seen 2.10:1 used on several streaming series (The Spy on Netflix, Hitmen on Peacock, See on Apple TV+), and there's no theatrical equivalent for that. We're at a point where content producers can and will pick any arbitrary aspect ratio they feel like for their work.


Do any of the commercial scalars (Lumagen or any of the HTPC rigs) do anamorphic scaling for any arbitrary aspect ratio , with some kind of black bar detection? I think the ideal scenario for me would be a fixed A-lens, adjustable side masking, and scale as appropriate (without ever zooming in or out), but I'm not sure if the scalars have that much flexibility.


----------



## Josh Z

dschulz said:


> Do any of the commercial scalars (Lumagen or any of the HTPC rigs) do anamorphic scaling for any arbitrary aspect ratio , with some kind of black bar detection? I think the ideal scenario for me would be a fixed A-lens, adjustable side masking, and scale as appropriate (without ever zooming in or out), but I'm not sure if the scalars have that much flexibility.


The Lumagen Radiance Pro and MadVR Envy can do this. Both are $$$$$$$.

It's not ideal, but one workaround solution for lens users is to scale the image to 16:9 pillarbox (which many projectors can do without an external video processor) and then use the optical zoom to blow up the image and fill the height of the screen. You throw away resolution doing this, but some users may find it preferable to cropping the image to 2.35:1.


----------



## Vern Dias

> Do any of the commercial scalars (Lumagen or any of the HTPC rigs) do anamorphic scaling for any arbitrary aspect ratio , with some kind of black bar detection? I think the ideal scenario for me would be a fixed A-lens, adjustable side masking, and scale as appropriate (without ever zooming in or out), but I'm not sure if the scalars have that much flexibility.


An HTPC with MadVR can do this as well. However I really don't like doing it this way, as there are cases where the proper projected aspect ratio does not correspond with the aspect ratios of the image contained within the black bars. Examples include VistaVision and other open matte titles. I prefer to use a player like Zoom Player that supports defining up to 10 custom scaling presets that are mapped to hot keys. Other players also support defining manual scaling presets. These include MPC, VLC, and JRiver.


----------



## SCHNEEDOO

I purchased a used Runco lens and sled on Ebay. I have the 12-volt switch wired to my receiver with an IR switch wired in between. I can move the sled with my remote as needed. I've been very happy with the results.


----------



## rs691919

I just installed an NX7 in my CIH setup. Previously I used an RS45, and I have had a motorized Prismasonic lens which I originally purchased in late 2012 playing on a scope Screen Excellence TAM2 screen with motorized masks. My main watching and listening position is about 14 feet from the 120" wide scope screen. Now, I will admit that I'm not a picker of nits when it comes to the picture quality. Many -- or most -- of the details that are very expertly delineated by people here are lost on me. Subjectively, I can see the marked difference in the 4K projector when compared to the RS45 (duh). I've watched one full UHD movie (Braveheart), and I thought it was stunning. 

I understand many suggest getting the Paladin DCR lens, but I am just not interested in spending the money at this stage due to other projects in and around the house. So today, I tried to do an A/B comparison with the Prismasonic down and JVC in vertical stretch mode vs. zooming to a 2.35 aspect ratio. Subjectively, I just couldn't see that much of a difference. Am I missing something? Or am I just not critical enough (or learned enough) to see the difference? In any case, I think I will just keep using the Prismasonic for the time unless with continued experimentation I find that the zooming method is noticeably better.


----------



## Vern Dias

You are sitting too far away to really be able to see any significant differences. It's actually also too far away to get the full benefit of 4k.
However, if you are satisfied with what you see than that's all that matters.


----------



## Josh Z

Also, are you certain that the Prismasonic lens can pass 4K detail? Older Panamorphs can't.


----------



## bud16415

I like your analogy of picking nits, it could also apply to HDR brightness.

I think you are sitting at the proper distance if that is the immersion you like.

I’m at the age I know my ears are not what they once were and a few weeks back I was playing around with running a cycle test on my audio mainly testing my subs a little. When going up the scan I soon found I didn’t hear a thing. The rest of the family came running in screaming that I was killing their ears. I guess my tweeters are still working. My vision is the same. My eye doctor tells me I’m still 20/20 but I can tell passing the Snellen eye test and resolving 4k details may be a different thing.
I always think about it that something that would have blown all our minds 10 years ago is now hardly watchable.


----------



## Craig Peer

Josh Z said:


> Also, are you certain that the Prismasonic lens can pass 4K detail? Older Panamorphs can't.


And those older lenses aren't designed to pass 4096 x 2160, which means you're losing 6% of the light and pixels right there on an NX7. To be honest, the DCR lens is the first A lens I've owned that improved my picture with only minimum downsides. And I've owned Prismasonic lenses and other Panamorph lenses many years ago.


----------



## Craig Peer

I'm sitting 9' 10" from a 118" wide scope screen, and for sure it's not too close for native 4K. 1:1 screen width to distance is just about perfect. 14' is where I sat when watching 1080p DLP, since pixel grid was easily visible starting at 12'.


----------



## rs691919

Vern Dias said:


> You are sitting too far away to really be able to see any significant differences. It's actually also too far away to get the full benefit of 4k.
> However, if you are satisfied with what you see than that's all that matters.


Later in the evening I sat in the front row to try to see the difference. The front row is probably 9 feet from the screen. I still couldn't see an appreciable difference between the Prismasonic and zooming. I'm going to try again tonight. But honestly watching widescreen content from the front row is not enjoyable for me. I do think that the detail was improved in sitting in the front row, but it was a marginal difference for me. I sit in the front row when I'm watching 16:9 content (mostly sports).




Josh Z said:


> Also, are you certain that the Prismasonic lens can pass 4K detail? Older Panamorphs can't.


I have no idea to be honest. I did see a thread somewhere here where Mike Garrett said he used a Prismasonic with his RS3000 and thought the picture was ok (but the DCR was better, in his opinion). All I can say is that zooming did not make a huge difference to me. Maybe I will watch a significant portion of a movie in both modes and see what my impression is. All I can say is that I'm definitely not spending on a DCR at the moment, so it's between the Prismasonic and zooming.


----------



## Josh Z

An anamorphic lens will not change the amount of detail in the image. A lens cannot add detail that isn't in the source. It just uses scaling to remove the letterbox bars and utilize the whole pixel panel for active image. The benefit of this isn't to improve detail, but to improve brightness, because you're no longer wasting light on black bars.


----------



## Technology3456

Guys if I have a 110 inch 16:9 image and I put an A lens on my projector, what size will the image be then?


----------



## Josh Z

Technology3456 said:


> Guys if I have a 110 inch 16:9 image and I put an A lens on my projector, what size will the image be then?


Depends on whether it's a horizontal expansion lens or a vertical compression lens.

100" 16:9 = approx. 96" wide x 54" tall

If a vertical compression lens (such as Panamorph Paladin), your screen width will stay the same at 96" and a 2.35:1 movie will be the same size as it is right now on your screen at ~41" tall.

If a horizontal expansion lens (which typically don't work well with 4K, FYI), the screen height stays the same at 54" and the width expands to 127", for a 2.35:1 diagonal of 138".


----------



## Technology3456

Josh Z said:


> Depends on whether it's a horizontal expansion lens or a vertical compression lens.
> 
> 100" 16:9 = approx. 96" wide x 54" tall
> 
> If a vertical compression lens (such as Panamorph Paladin), your screen width will stay the same at 96" and a 2.35:1 movie will be the same size as it is right now on your screen at ~41" tall.
> 
> If a horizontal expansion lens (which typically don't work well with 4K, FYI), the screen height stays the same at 54" and the width expands to 127", for a 2.35:1 diagonal of 138".


Can all projectors do either type, or how do I know what I need?

The projector it would be for right now is a Sim2 M-150 projector, but possibly it will be used with Sim2 Lumis projectors instead. Both are 1080p.

And are you saying if I spend thousands on top Isco lenses for these 1080p projectors, they wont work well if I upgrade to a 4k projector in 5-10 years?

Lastly, for, for example, the Panamorph Paladin lens, does it come in "2.35:1" type, "2.39:1" type, and "2.4:1" type, respectively? 

And when a projector says it has "anamorphic mode" or whatever, does that mean it supports all 3 of these, or is the standard only 2.4:1, or 2.35:1? Which is the standard?

Basically I understand I need a projector that supports the anamorphic lens, and I need an anamorphic lens, but "anamorphic" seems to be a blanket term for all of these... 2.35, 2.39, and 2.4, so which one does the standard anamorphic lens actually do?

Because as I understand it, to use the A lens, the projector needs to squish a 2.xx:1 image into a 16:9 image, and then the lens needs to stretch that 16.9 image to 2.xx:1.

So if the lens stretches from 16:9 to 2.4:1, but the projector only squishes 2.35:1 into 16:9, then it's going to be off.


----------



## Josh Z

A lens is just a piece of glass you put in front of the projector. You can put any piece of glass you want in front of the projector. The projector doesn't know or care. The choice of lens you use will depend on your screen size, throw distance, and zoom range of the projector. The goal is to get an image from your projector to fill the screen size you have. Pick a lens that will do that.

Horizontal expansion = Maintain the same image height, but expand the width.
Vertical compression = Maintain the same image width, but shrink the height.

Both of these lenses accomplish the same thing, which is to take the 16:9 (or 17:9) output from a projector and convert it to scope. They just go about it different ways.

ISCO lenses might work for 4K. I don't know enough about them, except that they are well regarded. You'd have to ask an owner. Panamorph has said that their own horizontal expansion lenses are not suitable for 4K, and so all of their current 4K models are vertical compression only.

You are overthinking the difference between 2.35, 2.37, 2.39, and 2.40. An anamorphic lens will not magically adjust for every minuscule difference in aspect ratio. The lens has a fixed stretch factor (typically 1.33x for a 16:9 projector panel or 1.25x for a 17:9 panel).

Your current 1080p projector produces a 16:9 image. If you add a 1.33x lens to that, the lens stretches the width to 2.37:1 and will leave everything in the picture looking short and fat. Then you turn on an equivalent 1.33x vertical scaling in the projector to crop out the letterbox bars and stretch the image back into proper geometrical shape. 

If your screen is 2.35:1 or 2.39:1 or 2.40:1, adjust the optical zoom on the projector to let a tiny bit of image spill off the edge and you'll never notice the difference.


----------



## Josh Z

From reading your posts in various threads, it seems to me that you are vastly overcomplicating this project. The idea that you would try to sync up two projectors, each with their own anamorphic lenses, is frankly insane. You will never get the alignment perfect. When watching passive 3D that way, improper registration will cause significant crosstalk artifacts, make the 3D ineffective, and will likely give you an intense migraine. 

You don't need an anamorphic lens to do Constant Image Height. Just use the projector's optical zoom and let the letterbox bars spill off the screen onto your wall. If your walls are a dark color, or if you can add masking around the screen, you'll never see the letterboxing. You will find that much easier to align the two projectors.


----------



## Technology3456

Josh Z said:


> Your current 1080p projector produces a 16:9 image. If you add a 1.33x lens to that, *the lens stretches the width to 2.37:1 *and will leave everything in the picture looking short and fat. Then you turn on an equivalent 1.33x vertical scaling in the projector to crop out the letterbox bars and stretch the image back into proper geometrical shape.


So is that the answer then? That standard A lenses, and standard projector A lens "modes," are 2.37:1, not 2.35:1 or 2.4:1? That's what I was trying to figure out, if the A lenses come in 2.35:1, 2.4:1, etc, or if there is a standard that will match the projector's A lens mode.



> If your screen is 2.35:1 or 2.39:1 or 2.40:1, adjust the optical zoom on the projector to let a tiny bit of image spill off the edge and you'll never notice the difference.


For sure for sure. That wasn't my concern. My concern was what if my projector only has A lens mode for 2.35:1, but the A lens I buy is 2.4:1, then my projector will use the entire DMD to make a 2.35:1 picture squished into a 16:9 ratio, but the A lens will stretch it from 16:9 to 2.4:1 when it should only be stretched from 16:9 to 2.35:1, and everything will look slightly wide and distorted on screen. But as long as all A lenses and projector A lens modes are standard 2.37:1, then I agree with you it will work on 2.35:1 to 2.4:1 screens, although would you recommend one or the other?



> From reading your posts in various threads, it seems to me that you are vastly overcomplicating this project. The idea that you would try to sync up two projectors, each with their own anamorphic lenses, is frankly insane.


I am someone who has less experience with these things than 99.9% of the forum, but who is determined to do it and who as a result has done more research about it than 99% of people on this forum. This leads me to finding tidbits of information most aren't aware of which inform me it may actually be possible to do things others think is insane, and since I have no actual idea myself from my own experience, I ask about it on the forum. It may very well not be possible to do but it's not insane to ask, especially not when one of those tidbits of info I found was from the maker of one of the best 3D filters himself who says it can be done.









Official Omega 3D passive projection system thread


Quote: Originally Posted by Vaan Janne don´t know. review just said so. After calibration still like that. Post the review




www.avsforum.com







> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *motorman45* /t/1407101/official-omega-3d-passive-projection-system-thread/510#post_24175659
> 
> 
> i should have the first new version parts mid year. i will offer test kits sooner if i get them made and my testing goes well. i am going to try to get my hands on a JVC Dila projector for testing, i have several dlp units already.
> 
> 
> *as far an anamorphic lens's i have not used them, but i do know the same rules apply with our filters, as long as they are close to the lens and the initial throw is 1.5:1 for longer Prior to the anamorphic it will be fine. a 2:1 throw is best for the filters, i can imagine how great a scope HD 3D image would look...*


Maybe he was just trying to sell his filters, or maybe it works. I talked to another member in the 3D thread who uses Dolby filters before his A lenses, even though ideally they would go after (although read the above comment I left for the pros and cons about that).

So I really don't know what to believe or what to think. If it can be done, I need to plan screen sizes where I have the option to do it either way. If it can't be done, then that's that. But I still don't know, I'm not sure anyone here knows, I'm not sure even the guy I talked to who is doing it, with success, knows for sure if his eyes are seeing a slightly distorted or worse or potentially even harmful light wavelength by doing it with A lenses that he wouldn't be without.

There isn't enough info available on this. We need like a team of professional scientists just to suss this out. I have even asked the reps for various filter companies themselves, as well as technical support for projector companies, and dealers, and no one freaking knows. But I have put a lot of time and effort into trying to figure this and everything out, and outside of the fact I could probably be doing a lot more meaningful things with my time, which I did not anticipate this would take so much of, I don't think anyone can criticize me for trying to figure it out. And once I do figure it all out, which I have already figured like 90% of things thanks to the help of a lot of people on the forum, I may become the go to resource on avs for answering questions about double stack 3D, so hopefully everyone will benefit long term. But right now I am still figuring these things out, and I really don't know how any of us can find the answer at this point when even the most knowledgable people about 3D filters, like the maker of Omega filters or reps for other filter companies, don't seem to know for sure, or say contradictory things. I think in another topic he was more down on the idea than he was in that post, for instance, although I forgot which post.



> You will never get the alignment perfect. When watching passive 3D that way, improper registration will cause significant crosstalk artifacts, make the 3D ineffective, and will likely give you an intense migraine.


Can you please explain difference between alignment and registration? Because warping function can help you align it at least, and apparently works very very well for that. It has some downsides, but those exist in 16:9 also. You need to use it either way if you want perfect alignment, so if Im using it anyway, is there any reason not to use A lenses and get perfect alignment in the end thanks to warping as opposed to not using A lenses and still getting perfect alignment still thanks to warping? Either way you're warping, and either way you end with perfect alignment, so if alignment is the only issue with A lenses, maybe warping takes that problem off the table. But if registration is an issue _in addition to _alignment then it sounds like the A lenses themselves are off the table completely for 3D. That is the big distinction that will really help me figure this out for good.



> You don't need an anamorphic lens to do Constant Image Height. Just use the projector's optical zoom and let the letterbox bars spill off the screen onto your wall. If your walls are a dark color, or if you can add masking around the screen, you'll never see the letterboxing. You will find that much easier to align the two projectors.


My current projector's zoom is too limited for this but I was wondering if it works besides that, so thank you for explaining. It is good info to have because I may be able to use this idea with a diff projector. Ty!!


----------



## Technology3456

Josh Z said:


> An anamorphic lens will change the amount of detail in the image. A lens cannot add detail that isn't in the source. It just uses scaling to remove the letterbox bars and utilize the whole pixel panel for active image. The benefit of this isn't to improve detail, but to improve brightness, because you're no longer wasting light on black bars.


I thought retaining full resolution was by default improving the image compared to no A lens? People always talk about "you lose 30% vertical resolution because of the black bars." But I always wondered about that because if the blu rays are coded with the black bars then it isn't just your projector which needs to gain back lost resolution, it's the blu rays too.

But I was told no you get the full resolution... 

Can you set the record straight on that?


----------



## Josh Z

Technology3456 said:


> I thought retaining full resolution was by default improving the image compared to no A lens? People always talk about "you lose 30% vertical resolution because of the black bars." But I always wondered about that because if the blu rays are coded with the black bars then it isn't just your projector which needs to gain back lost resolution, it's the blu rays too.
> 
> But I was told no you get the full resolution...
> 
> Can you set the record straight on that?


Regardless of the movie's aspect ratio, a Blu-ray is always 1920x1080 resolution. An Ultra HD Blu-ray is always 3840x2160 resolution. Some of those pixels are active image, and some may be letterbox bars, but those are the only resolutions at the source. 

An anamorphic lens cannot add more detail than came from the source. The scaling feature in the projector or video processor will repurpose the wasted resolution of the letterbox bars to interpolate new pixels within the image, but that doesn't add actual detail. It just synthesizes in-between pixels by sampling parts of the other existing pixels. On a very large screen, this may seem to make the image smoother with less visible pixel structure, but the reality is that the pixels are already so small at 4K that your eyes won't see pixel structure anyway unless you sit with your nose to the screen.

The main benefit of doing this scaling is to gain brightness, because you're no longer wasting light on empty letterbox bars. Projectors typically struggle with brightness at large screen sizes, especially when dealing with HDR, so this can be beneficial in that way.


----------



## Technology3456

Josh Z said:


> Regardless of the movie's aspect ratio, a Blu-ray is always 1920x1080 resolution. An Ultra HD Blu-ray is always 3840x2160 resolution. Some of those pixels are active image, and some may be letterbox bars, but those are the only resolutions at the source.
> 
> An anamorphic lens cannot add more detail than came from the source. The scaling feature in the projector or video processor will repurpose the wasted resolution of the letterbox bars to interpolate new pixels within the image, but that doesn't add actual detail. It just synthesizes in-between pixels by sampling parts of the other existing pixels. On a very large screen, this may seem to make the image smoother with less visible pixel structure, but the reality is that the pixels are already so small at 4K that your eyes won't see pixel structure anyway unless you sit with your nose to the screen.
> 
> The main benefit of doing this scaling is to gain brightness, because you're no longer wasting light on empty letterbox bars. Projectors typically struggle with brightness at large screen sizes, especially when dealing with HDR, so this can be beneficial in that way.


Ahh I see thank you for explaining. 

And also getting rid of the grey bars if your projector cant do true black enough to not be visible. Which I do not know yet I will have to see.

My projectors I will be using now do need a brightness bump though, so maybe a 1.3 gain screen will be perfect. But someday in the future I may have brighter projectors, and then I will wish I had 1.0 gain screen. That is what makes this so difficult. I am trying to match two projectors of one model currently with future possibilities of two much brighter models, and then match all four of those, with their distinct lens throws, onto the same 16:9 screens, and match all of that with the potential for anamorphic lenses, and match all that for different possible 3D filters, depending which one I like since I dont know that yet, all of which have different brightness hits, ranging from 50% to 75% (so double the difference from the projector's POV).

Now _that _is insane, lol. Obviously, it's not possible to hit the sweetspot on everything. But I will do the best I can.


----------



## Technology3456

Josh Z said:


> Regardless of the movie's aspect ratio, a Blu-ray is always 1920x1080 resolution. An Ultra HD Blu-ray is always 3840x2160 resolution. Some of those pixels are active image, and some may be letterbox bars, but those are the only resolutions at the source.
> 
> An anamorphic lens cannot add more detail than came from the source. The scaling feature in the projector or video processor will repurpose the wasted resolution of the letterbox bars to interpolate new pixels within the image, but that doesn't add actual detail. It just synthesizes in-between pixels by sampling parts of the other existing pixels. On a very large screen, this may seem to make the image smoother with less visible pixel structure, but the reality is that the pixels are already so small at 4K that your eyes won't see pixel structure anyway unless you sit with your nose to the screen.
> 
> The main benefit of doing this scaling is to gain brightness, because you're no longer wasting light on empty letterbox bars. Projectors typically struggle with brightness at large screen sizes, especially when dealing with HDR, so this can be beneficial in that way.


Outstanding key questions:

- Are there any blurays or UHD discs that come with full resolution just for the score part of the image?

- Is registration the same as alignment, or completely dependent on alignment, and therefore if warping can align it 100% it will not be an issue anymore, or is registration still an issue even with perfect alignment?

Edit: forgot to say, I am going to be dealing with 1080p projectors for the next few years most likely, not 4K. But if I drop a few thousand on top anamorphic lenses, I would want to make sure they worked with 4K projectors.


----------



## dschulz

Technology3456 said:


> Outstanding key questions:
> 
> - Are there any blurays or UHD discs that come with full resolution just for the score part of the image?


No. A 2.39 Scope image will always be encoded on a Blu Ray at a resolution of 1920x803. The vertical pixel count will vary slightly based on the precise aspect ratio (which can wander anywhere between 2.35 and 2.40) but is always ~800 pixels.



> - Is registration the same as alignment, or completely dependent on alignment, and therefore if warping can align it 100% it will not be an issue anymore, or is registration still an issue even with perfect alignment?


As far as I know, yes. Please note projector registration for dual-projector setups plagues even professional cinema - I go to a lot of Dolby Cinema presentations, and it is not uncommon for the projectors to be slightly out of registration. Most people seem to not notice, but it drives me batty. The only dual projector systems I've seen that kept apparently perfect alignment were IMAX systems, who had some proprietary taser sight that auto-calibrates the registration each morning. And even IMAX is now moving to single projector systems, to avoid registration issues!


----------



## Technology3456

dschulz said:


> As far as I know, yes. Please note projector registration for dual-projector setups plagues even professional cinema - I go to a lot of Dolby Cinema presentations, and it is not uncommon for the projectors to be slightly out of registration. Most people seem to not notice, but it drives me batty. The only dual projector systems I've seen that kept apparently perfect alignment were IMAX systems, who had some proprietary taser sight that auto-calibrates the registration each morning. And even IMAX is now moving to single projector systems, to avoid registration issues!


Oh wow really? Single projector with single lens, or double lens?

Why do you think on avsforum in the Ultimate 3D thread, the consensus among posters was that active 3D is more convenient, but passive 3D with two projectors is slightly better quality? If active was better because of registration issues, _and _it's more convenient, why did anyone go to the trouble of what Im doing in the first place?


----------



## dschulz

Technology3456 said:


> Oh wow really? Single projector with single lens, or double lens?
> 
> Why do you think on avsforum in the Ultimate 3D thread, the consensus among posters was that active 3D is more convenient, but passive 3D with two projectors is slightly better quality? If active was better because of registration issues, _and _it's more convenient, why did anyone go to the trouble of what Im doing in the first place?


I've never dipped into that thread, so I'm not sure that I can speak to what is the conventional wisdom over there. I am a 3D skeptic anyway, so maybe the wrong person to ask. But, for what it's worth, in commercial cinemas the calculus was this: active glasses are more expensive than passive glasses, some of which can even be disposable, and light level was always a problem. The only real way to get to the needed light level was dual projector anyway, which also led to a very pleasing 3D image, so long as the registration was spot on. 

Now though we have 6P laser projectors, so you can use a single projector and color separation technology and get excellent 3D.

For consumers, the cost of glasses is less of an issue, since you're only buying a few pairs, not a few hundred pairs. I personally in your situation would go single projector, use the available active-glasses 3D and lens memory to shift from Flat to Scope.

That said, I love a good science experiment as much as the next man, and if you are that invested in chasing after the perfect 3D image there's nothing wrong with the pursuit. When I have time I'll dip into the Ultimate 3D thread to see what's happening over there.


----------



## Technology3456

dschulz said:


> The only dual projector systems I've seen that kept apparently perfect alignment were IMAX systems, who had some proprietary taser sight that auto-calibrates the registration each morning. And even IMAX is now moving to single projector systems, to avoid registration issues!


But IMAX is 16:9, so they weren't even using anamorphic lenses. This conversation started with Josh Z saying that doing double stack 3D with anamorphic lenses was crazy because the anamorphic lenses would negatively affect the registration. But I said if that is the same as alignment, then wouldn't warping take care of that with A lenses just about the same as without A lenses?

And you said alignment and registration are basically the same thing, so if that is the whole picture, then "registration" should not be a problem with A lenses, let alone without, if you have warping.

But neither of you have addressed the warping question, and now you're saying that double projector setups for 3D don't work _period _even _without _A lenses which is far past even Josh Z's point to start the conversation. And it's also not clear when you say "IMAX" if you mean IMAX 2D using two projectors for increased brightness, or IMAX 3D. If IMAX 3D no longer uses dual projectors, what do they use?

And if they're having registration issues, and registration is the same as alignment, and even consumer-level warping is very effective at aligning two projectors, then why doesn't IMAX just use professional caliber warping?

And are you suggesting active 3D gives better quality 3D than passive? You did say dual projector passive 3D gave "a very pleasing 3D image, so long as the registration was spot on," so as long as they used warping, why would it not be spot on? Especially in movie theaters with big screens and audiences sitting further away, a half pixel off wouldn't even be noticeable. But with warping, you could get it spot on.

And many in the 3D thread said that even without warping, you can get it within like half a pixel, and it still works very well that way, just not as well.

So I'm not sure what the takeaway is from all of that, but maybe specifying about these things will help make it clear.

1. Can dual projectors be aligned well, without A lenses, using lens shift and warping?

2. Can dual projectors be aligned well, with A lenses, using lens shift and warping?

3. Why would IMAX be unable to align two projectors _without A lenses _when plenty of home theater users have been able to, such as in the 3D thread I mentioned?

4. Were you talking about IMAX moving away from dual projectors for 2D content to give extra brightness, or moving away from dual projectors for 3D content?

5. Do you think active 3D is higher quality than passive 3D? Because in the start of your comment you were saying that passive 3D was mostly only used because the glasses were cheaper and the extra brightness from two projectors was needed anyway, but then you also mentioned that it gave a very pleasing image when properly set up, but you said it sort of like a small print headline next to the main headline that it was only done because of cheaper glasses and the need for more brightness.

6. Why would two projectors simultaneous add to the brightness in 3D anyway? In that setup, it's still just one projector per eye, same as active, except with active, it's the same one projector alternating frames to each eye at a faster rate, whereas with passive, it's two different projectors gving frames to each eye at the same time but at a slower rate.

But at any one milisecond, both with active and passive, each eye is only seeing one projector. I asked about this to try to determine how to calculate the filters brightness and so on, and I was told that you cannot add the two projectors together, it's still the same as one projector. So if you have two projectors that output 1250 lumens each, and your 3D filters take away 70% of the light you don't get to add 1250+1250 = 2500, and then 70% out of 2500. It's still just 1250 lumens, and then take out 70%. You would need to do four projectors, two per each eye, to finally get double the brightness, supposedly.

So there is a lot in your comment that is perplexing to me based on other things I've read, or that create a lot of new questions which hopefully you know the answers to! Thanks for sharing!!


----------



## fatherom

You come on here asking for advice. Within the last two weeks, I've seen at least 5 people say "you're overthinking/overcomplicating this", yet you don't take their advice. Why that is, is beyond me.

Every aspect of your project is overthought and too complex. Dual projectors, flip-up screens, etc. No one does this. And there's a reason. It's too complex.

Do yourself a HUGE favor and buy a regular 3D active projector. It'll be good enough. Also, and you've never mentioned this once, how much 3D content do you actually have? I have a large collection, and 3D only accounts for about 10% of it. You won't be watching that much 3D, I guarantee, and when you are watching 3D, the ease and simplicity of a single-projector active glasses set up will be MUCH easier to deal with.

I know you'll probably be offended (as usual) by what I'm saying here, but you ask for advice, and people give it, and then you just keep plowing along doing the most complex home theater frankenstein thing I've ever seen.


----------



## dschulz

Technology3456 said:


> But IMAX is 16:9, so they weren't even using anamorphic lenses. This conversation started with Josh Z saying that doing double stack 3D with anamorphic lenses was crazy because the anamorphic lenses would negatively affect the registration. But I said if that is the same as alignment, then wouldn't warping take care of that with A lenses just about the same as without A lenses?


I apologize, I think I started commenting without knowing the full context of the conversation. I don't even know what warping is. So to clarify my thoughts at this juncture:

1) The only dual projector setups I have seen commercially are IMAX (prior to their shift to to their newest laser projectors), Dolby Cinema and some PLF auditoriums with very large screens that used dual projectors. In each case they used dual projectors to get to the desired 2D brightness, but that had the happy side effect of also being able to use a separate projector for each eye, which makes for a comfortable 3D effect.

2) For home systems, as with cinema, as far as I'm concerned the goal is to be able to hit calibration targets. Is the projector bright enough to get the desired screen brightness for a given size screen? Is the contrast ratio at that brightness adequate? And for home use that answer is yes with a single projector, if you choose the right one

3) I suppose it is theoretically possible to get a better 3D image by using a complicated system with two projectors, I can count on two hands the number of movies I want to watch in 3D, so I would spec my system for 2D purposes and just make sure the chosen projector had an adequate 3D system.


----------



## bud16415

Not to muddy the water more, and I watch some 3D but am far from a huge fan. 

Don't most or a lot of the 3D releases appear as the open matte 16:9 version with IMAX framing.


----------



## dschulz

I forgot to add: one problem with A-lens in conjunction with 3D is that the JVC built-in scalar for anamorphic projection does not support 3D. So to do 3D with an A-lens you're going to need an outboard scalar, Lumagen or the like. One more reason to stick with the Zoom method if 3D is a priority.


----------



## Technology3456

fatherom said:


> You come on here asking for advice. Within the last two weeks, I've seen at least 5 people say "you're overthinking/overcomplicating this", yet you don't take their advice. Why that is, is beyond me.
> 
> Every aspect of your project is overthought and too complex. Dual projectors, flip-up screens, etc. No one does this. And there's a reason. It's too complex.
> 
> Do yourself a HUGE favor and buy a regular 3D active projector. It'll be good enough. Also, and you've never mentioned this once, how much 3D content do you actually have? I have a large collection, and 3D only accounts for about 10% of it. You won't be watching that much 3D, I guarantee, and when you are watching 3D, the ease and simplicity of a single-projector active glasses set up will be MUCH easier to deal with.
> 
> *I know you'll probably be offended (as usual) by what I'm saying here,* but you ask for advice, and people give it, and then you just keep plowing along doing the most complex home theater frankenstein thing I've ever seen.


Sorry if we have a posting history where I was offended by something you said, it must have been while I was new to the forum and not keeping track of different usernames because it doesn't ring any bells. All I can say is I don't think I get offended easily or often like you are implying. Sometimes I feel people try to mischaracterize something I say, or claim I have different motives for posting something than I actually have, so I give my opinion back and try to defend myself or defend what are my actual reasons, or what is actually the truth as I see it, but I don't think the most fair way to summarize that is that I "get offended as usual." That seems to paint me in a negative light.



> You come on here asking for advice. Within the last two weeks, I've seen at least 5 people say "you're overthinking/overcomplicating this", yet you don't take their advice.


I am asking very high level 3D questions. Warping is a more, not introductory level, but mid level, not high level, function of 3D double stacks. No offense to the other poster, since I didn't know what it was either until a couple weeks ago, but just to use that as an example, another user responds to tell me why double stack 3D isn't good, but they don't even know what warping is, let alone the answer to my question about it.

So you bring up this pattern of my posting, and how people have responded, that paints me in a bad light, but here is another way of looking at it.

I ask very complicated questions on here because I'm looking for help with aspects of a project that are hard to find info about online. A few users respond, some trying to help but not knowing the full answers, and some just to troll me I guess I mean who knows. After a few of their responses that beat around the question but don't actually answer the key part I need to know to move forward with my project, I take what info has been provided, acknowledge it and thank the people who have actually tried to help and been helpful in many ways, but then rephrase the key part of the question still unanswered to say "I would still like to know this."

The people who responded actually trying to help, sometimes they say they don't know, which is fine, but other times, I don't know if they don't want to feel like they don't already know everything, but they will start being negative towards me pretending they already answered the question when they didn't. And the people trolling me are looking for an excuse to say stuff like that anyway so of course they do. And then other bystanders like you are suddenly getting 10 notifications in their inbox, which annoys them, and then they see my username on three of them, so they do the easiest thing which is to blame me and maybe they didn't even read the full exchange to see what was actually happening.

So you can summarize it all as "you're overthinking things" asking repeated questions, or if you read the full exchanges, you might see it differently. You might see it as me thinking rationally about problems and solutions for my project, and coming to the #1 A/V forum on the planet to ask experts about them ahead of time so I can move forward with my project, only for my questions to be so niche that most posters don't know the answers, including perhaps ones who are used to knowing all the answers about every other A/V problem, so as a result I either get no responses at all, prompting me to ask again a week down the line, or more often, I get posts that answer the questions halfway, but not all the way, and then posters who would rather pretend they know every answer already (when no one does), and use the lines "you're overthinking things" or "people already answered you, move on" as scapegoats to avoid admitting they don't know the answer either.

Which for them is no big deal, and it's hard to understand why they would be bothered about that, because their theaters are already built, and they don't need that information to move forward because they're not trying to do my project. But for me, it's a big deal because I can't move forward, at least not without messing things up in a big and expensive way, without knowing the answers. And so far I've found about 10 different answers about A lenses and 3D filters, and all 10 are different in some way, and none are conclusive.

And yes it's a frankenstein project. But even basic constant image height setups just with one projector and 2D can be somewhat frankenstein projects, as can most DIY projectors. Mine is just a few in combination. The flip up screen thing, if I was more familiar with construction materials from my local hardware store, probably isn't anywhere near as difficult as you think, and one poster is already helping me with that in detail so that should be pretty easy actually because there is someone who knows exactly how to do it who is helping me, and who doesn't try to impose a "one follow up question maximum" limit on conversations which involve dozens of variables before saying "you're overthinking it" like I am doing something wrong for trying to understand things that still have not been specified or explained on the forum.

And really the 3D thing and the resulting complications is the only frankenstein aspect. The other stuff has just been a quantity issue because of trying to learn from scratch how to build the entire theater at once. Audio took me a long time to sort out even though it was just a basic surround setup and now atmos setup, not because there is anything frankenstein about it, but because I knew nothing about it going in and had to learn from scratch. And a lot of my posts have been about more basic things I had to learn from scratch, nothing overcomplicated. But because I asked a lot of questions until the contradictory things I had read or that people were saying were cleared up, now I am confident I got the right things and that I will be able to set them up well in my space, which is what anyone would want. It just took me awhile to get there because I didn't know #%@!a about it when I started.


----------



## Technology3456

dschulz said:


> I apologize, I think I started commenting without knowing the full context of the conversation. I don't even know what warping is. So to clarify my thoughts at this juncture:


No problem at all! There's always stuff like that happening in the background of these forum discussions and we never know the half of it on the other person's end, which is probably what causes a lot of disagreement on the forums in the first place between people who would otherwise understand each other no problem.



> 1) The only dual projector setups I have seen commercially are IMAX (prior to their shift to to their newest laser projectors), Dolby Cinema and some PLF auditoriums with very large screens that used dual projectors. In each case they used dual projectors to get to the desired 2D brightness, but that had the happy side effect of also being able to use a separate projector for each eye, which makes for a comfortable 3D effect.


So IMAX moved to laser projectors for 2D, but what about 3D? What does IMAX use for 3D?



> 2) For home systems, as with cinema, as far as I'm concerned the goal is to be able to hit calibration targets. Is the projector bright enough to get the desired screen brightness for a given size screen? Is the contrast ratio at that brightness adequate? And for home use that answer is yes with a single projector, if you choose the right one


For 2D why would anyone use two projectors unless on a really big screen?Were you just meaning to make the case the whole time that for 2D, there is no need to have two projectors? Because I always agreed with that!



> 3) I suppose it is theoretically possible to get a better 3D image by using a complicated system with two projectors, I can count on two hands the number of movies I want to watch in 3D, so I would spec my system for 2D purposes and just make sure the chosen projector had an adequate 3D system.


Why do you only want to watch less than 10 movies in 3D? It sounds like you've made a blanket judgement that most 3D is bad, but without knowing what type of 3D you've been watching there is a large risk that you coming to that conclusion without full context. I hear that reference levels of brightness is a really important factor to you, and active 3D glasses tend to take away a lot more brightness than polarized 3D for example. But I am not trying to convert you. I do not even know how well a double stack 3D setup will work until I get it set up and see. It's definitely really hard to plan, and it definitely has a lot of hidden costs. Not that you can't do it cheaper than you might think, but it's still a lot more expensive than active no matter what, and more work. That much is true.


----------



## Technology3456

bud16415 said:


> Not to muddy the water more, and I watch some 3D but am far from a huge fan.
> 
> Don't most or a lot of the 3D releases appear as the open matte 16:9 version with IMAX framing.


It's not muddying the water, any info is helpful. I just don't know what you mean by "open matte 16:9 version" with IMAX framing? Wouldn't IMAX just be 16:9? What do you mean "open matte"?



dschulz said:


> I forgot to add: one problem with A-lens in conjunction with 3D is that the JVC built-in scalar for anamorphic projection does not support 3D. So to do 3D with an A-lens you're going to need an outboard scalar, Lumagen or the like. One more reason to stick with the Zoom method if 3D is a priority.


I see. I'm not 100% sure but this sounds like a single projector active 3D problem but I could be wrong. With two projector 3D setups, you dont need the projectors to do active 3D and use the A lens. They both function more like 2D projectors just displaying a 3D blu ray, if that makes sense. So I'm not sure this would be a problem with two JVCs of that model, let alone other projector models where it might not apply either way.

But thanks for the heads up. Maybe it wouldnt work at all with a 3D signal even for passive 3D I really dont know. If anyone knows that would be good to 100% confirm.


----------



## fatherom

@Technology3456

How many 3d movies do you own? What percentage of your entire collection is that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dschulz

Technology3456 said:


> So IMAX moved to laser projectors for 2D, but what about 3D? What does IMAX use for 3D?


They're using a single laser projector with 6P color output, so they can use color separation filters to separate the left eye from the right.



> For 2D why would anyone use two projectors unless on a really big screen?Were you just meaning to make the case the whole time that for 2D, there is no need to have two projectors? Because I always agreed with that!


For really large screens, two projectors were needed to get enough light onscreen. This is mostly no longer the case, now that we have laser projectors. Exceptions include the largest IMAX venues, and of course Dolby Cinema which needs much higher light levels to achieve the Dolby Cinema HDR presentation.



> Why do you only want to watch less than 10 movies in 3D? It sounds like you've made a blanket judgement that most 3D is bad, but without knowing what type of 3D you've been watching there is a large risk that you coming to that conclusion without full context.


I have found 3D in general to be pretty gimmicky, and most 3D movies are better enjoyed in 2D. There are exceptions, cases where the filmmakers genuinely used 3D to great artistic effect, but not many. Off the top of my head, movies worth actually watching in 3D are:

September Storm (with some truly spectacular underwater 3D footage)
House of Wax
Dial M for Murder
Jaws 3D
Avatar
Gravity
Alita: Battle Angel
Life of Pi
Cave of Forgotten Dreams
The Great Gatsby

So that's 10! Unless we want add some of the IMAX stuff of course


----------



## dschulz

I missed one, so I guess I can count 11. Tron: Legacy.


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> Not to muddy the water more, and I watch some 3D but am far from a huge fan.
> 
> Don't most or a lot of the 3D releases appear as the open matte 16:9 version with IMAX framing.


A few, yes. "Most"? No.

You are thinking of the handful of Marvel movies that had IMAX variable ratio. Disney typically only released the VAR version in 3D while the 2D version is 2.35:1 constant height.

Marvel does not account for "most" 3D movies. Plenty of other studios have released 3D movies in one static aspect ratio (often 2.35:1) without VAR. Marvel itself has also released plenty of 3D movies in one static aspect ratio without VAR.


----------



## fatherom

fatherom said:


> @Technology3456
> How many 3d movies do you own? What percentage of your entire collection is that?


@Technology3456, I think the above question is very relevant and matters a great deal in deciding how complex to go with a 3D setup.


----------



## Technology3456

fatherom said:


> @Technology3456, I think the above question is very relevant and matters a great deal in deciding how complex to go with a 3D setup.


If it's not possible to buy 3D movies anymore, then it's very relevant, so you're worrying me a little bit. But I think it is still possible to find 3D blurays, I see them all over ebay and craigslist, so hopefully it's not an issue.

I believe in general, there are actually more 3D blu rays released than 4K UHD discs. My real concern is, I see plenty of 3D blu ray reviewers saying things like, "these are the top 10 released this year. I raelly liked all 10 of these. The top 5 are great, the bottom 5 could use better audio, or have a few scenes where the 3D isn't great, but 75% of the sequences are fantastic."

So they talk about the format in a way that like, if there are 1,000 3d blu rays available, maybe there are 25 that have 10/10 quality 3D, another 275 that have 8/10 quality, and the other 700 range from bad quality to 7/10, but the average 3D blu ray still has pretty good 3D that is enjoyable on a good 3D blu ray display.

But reviewers always exaggerate ratings so that's why Im worried. The average video game released scores like 8/10 on metacritic, when in reality maybe the average game deserves 5/10. So I'm not worried about the number of 3D movies released on bluray so much as Im worried, are 99% of them just absolute crap 3D conversions or something?

Because I've even seen people say things like watching Mad Mad Fury Road in 3D is their preferred way to watch it, they did such a good 3D conversion on that movie. Then I've seen other people say it wasn't shot in 3D, it was post converted like Clash of the Titans, and the 3D isn't good and you wouldn't want to watch it.

So that's really my concern. I feel there is a little "boy who cried wolf" going on with people bringing up the lack of 3D content. As I said, there are more of them released than UHD discs, especially in action adventure, sci fi, and fantasy genres I watch a lot of. And you can still find most of them as far as I can tell. So when people warn me about the actual quantity available, it seems overblown to me. But if what they really mean is, "there are only 10 out of every 1,000 3D blu rays released with actual clean believable 3D effect that won't bother you just to look at it," then _that _would be really bad, but the impression I get watching reviews from reviewers who probably can't be trusted is that the average 3D blu ray release is still quite good 3D that is very enjoyable to watch.

So who knows, that's the problem when there isn't a lot of trustworthy info easily found anymore. I wont know until I see how good a setup I can set up, and see how they look on my setup.

Worst case scenario, I am buying high quality used gear, after months of research, knowing exactly what I'm buying, the price market, which models are the best ones to look for used, etc etc, which means what I pay, I should be able to get back, approximately, even a year or two from now, but definitely in the near future if I find I don't like the 3D on 90% of the 3D discs I try. So it doesn't seem as risky as you might think. I may have to eat the cost on some of the 3D filters and niche stuff like that, but on the other hand, that stuff is pretty hard to find so for the next person who comes along wanting to try it like I am now, they may be happy to find someone selling it at a fair neutral cost just like I wish I could find someone right now selling a 3d demuxer with warping.

But maybe I will lose a bit money overall with the experiment. But I should get 90% of it back if it doesn't work out, and after months and months of research, I feel like I have a pretty good idea what to expect and that I'm going to be happy with the end result, so the question of getting the money back won't even come up. But if it did, I feel I am mostly covered even with that. So I think I'm happy with the project "all around" in that sense. But hopefully I will be pleased with the results. At this point I have come so far, I am curious to know the answer myself at this point as much as anything. I've read thousands of opinions, now I am ready to take a look for myself and see what it's actually like.


----------



## fatherom

@Technology3456 holy hell, dude...I can't even read all that. LESS IS MORE. You make every interaction and simple question-and-answer so confusing and more complex than it needs to be. It was a simple question, which warrants a simple answer. I'll ask it another way:

*What percentage of your time will you be watching 3D?*

Hint: this is a ONE SENTENCE answer.


----------



## Technology3456

fatherom said:


> @Technology3456 holy hell, dude...I can't even read all that. LESS IS MORE. You make every interaction and simple question-and-answer so confusing and more complex than it needs to be. It was a simple question, which warrants a simple answer. I'll ask it another way:
> 
> *What percentage of your time will you be watching 3D?*
> 
> Hint: this is a ONE SENTENCE answer.


I did my best to answer your question but now you changed it. It's true you asked a one sentence question but it had big assumptions built into it which was a lot to unpack. You even quoted the question a second time to say why it's super relevant how many 3D movies I own. To say it's relevant is already inferring that it's not possible to buy 3D movies anymore, which I had to ask about, which made the response longer.

It's like telling someone about to upgrade from 1080p projector to 4K for the first time, "yeah but before you do, how many UHD discs do you own? That's the real relevant question before you buy a 4K projector."

Well of course if they didn't own a 4K UHD display before, they probably wouldn't own very many 4K UHD discs. First you get the display that can actually play the discs, and then it is worthwhile to buy the discs.

Also, it seems like your outlook on various elements of my project is not going to align 100% with mine, and that you are intent to steer me in another direction no matter what you or I discover reading or talking about it, so that is another reason I answered your question how I did instead of saying "I don't own many 3D discs" which seems like maybe was the answer the question was engineered to get.

Why do I say that? Because if you can still buy them, why would it matter how many I owned before owning a 3D display? That's why your question from the beginning seemed not straightforward, like you were trying to set up a particular answer, which made it harder for me to answer in a straightforward way. 

But if you're just trying to help then thank you for trying to help, I definitely appreciate that. Maybe if you could explain why it's very relevant how many 3D discs I bought before owning a 3D display that could play them, then it would be easier for me to give a straightforward answer or understand what you mean by that.


----------



## fatherom

Technology3456 said:


> I did my best to answer your question but now you changed it. It's true you asked a one sentence question but it had big assumptions built into it which was a lot to unpack. You even quoted the question a second time to say why it's super relevant how many 3D movies I own. To say it's relevant is already inferring that it's not possible to buy 3D movies anymore, which I had to ask about, which made the response longer.
> 
> It's like telling someone about to upgrade from 1080p projector to 4K for the first time, "yeah but before you do, how many UHD discs do you own? That's the real relevant question before you buy a 4K projector."
> 
> Well of course if they didn't own a 4K UHD display before, they probably wouldn't own very many 4K UHD discs. First you get the display that can actually play the discs, and then it is worthwhile to buy the discs.
> 
> Also, it seems like your outlook various elements of my project is not going to align 100% with mine, and that you are intent to steer me in another direction no matter what, so that is another reason I answered your question how I did instead of saying "I don't own many 3D discs" which seems like maybe was the answer the question was engineered to get.
> 
> Why do I say that? Because if you can still buy them, why would it matter how many I owned before owning a 3D display? That's why your question from the beginning seemed not straightforward, like you were trying to set up a particular answer, which made it harder for me to answer in a straightforward way.


Oh. My. God.

You overthink everything. Multiple people have told you this. If I came on to a discussion forum and was told that by a large percentage of the people I interact with, I would self-reflect, and change my approach. Not you, though. You just keep on talking and muddying the waters.

Stop thinking you know the motivations to people's questions. There is no hidden agenda, no big assumptions, nothing to "unpack".

I will ask AGAIN, hoping to get a clear answer. Disregard my previous questions, PLEASE. I am starting from scratch with my question.

What percentage of the time you're using your home theater do you anticipate watching 3D content?


----------



## dschulz

Technology3456 said:


> I believe in general, there are actually more 3D blu rays released than 4K UHD discs.


That's not the case, or in any event won't be for long. Look at this way: the entire history of world cinema is 99.9% in 2D. There have been periodic bursts of 3D filmmaking - in the 50s, in the 80s and again from 2009 - 2014 or so after Avatar until it fizzled out again. Each of these bursts result in a dozen or couple of dozen of big 3D movies. Meanwhile, every year, year in and year out, ~400 movies are released theatrically in the US and probably 1000 movies are released worldwide, all in 2D. Old titles are being remastered into UHD Blu Ray (or UHD for streaming platforms); nothing old is getting 3D conversions.


----------



## Technology3456

fatherom said:


> Oh. My. God.
> 
> You overthink everything. Multiple people have told you this. If I came on to a discussion forum and was told that by a large percentage of the people I interact with, I would self-reflect, and change my approach. Not you, though. You just keep on talking and muddying the waters.
> 
> Stop thinking you know the motivations to people's questions. There is no hidden agenda, no big assumptions, nothing to "unpack".
> 
> I will ask AGAIN, hoping to get a clear answer. Disregard my previous questions, PLEASE. I am starting from scratch with my question.
> 
> What percentage of the time you're using your home theater do you anticipate watching 3D content?


I followed the standard advice about what displays to get multiple times in recent years, and wasn't happy with any of them, and I found the advice to have left out the most important information, and painted an inaccurate picture of the technology. So now I think learning about all the options myself, some of them less obvious or talked about, and "overthinking" it to find out what exactly was going on with prior displays that I didn't like, and which ones I can get to avoid that issue, is going to be the main reason I find something I really enjoy, if it works out.

So I would rather "overthink" than underthink. You reference that a number of people on the forum have said I'm overthinking, as if raw numbers of strangers opinions who could have said that for any reason, who could even be the same person posting on some (obviously not all) of those accounts, proves something. I think a lot of people's definition of "overthinking" on this forum is just "you didn't just go out and get the thing I recommended, without knowing anything about it." And some people definitely have more complicated motivations for recommending certain things, so I feel like it's disengenuous to act like there is one reason and one reason only that people advise me certain things, and that I am overthinking to try to understand for myself and make my own decision.

And as for 3D, I'm not sure most users on the forum have any more experience with each diff type of 3D setup than I do, and I def don't think most of them have read as much about it as I have. So just because I post hoping to learn about the latest complex issue to come up, from people who know more than me about it, doesn't mean I'm "overthinking" for not changing my opinion based on responses from people who don't and who don't know the answer any more than I do. They usually still have really helpful things to add that I take into consideration and think about, but it would take answers that disprove previous things I already read about for me to want to reverse course at this point.

But I absolutely agree most people's responses are just intended to help, and most of them do help. But we are all human beings with beliefs, assumptions, etc, so you can't pretend it never happens that people make posts for motives different han helping someone, especially when they're responding to someone they seem to dislike, who when they respond to that person, their responses seem to always have negative or critical things to say. That is the only reason I would even wonder if someone was trying to help or not, otherwise I just assume they are.

But to answer your last question, I hope to set things up to be able to do both high quality 2D, and high quality 3D, and then I will be able to watch however much 3D, and however much 2D, I have time to watch, depending what I find I like, and what content is available, and what I feel like watching. If it's 95% 2D, 5% 3D, I will have that option. If it's 50/50, I will have those options. I think that will work great for me.


----------



## fatherom

dschulz said:


> That's not the case, or in any event won't be for long. Look at this way: the entire history of world cinema is 99.9% in 2D. There have been periodic bursts of 3D filmmaking - in the 50s, in the 80s and again from 2009 - 2014 or so after Avatar until it fizzled out again. Each of these bursts result in a dozen or couple of dozen of big 3D movies. Meanwhile, every year, year in and year out, ~400 movies are released theatrically in the US and probably 1000 movies are released worldwide, all in 2D. Old titles are being remastered into UHD Blu Ray (or UHD for streaming platforms); nothing old is getting 3D conversions.


I have about 600 movies in my "official" collection, and about 40 of them are in 3D. I'm trying to make him realize that he's going through a TON of pain and research for something he won't use that often, and he'd be better off just getting a regular 3D projector that's modern.


----------



## fatherom

Technology3456 said:


> I followed the standard advice about what displays to get multiple times in recent years, and wasn't happy with any of them, and I found the advice to have left out the most important information, and painted an inaccurate picture of the technology. So now I think learning about all the options myself, some of them less obvious or talked about, and "overthinking" it to find out what exactly was going on with prior displays that I didn't like, and which ones I can get to avoid that issue, is going to be the main reason I find something I really enjoy, if it works out.
> 
> So I would rather "overthink" than underthink. You reference that a number of people on the forum have said I'm overthinking, as if raw numbers of strangers opinions who could have said that for any reason, who could even be the same person posting on some (obviously not all) of those accounts, proves something. I think a lot of people's definition of "overthinking" on this forum is just "you didn't just go out and get the thing I recommended, without knowing anything about it." And some people definitely have more complicated motivations for recommending certain things, so I feel like it's disengenuous for you to act like there one reason and one reason only that people advice me certain things, and that I am overthinking or not making the right decision to try to understand for myself and make my own decision, even against some people's advice
> 
> And as for 3D, I'm not sure most users on the forum have any more experience with each different type of 3D setup than I do, and I definitely don't think most of them have read as much about it as I have. So just because I post hoping to learn answers about complicated oustanding questions from people who know more than me about it doesn't mean I'm "overthinking" for not changing my opinion based on responses from people who know less about it and don't know the answer to the oustanding questions any more than I do.
> 
> But I absolutely agree most people's responses are just intended to help, and most of them do help. But we are all human beings with beliefs, assumptions, etc, so you can't pretend it never happens that people make posts for motives different han helping someone, especially when they're responding to someone they seem to dislike, who when they respond to that person, their responses seem to always have negative or critical things to say. That is the only reason I would even wonder if someone was trying to help or not, otherwise I just assume they are.
> 
> But to answer your last question, I hope to set things up to be able to do both high quality 2D, and high quality 3D, and then I will be able to watch however much 3D, and however much 2D, I have time to watch, depending what I find I like, and what content is available, and what I feel like watching. If it's 95% 2D, 5% 3D, I will have that option. If it's 50/50, I will have those options. I think that will work great for me.


Sigh.

You ask for advice and then you don't follow the advice. I can only draw two conclusions: you're an elaborate troll, or you have an inability to communicate efficiently or effectively. There is no slander in what I just said. I'm not being derogatory. I'm simply stating how I feel based on your elaborate and complex questions and answers.

Please stop posting multi-paragraph "meta" discussions about motivations/characterizations/etc...it's SO exhausting.

Please do YOURSELF a favor...save your own time and effort and headache. Get a modern simple 3D active projector and call it a day. Based on what I can garner from your posts, it will make your life a lot easier. I can't even imagine what your posts on this forum are going to be like when you actually get all this gear and start to set it up and configure it.

Take the simpler road.


----------



## fatherom

I should add...I've spent a LOT of money on my home theater. Probably more than you're planning to, based on what I've seen.

I have one projector, one screen...and that's it. I enjoy 3D content, 2D content, all kinds of content. And it all looks pretty darned good. I think I have a fairly typical mid-to-semi-high-end setup. 

You could spend your whole life chasing that last 5% of perfection. In my opinion, and in MANY others on this forum, it just isn't worth it.


----------



## Technology3456

fatherom said:


> Sigh.
> 
> You ask for advice and then you don't follow the advice. I can only draw two conclusions: you're an elaborate troll, or you have an inability to communicate efficiently or effectively. There is no slander in what I just said. I'm not being derogatory. I'm simply stating how I feel based on your elaborate and complex questions and answers.
> 
> Please stop posting multi-paragraph "meta" discussions about motivations/characterizations/etc...it's SO exhausting.
> 
> Please do YOURSELF a favor...save your own time and effort and headache. Get a modern simple 3D active projector and call it a day. Based on what I can garner from your posts, it will make your life a lot easier. I can't even imagine what your posts on this forum are going to be like when you actually get all this gear and start to set it up and configure it.
> 
> Take the simpler road.


I don't think I asked for "advice" specifically, I asked for information so I could make an informed decision for myself based on dozens of hours of reading, months of research, etc, that would be impossible to repeat completely in this thread. What I learned in this thread is like 0.001% of the equation, although that doesn't make it less valuable or appreciated than the thousands of other posts and articles I read to get to this point. I appreciate advice but I didn't ask about 3D in this thread so it could be a poll about my project, "well three people said not to do it, only one said to do it, so now I'm not going to do it." I had specific questions to try to figure out some remaining issues. I don't know how this turned into a "should I do my project or not" conversation, I never intended that. I think the original question was "should I do my project with two A lenses, or without two A lenses," and some other complex questions along those lines, like whether warping works well regardless of A lenses, or not.

And someone mentioned "registration" and "alignment" as two separate things, when it sounds like maybe they are the same, so that introduced some confusion and I wanted to make sure there was not some new issue that no one had brought up before, so I asked about that.

But otherwise I already decided to do the project months ago, I already bought half the stuff for it, so I never was asking "should I do it or not." It's already 75% done in many ways, just not all installed but the overall project is much closer to be finished than it is to the start.

The picture you paint of there only being like forty 3D blu rays worth owning is definitely concerning though. I thought it was at least a few hundred. Maybe it's somewhere in between. I agree that's far from ideal, but I want to at least be able to watch what's available.


----------



## Technology3456

dschulz said:


> That's not the case, or in any event won't be for long. Look at this way: the entire history of world cinema is 99.9% in 2D. There have been periodic bursts of 3D filmmaking - in the 50s, in the 80s and again from 2009 - 2014 or so after Avatar until it fizzled out again. Each of these bursts result in a dozen or couple of dozen of big 3D movies. Meanwhile, every year, year in and year out, ~400 movies are released theatrically in the US and probably 1000 movies are released worldwide, all in 2D. Old titles are being remastered into UHD Blu Ray (or UHD for streaming platforms); nothing old is getting 3D conversions.


I'm sure it won't be for too long but I was told that's the case now. Maybe someone read it a year ago when it was the case, and they told me a week ago, but six months ago it stopped being the case without them realizing. Who knows. But I was definitely told it is currently the case, so if I'm wrong I blame the person who told me  Except they're super helpful and usually correct so I wouldn't actually blame them but you get the point.

You guys don't need to worry about me. I am happy with my plan, and think I will be happy with the end result. If not and I waste some money, you guys can say I told you so. It is pretty complicated, so I am looking for help how to set it up right, and get every correct component, and make it work well, but I am not looking to be convinced not to do it because I'm already doing it and I want to see it through at this point.


----------



## fatherom

I just did a quick search on blu-ray.com, admittedly this doesn't encompass every title ever released but should give a good indication.

939 3D movies available

1483 4K movies available

3D blu-ray came out around 2010. 4K blu-ray came out around 2016.

The number of 3D releases over the last couple years is WAY down from where it was in the early 2010s.

It took me five minutes to get this info. If I was building a setup now, 3D would not be my primary motivation.


----------



## Technology3456

fatherom said:


> I just did a quick search on blu-ray.com, admittedly this doesn't encompass every title ever released but should give a good indication.
> 
> 939 3D movies available
> 
> 1483 4K movies available
> 
> 3D blu-ray came out around 2010. 4K blu-ray came out around 2016.
> 
> The number of 3D releases over the last couple years is WAY down from where it was in the early 2010s.
> 
> It took me five minutes to get this info. If I was building a setup now, 3D would not be my primary motivation.





> It took me five minutes to get this info.


You knew where to look! 

And if it encompasses every 4K title ever released, but not 3D title, then it could be misleading. 4K discs are more recent so maybe less of those missed going into their database than 3D blu rays. But if they missed an equal percentage of both, roughly speaking, then yes it would give a very good idea and prove there are more 4K UHD discs than 3D. Either way, currently it's not a huge gap, but I agree it will get there soon. Still 939 is not too few. Just depends how many of them are actually fun to watch.



> If I was building a setup now, 3D would not be my primary motivation.


Even if there were 100,000 3D blu rays, would it change your primary motivation? It sounds like you don't like 3D either way.

I am getting two quality 2D projectors, which together can make 3D, but can also be used alone, alternating, to get quality 2D. So it should work well for me either way. If you want to make the point that I am paying X for 2D content which may be 90% of my viewing, and 2X in order to add 3D content to that, which is only 10% of my viewing, and that it's really bad value to pay 2X for 10% of the content you can buy for 1X, then depending how much enjoyment I get out of that 10%, you'd be 100% correct.

It's sort of like a bonus. An expensive, time consuming to set up, bonus. But depending how much you enjoy it, maybe it's worth it to you. Either way, it is _in addition to 2D_ so it's not a "do you want 2D, or 3D, and you have to choose one" situation. It's a, "do you want one, or both?" situation. In a couple years I may even be able to pick up a 4K projector cheap used and then I'll even have 2D in 4K too, and then I'll really not have had to choose between any of it, whether there is a lot of content or very little, I will have the option to watch all of it and each type of it. So it seems like a good plan in that way. The cost and hassle is not so great but I can only tell you if it was worth it or not after the project is done.


----------



## fatherom

Technology3456 said:


> You knew where to look!
> 
> And if it encompasses every 4K title ever released, but not 3D title, then it could be misleading. 4K discs are more recent so maybe less of those missed going into their database than 3D blu rays. But if they missed an equal percentage of both, roughly speaking, then yes it would give a very good idea and prove there are more 4K UHD discs than 3D. Either way, currently it's not a huge gap, but I agree it will get there soon. Still 939 is not too few. Just depends how many of them are actually fun to watch.
> 
> 
> 
> Even if there were 100,000 3D blu rays, would it change your primary motivation? It sounds like you don't like 3D either way.
> 
> I am getting two quality 2D projectors, which together can make 3D, but can also be used alone, alternating, to get quality 2D. So it should work well for me either way. If you want to make the point that I am paying X for 2D content which may be 90% of my viewing, and 2X in order to add 3D content to that, which is only 10% of my viewing, and that it's really bad value to pay 2X for 10% of the content you can buy for 1X, then depending how much enjoyment I get out of that 10%, you'd be 100% correct.
> 
> It's sort of like a bonus. An expensive, time consuming to set up, bonus. But depending how much you enjoy it, maybe it's worth it to you. Either way, it is _in addition to 2D_ so it's not a "do you want 2D, or 3D, and you have to choose one" situation. It's a, "do you want one, or both?" situation. In a couple years I may even be able to pick up a 4K projector cheap used and then I'll even have 2D in 4K too, and then I'll really not have had to choose between any of it, whether there is a lot of content or very little, I will have the option to watch all of it and each type of it. So it seems like a good plan in that way. The cost and hassle is not so great but I can only tell you if it was worth it or not after the project is done.


LOL..you continue to be incorrect, and continue to assume people's motivations.

blu-ray dot com's db is basically complete and always up to date. It's not misleading. No titles "missed going into their database".

I _adore_ 3D. My first projector was 3D. I strive to maintain 3D play-ability with all of my setups. I watch it often. Does it encompass the bulk of my viewing? No. Not since 4K came out. 

I'd still get a modern 4K or faux-K projector, that does 3D, and call it a day. You'll thank me later, believe me. I'm able to choose whether I want to watch 3D or 2D, and I have NONE of the hassles you're about to go through, aligning two projectors, dealing with A-lenses, etc. You come to avsforum for the wealth of knowledge that's here. And nearly everyone is telling you that buying 10-year old projectors and trying to align them is not worth the effort.


----------



## Technology3456

fatherom said:


> LOL..you continue to be incorrect, and continue to assume people's motivations.
> 
> blu-ray dot com's db is basically complete and always up to date. It's not misleading. No titles "missed going into their database".
> 
> I _adore_ 3D. My first projector was 3D. I strive to maintain 3D play-ability with all of my setups. I watch it often. Does it encompass the bulk of my viewing? No. Not since 4K came out.
> 
> I'd still get a modern 4K or faux-K projector, that does 3D, and call it a day. You'll thank me later, believe me. I'm able to choose whether I want to watch 3D or 2D, and I have NONE of the hassles you're about to go through, aligning two projectors, dealing with A-lenses, etc. You come to avsforum for the wealth of knowledge that's here. And nearly everyone is telling you that buying 10-year old projectors and trying to align them is not worth the effort.


There was a wealth of knowledge in all 120 pages or so of the Ultimate 3D forum I read, including lots of talk of active 3D vs passive, and the overwhelming advice was the opposite of the advice you're giving. And 3D is still 1080p same as back then, and I haven't heard of any major advancements in 3D technology since then that would change that advice.

There was one or two people who went to bat for active 3D though, so I'm not saying you're wrong or that passive is better. You are just acting like it's cut and dry, and I knew nothing before asking about anamorphic lenses in this thread which you've somehow turned into a "you're wrong to do your whole project" situation, and that I still know nothing about it, and that I am definitely doing the wrong thing going against your advice, and that your advice is the true advice that the whole forum agrees with but I'm ignoring them, when actually most on the forum who have experience with both types have generally said the opposite so that's not even an accurate characterization of what "nearly everyone is telling me."

It's what you are telling me. It's what two others in this thread are telling me, and maybe they were the ones who said they don't even watch 3D, which is who I was referring to when I said that but absolutely, I was mistaken about that, and I apologize about that. I wasn't assuming your motivation though, it's just hard to keep track of every post between three people posting similar opinions from 2 days ago. 

Lastly, even in this thread one of the people who otherwise agrees with you advised me against the 4K DLP pixel shifters because of a milky grey image. And I prefer DLP so that would make it even harder to take your advice even if it was the prevailing wisdom on avs about which type of 3D is preferable. To do 3D on a 4K lcos, I would have to sacrifice my preferred 2D image in order to get 3D, which would also go against your advice. This is usually the time you would say I'm "overthinking" but this is the reality of the situation. I prefer DLP. The 4K offerings in DLP are limited. So I'm probably going to do well by getting 1080p DLP projectors that give me the best 2D image I can get right now from DLP depending on if you disagree that the 4K pixel shifters are bad or not, and then I can also get the type of 3D that was most recommended on the 3D section of avs forum by stacking two of them.

Best of both worlds for my preferences. Would I prefer 4K DLP, true 4K? Absolutely but it doesnt seem to exist. And 4K lcos vs 1080p DLP, if you really prefer DLP in general, is not a simple choice either.


----------



## dschulz

Technology3456 said:


> And I prefer DLP so that would make it even harder to take your advice even if it was the prevailing wisdom on avs about which type of 3D is preferable. To do 3D on a 4K lcos, I would have to sacrifice my preferred 2D image in order to get 3D, which would also go against your advice.


One thing I'm curious about is _why_ do you prefer DLP? Have you seen how good modern LCOS projectors from Sony and JVC are? This is obviously a matter of preference; I'm not attacking you or saying you're wrong, but to my eye the JVCs look better than any DLP and it's not close.


----------



## Josh Z

I started with DLP back in the day, and was a big advocate of it at the time when it was the preferable alterative to LCD. But man, LCoS sure does kick its butt today.

DLP still has its advocates who go on and on about its superior ANSI contrast, but that's a really disingenuous argument considering how bad its on-off contrast is compared to LCoS. On-off makes a far bigger impact on overall picture quality than ANSI.

Any projector is going to look good in a bright daytime scene, because the brightness biases our perception of the blacks and makes them seem deeper than they actually are. But when it comes to a dark nighttime scene, LCoS looks amazing and DLP is a milky mess.


----------



## etherealsound

Not sure if this is the right place to ask this but I am wondering how does an anamorphic lens work. Is it like this: 2.4 image "squished" into a 16:9 aspect ratio, anamorphic lens "stretches" it back into 2.4 ratio? Also, if this is the case, can an anamorphic lens maintain a 16:9 picture or does it have to be removed when viewing 16:9 material. Furthermore, if it works by squishing the image, would that lead to artifacting in the image?


----------



## Craig Peer

etherealsound said:


> Not sure if this is the right place to ask this but I am wondering how does an anamorphic lens work. Is it like this: 2.4 image "squished" into a 16:9 aspect ratio, anamorphic lens "stretches" it back into 2.4 ratio? Also, if this is the case, can an anamorphic lens maintain a 16:9 picture or does it have to be removed when viewing 16:9 material. Furthermore, if it works by squishing the image, would that lead to artifacting in the image?


A lot of good info here - 
How Does Anamorphic 4K Home Cinema Work? | Panamorph UltraWide Home Theater Projector Lenses 

How can you watch 16:9 TV in your anamorphic 2.4:1 4K cinema? | Panamorph UltraWide Home Theater Projector Lenses


----------



## FenceMan

Technology3456 said:


> There was a wealth of knowledge in all 120 pages or so of the Ultimate 3D forum I read, including lots of talk of active 3D vs passive, and the overwhelming advice was the opposite of the advice you're giving. And 3D is still 1080p same as back then, and I haven't heard of any major advancements in 3D technology since then that would change that advice.
> 
> There was one or two people who went to bat for active 3D though, so I'm not saying you're wrong or that passive is better. You are just acting like it's cut and dry, and I knew nothing before asking about anamorphic lenses in this thread which you've somehow turned into a "you're wrong to do your whole project" situation, and that I still know nothing about it, and that I am definitely doing the wrong thing going against your advice, and that your advice is the true advice that the whole forum agrees with but I'm ignoring them, when actually most on the forum who have experience with both types have generally said the opposite so that's not even an accurate characterization of what "nearly everyone is telling me."
> 
> It's what you are telling me. It's what two others in this thread are telling me, and maybe they were the ones who said they don't even watch 3D, which is who I was referring to when I said that but absolutely, I was mistaken about that, and I apologize about that. I wasn't assuming your motivation though, it's just hard to keep track of every post between three people posting similar opinions from 2 days ago.
> 
> Lastly, even in this thread one of the people who otherwise agrees with you advised me against the 4K DLP pixel shifters because of a milky grey image. And I prefer DLP so that would make it even harder to take your advice even if it was the prevailing wisdom on avs about which type of 3D is preferable. To do 3D on a 4K lcos, I would have to sacrifice my preferred 2D image in order to get 3D, which would also go against your advice. This is usually the time you would say I'm "overthinking" but this is the reality of the situation. I prefer DLP. The 4K offerings in DLP are limited. So I'm probably going to do well by getting 1080p DLP projectors that give me the best 2D image I can get right now from DLP depending on if you disagree that the 4K pixel shifters are bad or not, and then I can also get the type of 3D that was most recommended on the 3D section of avs forum by stacking two of them.
> 
> Best of both worlds for my preferences. Would I prefer 4K DLP, true 4K? Absolutely but it doesnt seem to exist. And 4K lcos vs 1080p DLP, if you really prefer DLP in general, is not a simple choice either.


It's been 5 months, have you started building your setup and if so what did you end up doing?


----------



## Technology3456

FenceMan said:


> It's been 5 months, have you started building your setup and if so what did you end up doing?


It's coming along well. I had already started 5 months ago, but it's night and day where I am now vs then. I am hopefully over the difficult humps in the project.

I ended up going with 1080p DLP projectors, but it's not set in stone 100%. Unfortunately I haven't found any digital displays that I don't have motion sensitivity to, which may mean I should consider non-DLP projectors if the motion will be just as "good" on non-DLP projectors. If. But unless I find something with not just equal but _better _motion, I will probably try to mitigate the issue with a smaller screen than most would recommend for my seating distance. It's an issue that nothing on the market seems to offer a good solution for. Besides that, I've got pretty much everything else I need in the setup besides finding normal sized $150 or so in-ceiling speakers with 35 to 45 degree tilt of both woofer and tweeter... I haven't found any yet but there are so many speaker companies they are probably out there... and a screen (but I think I know what direction I'll go there), and finalizing my subwoofer plan, but that's very narrowed down at this point also.

Those things, seating, and setup, and I'm more or less done. The project with probably 100 things on the list at the start is down to just a few, plus some smaller things like how to hide wiring on the walls, universal remotes, DIY screen masking if the screen can't come with it.

Setup will probably be very complicated, but I just have to learn how to do it once and it will be repeatable from there.

What setup are you running?


----------



## FenceMan

Technology3456 said:


> It's coming along well. I had already started 5 months ago, but it's night and day where I am now vs then. I am hopefully over the difficult humps in the project.
> 
> I ended up going with 1080p DLP projectors, but it's not set in stone 100%. Unfortunately I haven't found any digital displays that I don't have motion sensitivity to, which may mean I should consider non-DLP projectors if the motion will be just as "good" on non-DLP projectors. If. But unless I find something with not just equal but _better _motion, I will probably try to mitigate the issue with a smaller screen than most would recommend for my seating distance. It's an issue that nothing on the market seems to offer a good solution for. Besides that, I've got pretty much everything else I need in the setup besides finding normal sized $150 or so in-ceiling speakers with 35 to 45 degree tilt of both woofer and tweeter... I haven't found any yet but there are so many speaker companies they are probably out there... and a screen (but I think I know what direction I'll go there), and finalizing my subwoofer plan, but that's very narrowed down at this point also.
> 
> Those things, seating, and setup, and I'm more or less done. The project with probably 100 things on the list at the start is down to just a few, plus some smaller things like how to hide wiring on the walls, universal remotes, DIY screen masking if the screen can't come with it.
> 
> Setup will probably be very complicated, but I just have to learn how to do it once and it will be repeatable from there.
> 
> What setup are you running?


I'm running RS2000 with DCR lens fed by MadVR HTPC.

So what do you do when you aren't watching 3D films which I assume is at least 50% of the time even for the most ardent 3D enthusiast?

Got any pics of the setup? It sounds unique.


----------



## etherealsound

Craig Peer said:


> A lot of good info here -
> How Does Anamorphic 4K Home Cinema Work? | Panamorph UltraWide Home Theater Projector Lenses
> 
> How can you watch 16:9 TV in your anamorphic 2.4:1 4K cinema? | Panamorph UltraWide Home Theater Projector Lenses


Thank you very much for these resources. I just had a quick question. Someone told me that with an anamorphic lens, one of the downsides is that you lose contrast/black levels. Is this true?


----------



## Craig Peer

etherealsound said:


> Thank you very much for these resources. I just had a quick question. Someone told me that with an anamorphic lens, one of the downsides is that you lose contrast/black levels. Is this true?


No.


----------



## Technology3456

FenceMan said:


> I'm running RS2000 with DCR lens fed by MadVR HTPC.
> 
> So what do you do when you aren't watching 3D films which I assume is at least 50% of the time even for the most ardent 3D enthusiast?
> 
> Got any pics of the setup? It sounds unique.


Unique yes, unique as in better 2D performance than the well-trodden road, maybe not. For the best resolution and contrast I would have gone with the same projector as you, or an NX5. The main reason I went the direction I did was to hopefully get a little smoother motion to my eyes even at the cost of resolution and contrast. But at this point I am very curious to see an NX5 or NX7 in action and see if I actually notice a difference. Most high end theaters (but below $100,000) use a variation of your setup, so it's probably for a reason.

For 3D though, yes this was a good direction to go. And no I wouldn't even say I will watch 3D 50% of the time. Have you ever put a lot of effort into something that could be very enjoyable, but only for a relatively limited amount of time? Lol. A lot of jokes could be made off that question, or just the one obvious one. I am creating the 3D setup with eyes wide open about the 3D situation and limited number of movies. I like 3D, but if there were only 10 3D movies worth watching, I wouldn't bother at all. The fact there are only a few hundred is not ideal, but unlike just 10, it's enough to be sort of in the grey area, and with at least handful of new ones every year (to this point anyway), the total is enough that if you like 3D, and you're determined to try to enjoy it despite less than ideal circumstances, you can convince yourself that it's a workable situation, especially if it turns out that 3d blu-rays are much more rewatchable, on a good 3D setup, than 2D movies, which is also a grey area.

There are a lot of unknowns about 3D Home Theater unless someone else with the same setup you're trying to build lives near you and can give you a demo, which is very rare. It seems like one of those things that you can't build it to enjoy it "guaranteed," you have to build it just to _find out _if you will enjoy it, or at least, if you will enjoy it enough to make it worth it, and if it will be comfortable enough to use regularly in the first place. If it turns out not to be worth it, used equipment can be resold so it shouldn't be a disaster. It's not something where I am 100% certain it will be worth the time and effort, just something I want to experiment with and find out. It may turn out that I don't like the more complicated setup any more than the active 3D, and I will sell that stuff and stick with active 3D. It may turn out I don't like to watch either type of 3D at home very often, and will just use the projector for 2D, in which case the question of if I bought the right projector will come down to whether or not I like the motion on it better than the 4K alternatives. 

These were things I had no way to find out without step 1, buying the 1080p projectors that no one near me owns, so I could see the motion on them and the 3D options. I know someone who bought and flipped seven used projectors before finding the one he stuck with. He's still got me beat there by a ways, thankfully.


----------



## bwhitmore

I've read through all of this thread the best I can, trying to gain information.

1. What is the general advice for 2021 with the new 4K projectors and 4K lenses? Has anything changed?

2. Has anyone else done any definitive experiments that determine how much light is lost with the ZOOM method?

3. When most folks here ZOOM, are they running the lens with NO scaler? If so, how much does the scaler add?

4. The lens and scaler option will add about $8000+ to my HT budget. I'm not opposed to doing this, but $8000 is $8000  It just seems to me that these new 4K projectors are getting pretty damn close to what my old setup from 2007 could do, with NO lens?

_NOTE: My previous setup from 2007 was a JVC RS-1 with Prismasonic lens and Lumagen HDQ scaler and 130" 2.35 screen. If I do a lens/scaler again I'll do the Panamorph DCR-J1 and the Lumagen 4446 on my JVC NX7 and a 140" 2.35 screen._


----------



## dschulz

bwhitmore said:


> I've read through all of this thread the best I can, trying to gain information.
> 
> 1. What is the general advice for 2021 with the new 4K projectors and 4K lenses? Has anything changed?


I think the conventional wisdom hasn't changed much, yet, pending availability of (and reviews of) the newly-announced laser projectors from JVC.



> 2. Has anyone else done any definitive experiments that determine how much light is lost with the ZOOM method?


Not to my knowledge, but the physics is solid - the Zoom method means when projecting a Scope feature ~20% of your pixels are unilluminated. Adding an anamorphic lens gets you the pixels back, along with their attendant light, less a little bit of transmission loss.

I think the question worth asking about this isn't if a system with a lens is brighter (it is) but if the Zoom method is bright _enough_. If you can hit the desired light level without an A-Lens, it's harder to justify the latter. Lots of variables here, though - how long is the throw, how bright is your projector, how large is your screen, are you trying to hit higher light levels needed for HDR...



> 3. When most folks here ZOOM, are they running the lens with NO scaler? If so, how much does the scaler add?


I believe so. You don't need a scaler if you're using Zoom, as you are always just displaying the native image from your content, and zooming in or out to frame it appropriately. There's no need to scale the image to some different geometry.



> 4. The lens and scaler option will add about $8000+ to my HT budget. I'm not opposed to doing this, but $8000 is $8000  It just seems to me that these new 4K projectors are getting pretty damn close to what my old setup from 2007 could do, with NO lens?
> 
> _NOTE: My previous setup from 2007 was a JVC RS-1 with Prismasonic lens and Lumagen HDQ scaler and 130" 2.35 screen. If I do a lens/scaler again I'll do the Panamorph DCR-J1 and the Lumagen 4446 on my JVC NX7 and a 140" 2.35 screen._


I still prefer a lens+scaler combo, because it lets you easily maintain a consistent light level and pixel density across _any_ possible aspect ratio, and also lets you support all the weird ratios in between 16:9 and 2.39. But you're right, it's a lot of $$ and getting harder to justify the cost, given how good modern 4K projectors are. In a new build on a budget I'd probably go Zoom unless the budget really did support that final bit of push to make the projection system its theoretical best. I would not skimp on some other part of the build (sound isolation, acoustic treatments, woofage) in order to add the A-lens+scaler.


----------

