# Calling all Marquee Geometry Guru's!!



## CZ Eddie

Fellas I need your help!


I know some will ask "why do you want to do that" but if I could just ask you to help out on this thread and if you have any questions as to why, you can refer to this thread for history:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...85#post4743585 



OKAY, THE QUESTION IS.....


What is the best way to get the raster on my '96 refurbed Marquee 9000 projector to be smaller (vertically) than the typical 16:9 raster with anamorphic mod?


When I had it setup for 16:9, the pic size controls were at 100 width and 17 height. This looked perfect. BUT for my new project, even settin the height to "0" it is still TOO TALL.


Are there any tricks to get it to be smaller, height-wise? I know I can use the service convergence to get it smaller but are there any OTHER tricks?


And yes, I suffer from the center banding line when using too much service convergence.


----------



## Jim in Cincy

Never mind.


----------



## CZ Eddie

Jim, please edit your post, as while I appreciate the response, it has nothing to do with this thread and will just skew the topic. I'll respond in my other thread. Thanks


----------



## CZ Eddie

Well crap, it gets more frustrating.


I set picture size to 100/0 and then used service convergence to try and get the raster to have a smaller height but not only could I not get all the way there but what I did manage had banding.


Is there NO WAY to alter this projector either mechanically, electrically or otherwise to create a 2.35:1 height raster?


My project is dead in the water unless I can get the height small enough. I could live with a "too tall" raster for my HTPC DVD viewings but then I'm screwed for watching HD on my dish receiver.


----------



## CZ Eddie

Forgive me, for I just visited the under $3500 forum to see what's new. I had the words "Anamorphic lens" and "LCD" cross my mind at the same time and I confess, I peeked into that forum.


Please save me before I stray too far!


----------



## mp20748

Quote:

_Originally posted by CZ Eddie_
*

Is there NO WAY to alter this projector either mechanically, electrically or otherwise to create a 2.35:1 height raster?
*
Hey, this is so strange. I too found the anamophic mod to be inadequate. I even have a vertical board somewhere in my shop (before the move), that I've made some changes on to improve on this.


I've mentioned this mod in the past, but never got back around to perfecting it. However, I did get it better than what we have now, but would need to do more, especially to make sure the failsafe circuit still does its job after the changes. OH yeah, you'll need to change a lot more than three resistors (I think I changed six so far).


I'll look for that module the next time I'm at my shop at the house.


----------



## Jim in Cincy

Quote:

_Originally posted by CZ Eddie_
*Jim, please edit your post, as while I appreciate the response, it has nothing to do with this thread and will just skew the topic. I'll respond in my other thread. Thanks *
Quote:

_Originally posted by CZ Eddie_
*What is the best way to get the raster on my '96 refurbed Marquee 9000 projector to be smaller (vertically) than the typical 16:9 raster with anamorphic mod?*
I thought my suggestion on how to change the image size was relevant but I guess not.


Good luck.


----------



## M NEWMAN

Quote:

_Originally posted by CZ Eddie_
*


Are there any tricks to get it to be smaller, height-wise? I know I can use the service convergence to get it smaller but are there any OTHER tricks?
*


Simple, change the three 470 ohm resistors, R706, 806, 906 (assuming your V board is a 50-2330-02P) to anywhere between 530 ohm to 550 ohm. You'll have no trouble getting a 2:35 aspect out of this. By the way, I don't really recommend H width at 100 - try to go for around 85 - 90 to avoid stressing the HDM so much. It won't make a hoot of a difference in light output, put's the outer focus & stig zones in better control, and backs down the current used by the HDM also. Don't use green convergence for this raster height problem.


----------



## techman707

Quote:

_Originally posted by M NEWMAN_
*Simple, change the three 470 ohm resistors, R706, 806, 906 (assuming your V board is a 50-2330-02P) to anywhere between 530 ohm to 550 ohm. You'll have no trouble getting a 2:35 aspect out of this. By the way, I don't really recommend H width at 100 - try to go for around 85 - 90 to avoid stressing the HDM so much. It won't make a hoot of a difference in light output, put's the outer focus & stig zones in better control, and backs down the current used by the HDM also. Don't use green convergence for this raster height problem. *
Mike,


Isn't R706, 806 and 906 the "ramp" signal? Why couldn't the resistance of R704, 804 and 904 just be increased a little more?


Bruce


----------



## CZ Eddie

Quote:

_Originally posted by Jim in Cincy_
*I thought my suggestion on how to change the image size was relevant but I guess not.


Good luck.*
Please don't be upset. This thread is about raster size, not picture size or anything else. 

Quote:

_Originally posted by mp20748_
*

I'll look for that module the next time I'm at my shop at the house.*
Now we're getting somewhere! I know if the NEC XG series can do this, the Marquee can [eventually] do it better. 

Quote:

_Originally posted by M NEWMAN_
*(assuming your V board is a 50-2330-02P)*
Zoinks, foiled by the fixed-rear-heatsink again. 

I'll check the board number tonight but I'm sure it won't match as I remember modding the R41, R47 and R52 to get 16:9 raster.

Let's not let this end the disscussion though because if I have to, I will mod my chassis to get the hinged-heat-sink or even upgrade the chassis if I have to [eventually].


----------



## M NEWMAN

Quote:

_Originally posted by CZ Eddie_
*

Zoinks, foiled by the fixed-rear-heatsink again. 

I'll check the board number tonight but I'm sure it won't match as I remember modding the R41, R47 and R52 to get 16:9 raster.

Let's not let this end the disscussion though because if I have to, I will mod my chassis to get the hinged-heat-sink or even upgrade the chassis if I have to [eventually].*
What board # do you have? If it's a 50-2002-01 or 02P, then solder in parallel (to the original value) of the R41, 47, & 52 resistors up to 68Kohms (range of 51K to 68K). If it's a 50-2020-02P, then R704, 804, 904 get changed to 36 - 44Kohm, depending on how far you need to squeeze.


Bruce, you might be able to do that - I really don't know what the end result would be, but I've always used this mod and it gives me puuuulennnty of range.


----------



## CZ Eddie

Quote:

_Originally posted by M NEWMAN_
*solder in parallel (to the original value) of the R41, 47, & 52 resistors up to 68Kohms (range of 51K to 68K).*
The board # is 50-2002-01P. I actually have all my part#'s listed here:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...45#post4424245 


Okay, so I used 47k resistors on top of the original resistors, for the 16:9 mod. I'll replace those with 51-68, whatever I find at Fry's. I'll post back with results. Thanks for the tip! Let's see what we can do here!!


----------



## techman707

Quote:

_Originally posted by M NEWMAN_
*What board # do you have? If it's a 50-2002-01 or 02P, then solder in parallel (to the original value) of the R41, 47, & 52 resistors up to 68Kohms (range of 51K to 68K). If it's a 50-2020-02P, then R704, 804, 904 get changed to 36 - 44Kohm, depending on how far you need to squeeze.


Bruce, you might be able to do that - I really don't know what the end result would be, but I've always used this mod and it gives me puuuulennnty of range. *
The standard anamorphic mod to R704, R804 and R904 calls for changing the 30K resistors to 56K, if you put in 36-44K ohm resistors, you might not make it to 16:9.


Did you just make a mistake in the original post where you said R706, R806 and R906 ?


----------



## M NEWMAN

Quote:

_Originally posted by techman707_
*The standard anamorphic mod to R704, R804 and R904 calls for changing the 30K resistors to 56K, if you put in 36-44K ohm resistors, you might not make it to 16:9.*
Been a while since I've modded a 2020, so I could easily have my values a little low, so I'm with you here.

Quote:

_Originally posted by techman707_
*Did you just make a mistake in the original post where you said R706, R806 and R906 ? *
No, on the 2330 board, I definitely mean the '06 ones - the very 1st revision of the version board had 430 ohms installed while later versions had 470 ohm. Still wasn't enough, hence the upgrade to anywhere from 530 to 550ohm, depending on the amount of squeeze you need. I've found this mod to be more effective than the '04 changes. Either works though.


Eddie, yea, 47K would be a little low, explaining why you're not getting much range. Rat shack has these though - no need to bother with Fry's (I didn't even know they carried 1/8 & 1/4 watt resistors!).


----------



## Energeezer

Eddie

I'm sure the guys suggesting you change resistor values are on the right track here.

When i originally did the anamorphic mod to my PJ I was unable to get the recommended 56K resistors and used 50K instead. While it was an improvement I could not get the vert size small enough for 16/9 but i could get close. Since i could not get 6K resistors locally (I'm in Winterpeg) at the time I simply put a 10K in series with each 50K. Voila I could get 16/9.

Note: Even with 60K resistors I still can not set v size small enough for 2.35/1.

So I'm sure the solution is a higher value of resistor but I'M NOT SURE HOW HIGH A VALUE YOU CAN USE W/O CAUSING OTHER ISSUES. For that info you'll need the help of the real Guru MP.


----------



## CZ Eddie

Mike, I called Radio Shack and they only carry 47k or 100k, nothing in between. 


They do have some 5k though. Maybe I can piggyback a couple of those on my 47k resistor to equal 57k?


----------



## CZ Eddie

Energeezer, you had 50k and it wasn't enough for 16:9? I have 47k and I get 16:9 with lots of room to spare.


----------



## techman707

Quote:

_Originally posted by CZ Eddie_
*Energeezer, you had 50k and it wasn't enough for 16:9? I have 47k and I get 16:9 with lots of room to spare.*
Eddie,


Energeezer is referring to the later boards that you replace R704,804 and 904 with 56K ohms from the original 30K ohms. You must have an older board.


----------



## Energeezer




> They do have some 5k though. Maybe I can piggyback a couple of those on my 47k resistor to equal 57k?
> 
> 
> 
> Eddie
> 
> Be carefull. Piggyback usually means in parallel. This will decrease your values. You must link them in series. Just clarifying.
> 
> Techman is correct as usual. Mine is a newer board.
> 
> 
> As a point of interest.
> 
> I have a Marquee 8500 Ultra built in 99 hanging in my theater now and i have to adj V size to 0 for 16/9. Have not had it apart so i am unsure of the mod status but i am surprised that the issue had not been addressed at the factory by 99 sheesh.
> 
> 
> Steve
Click to expand...


----------



## Vadim

Hmmâ€¦well, for what its worth, - my 9500 Ultra (manufactured in Dec. 99)functions without the anamorphic nod so far. In order to achieve 16:9 aspect, I set the vertical control to 0 and it just makes it.


Somehow I think it is not a good idea to push the control to the limit, but since this control ultimately affects the output of an op-amp and we are talking video control voltages here I doubt that I am doing any damage.


Comments???


Vadim


----------



## techman707

I had 3 8500s 2 made in 96 and one in 97, they ALL will "just make it" to 16:9, but if you don't do the anamorphic mod, it creates a slight pin and bow distortion that you don't get if you do the mod.


----------



## CZ Eddie

Even after the mod, my '94 8000 would only "just make it" with height set to "0".


Anyway, just got back from Fry's. Picked up a pack of 1/4 watt 2% (didn't have 5%) 68ohm metal film resistors. The next step down was 51ohm.

Also got a pack of 5% but those are carbon and I'm pretty sure I'm not supposed to use those. Have the vert board out now and I'm just getting my soldering iron hot.


----------



## techman707

Quote:

_Originally posted by CZ Eddie_
*Even after the mod, my '94 8000 would only "just make it" with height set to "0".


Anyway, just got back from Fry's. Picked up a pack of 1/4 watt 2% (didn't have 5%) 68ohm metal film resistors. The next step down was 51ohm.

Also got a pack of 5% but those are carbon and I'm pretty sure I'm not supposed to use those. Have the vert board out now and I'm just getting my soldering iron hot. *
Your 94 8000 had the "old" style board, are you sure you did the right mod ?


----------



## CZ Eddie

Quote:

_Originally posted by CZ Eddie_
*just got back from Fry's. Picked up a pack of 1/4 watt 2% (didn't have 5%) 68ohm metal film resistors.*
Well that didn't work. I didn't gain anything. 

Though it seems my soldering skills are improving somewhat.


Bruce, in answer to your question, the 8000 was a hinged heatsink model and I'm fairly sure I did the right mod.


Energeezer, thanks for the clarification. Looking at the etechvideo site, I should have used the term "bridged" instead.


----------



## techman707

Quote:

_Originally posted by CZ Eddie_
*Well that didn't work. I didn't gain anything. 

Though it seems my soldering skills are improving somewhat.


Bruce, in answer to your question, the 8000 was a hinged heatsink model and I'm fairly sure I did the right mod.


Energeezer, thanks for the clarification. Looking at the etechvideo site, I should have used the term "bridged" instead. *
Have you posted the board number you're working on? You seem to be having a problem. You should have easily been able to bring the raster down. Can you post a picture of what you did?


----------



## CZ Eddie

The board # is 50-2002-01P. Unfortunately I don't have my digicam with me.


----------



## techman707

Eddie,


On that board you changed the values of R41, R47 and R52 right? If so, you either REMOVED the 10K resistors and replaced them with 8200 ohm resistors, or you "bridged" (paralleled) the 10K resistors with 47K or 50K resistors, which did you do? Personally, I like replacing them. In any event, if you used the correct values for whatever method you used, the raster MUST be able to be brought down further than originally, if not, you have a soldering problem.


Bruce


----------



## CZ Eddie

Bruce, I have never replaced the resistors on this board. All I did was bridge 68k resistors on top of the existing 10k resistors.

And yes, I did R41, 47 and 52.


I looked at each resistor and they all appear to be solded in place. What would happen if just one of them was not on properly? Would all three colors be effected or just one?


Thanks.


----------



## techman707

Quote:

_Originally posted by CZ Eddie_
*Bruce, I have never replaced the resistors on this board. All I did was bridge 68k resistors on top of the existing 10k resistors.

And yes, I did R41, 47 and 52.


I looked at each resistor and they all appear to be solded in place. What would happen if just one of them was not on properly? Would all three colors be effected or just one?


Thanks. *
It should ONLY affect one channel. I don't get it, you shouldn't have needed 68K. Can you get a 16:9 raster and if so, What number is the vertical RGB number at?


----------



## CZ Eddie

Quote:

_Originally posted by techman707_
*Can you get a 16:9 raster and if so, What number is the vertical RGB number at?*
Carumba, with 1280x720 I need to have picture size at 100/3 where before it only needed 100/7. This means I actually took a step backwards. I don't get it either, because I got the new resistors from the same place (Fry's) and they are even the same brand and same spec, except for these being 68k while the old ones were 47k. 


That's what you meant by RGB number, right?


----------



## M NEWMAN

Eddie, you would actually need a "lower" value to increase the effect. A higher value will lessen the effect of paralleling a resistor. Try something around 39K and you'll probably get there. Rat shack does sell them - they lied. But, you have to buy their big assortment pack - around $5 or 6 bucks. This way, you'll have lots of different values to try and can stop running to the store every time you want to make a change. By the way, carbon resistors are fine.


----------



## Energeezer

Quote:

Bruce, I have never replaced the resistors on this board. All I did was bridge 68k resistors on top of the existing 10k resistors.
Eddie

Just to carify. Are you shure you are hooking up in series? You will go the wrong way if they end up in parrallel. I wonder because you say you never removed any resistors. In order to hook up in series you MUST DISCONNECT AT LEAST ONE END and join the new resistor to the old then place the remaining lead in the original hole you pulled one end from.

Steve


----------



## CZ Eddie

M Newman, I'll try that tonight then.


Energeezer, this pic from the etech site shows how I placed the new resistor on top of the old one:

http://tinypic.com/u226b


----------



## M NEWMAN

Quote:

_Originally posted by Energeezer_
*Eddie

Just to carify. Are you shure you are hooking up in series? You will go the wrong way if they end up in parrallel. I wonder because you say you never removed any resistors. In order to hook up in series you MUST DISCONNECT AT LEAST ONE END and join the new resistor to the old then place the remaining lead in the original hole you pulled one end from.

Steve*
Steve, his mod requires a parallel connection - he's reducing the overall value in his circuit.


----------



## CZ Eddie

Mike you were right... I went to radio shack and picked up their "assortment pack". You won't know it's there unless you look around for it.


It's got (among others): 22k, 27k, 33k, and 39k.

There are all 1/4 watt, 5% carbon resistors.

I'll try the 39k per your suggestion, unless one of the others is a better match?


----------



## Energeezer

Well what the hell.

Geez I'm sorry about that Eddie

On my projector it was a series connection.

My very bad.

But still if he is combining resistors to get a higher value (since he can not find the correct ohmage) those resistors will need to be series connected and then placed in parallel with the existing resistor.

Sorry again Eddie.

I shut up now


Steve


----------



## CZ Eddie

Steve, no worries. I do appreciate the help. 


Well I just tried the 39k and while it didn't do the job, it looks like we're headed in the right direction. But I may have lost raster width also. I'm pretty sure it's not as wide as it was. I'll try the next step down in resistors and see what that does for this project.


----------



## CZ Eddie

Wow, 27k was *almost* there. The raster width didn't appear to change, which is good. And the height is almost where it needs to be. Just about three inches off.


I'm gonna try 22k now. M Newman, your value pak idea has saved me a bunch of trips to Fry's so far. 


So.... aside from the 2.35 issue, are there any negatives to 22k vs 47k


----------



## CZ Eddie

OKay, my apologies... I got impatient and went straight to 18k, skipping the 22k step.

I got what I wanted, raster width actually seems a tiny bit wider (could be my 30 second geometry setup) and I achieved my target height, with vertical actually set at "19". wow! I'm going to guess that 22k would have been enough. Edit, also to note is that when I went to remove the 27k resistors, one leg (lead?) of one resistor *might* have been loose.


Okay so now that I got my height, I notice that my typical 30 second geometry setup that I've done a zillion times over the last few months, has provided me with some odd looking lines. Not as straight as I'm used to seeing, but nothing horrible.


Lemme do a semi-decent 90 minute setup here, including a full reset on the PJ and adjusting my HTPC and I'll post back with whether this is all doable or not. That or if the phone rings, I'm going out partying. So either way, THANK YOU to EVERYONE... !


edit, btw I just did a 100/100 horizontal/vertical picture size and my overall raster size is definately smaller than it used to be. This isn't too important a detail for my 2.35 project, but it does lead me to believe that choosing resistor size is definately a factor in overall picture size. Some may want to take that into concern when choosing your resistor for the typical 16:9 mod. I'd guess that a 47k resistor will provide a smaller overall picture than a 16:9 mod with a 51k resistor will. But probably not a big difference.


----------



## CZ Eddie

Okay, did a half-way decent setup with the new 2.35:1 raster. Don't see anything funny going on, so that's great. Adjusted Powerstrip to 1696x720 and watched a few minutes of a 2.35 movie, using Zoomplayer. Zoomplayer didn't have any problems with the size. It used up the whole screen and everything was in proportion.

It's not the sharpest picture in the world, but I basically just flew right through stig setup so there is alot to improve on my setup.


----------



## Energeezer

Eddie

IMO using 720 on a 2.35/1 AR will always yield you a softish image. Can someone please correct me if I am wrong buy I THINK that 720 lines is too much even for a 9" tube using 2.35/1 AR.

Also Eddie I'm curious if you can still get a 4/3 AR with those resistors in there and v size at 100? If so maybe the mod should be updated to your values.


----------



## CZ Eddie

Quote:

_Originally posted by Energeezer_
*Eddie

IMO using 720 on a 2.35/1 AR will always yield you a softish image. Can someone please correct me if I am wrong buy I THINK that 720 lines is too much even for a 9" tube using 2.35/1 AR.
*


Are you talkning about any 720P resolution, like 1280x720 *and* 1692x720?

Quote:

_Originally posted by Energeezer_
*

Also Eddie I'm curious if you can still get a 4/3 AR with those resistors in there and v size at 100? If so maybe the mod should be updated to your values.*
Okay, I'll try this later in the day. It's time for me to hit the sack now. 

But based on the fact that the resistor appears to have down-sized my image altogether, I'd say this resistor value is NOT a subtitute, but rather an alternate for a specific purpose.


----------



## techman707

The purported purpose of running a 2.35 raster is for running a constant height system, so if you were going to run 4:3 material, it would be the same height as the 2.35 picture with proportional width. In light of that, running a "normal" 4:3 raster wouldn't be used anymore.


----------



## Energeezer

Quote:

_Originally posted by techman707_
*The purported purpose of running a 2.35 raster is for running a constant height system, so if you were going to run 4:3 material, it would be the same height as the 2.35 picture with proportional width. In light of that, running a "normal" 4:3 raster wouldn't be used anymore.*
Yes I understand that.

My question is.

Can a 9" CRT rsolve 720 lines of resoulution when using a raster as small as 2.35/1. In other words all 720 lines forced in to the small vert height of 2.35/1.


----------



## techman707

Quote:

_Originally posted by Energeezer_
*Yes I understand that.

My question is.

Can a 9" CRT rsolve 720 lines of resoulution when using a raster as small as 2.35/1. In other words all 720 lines forced in to the small vert height of 2.35/1.*
My statement was directed to Eddie's post about it being for a specific purpose. However, if the raster was about 50% of the average normal 4:3 raster height, then the question would be can it resolve 1440 vertical, if it can (and a 9" CRT should be able to), then the answer is yes.


----------



## CZ Eddie

Quote:

_Originally posted by Energeezer_
*

Also Eddie I'm curious if you can still get a 4/3 AR with those resistors in there and v size at 100? If so maybe the mod should be updated to your values.*


Okay I set up a 4:3 raster within my 16:9 screen. As expected, it's not beautiful. I set raster to "0" horizontal and "19" vertical. This allows me to use up the raster height, but I can't use up the entire width. In other words, "0" horizontal is not enough, I need like a "-10" to use up the entire width. BUT, using Powerstrip I can setup a 1024x768 inside of the 2.35 screen. Another downside is that because I don't get the entire raster to work with, EM focus suffers a bit. We're still talking about a "definately watchable" picture, though.


As for setting it to "100" vertical and getting a 4:3, then yes that is still possible (outside of the screen area, of course).


----------



## cmjohnson

I'm glad you got your mod worked out, but I feel a need to comment on the

whole concept:


It's way out there in left field.


Your constant height, 2.35:1 setup makes very inefficient use of your

available phosphor area, with accompanying issues regarding light output,

power density on the usable phosphor area, a high probability of faster than

normal screen burn, and resolution limitations due to the raster being

squeezed so much.



Are you aware that the reason why 16:9 has been chosen as the new "standard" aspect ratio is because ALL formats in use, from 4:3 to 2.35:1, will fit in a 16:9 box when normalized for area?




I respect your decision to go with a 2.35:1 native setup, but it's not

efficient, less than optimal for performance, and will stress the active area

of your tubes, resulting in early burn and shorter effective life.



I have to ask...is picture quality the most important thing for you? If so,

I believe you're taking the wrong approach.



CJ


----------



## CZ Eddie

CJ, thanks and welcome to yesterday. Your argument has been debated to death already.  Anyone who looks at this idea should research prior to making a decision.


Let's keep this thread on topic, to discuss how to make the best of this approach, not the other way around.


----------



## techman707

Quote:

_Originally posted by CZ Eddie_
*CJ, thanks and welcome to yesterday. Your argument has been debated to death already.  Anyone who looks at this idea should research prior to making a decision.


Let's keep this thread on topic, to discuss how to make the best of this approach, not the other way around.*
There's really nothing to debate. As a practical matter, the same area will be used on the tubes face for a 2.35 AR film whether you use a "2.35 raster" or a 16:9 raster. The only things that are debatable is whether there is any improvement in picture quality using a 2.35 raster and whether it creates any more wear problems using a constant height system, where the wear takes place in horizontal steps, or a variable height system, where the wear takes place in vertical steps. Some people argue that there is LESS wear using variable height because more of the tube face is used for AR's other than 2.35. However, in practice, tube life is similar for BOTH.


----------



## cmjohnson

If you're making plans to ONLY show material that's in 2.35:1 aspect ratio, (cinemascope), then the used phosphor area is going to be a short window

in the middle of the tube, and your best option would be to maximize your

width and set the vertical height to whatever it needs to be to get the aspect

ratio right. Obviously there's just no way around the fact that this is going to

utilize roughly half the usable phosphor area and that's all you're going to get.


But to use the resulting height setting as your standard, that is, use a

variable width, constant height setup with the constant height factor equal to the height of cinemascope movies....that's just nutty. Particularly when you

consider that the catalog of Cinemascope formatted movies is not particularly deep.


There literally is NOT another way to set up your projector that results in your

using LESS of your available screen area than this, unless you were to go to an even longer aspect ratio as your reference...a ratio that has no real world equivalent!


This setup idea is literally the worst one possible as far as flexible use of

phosphor area is concerned. It's a worst case scenario, resulting in tiny

pictures and heavy phosphor wear in a limited area.



Granted, everyone has ever right to set up his system according to his own

viewing tastes, but the versatile, maximum performance compromise is to set the projector to 16:9 anamorphic settings, use a 16:9 screen, and mask off

the unused part of the screen for any given presentation. The result is that

the Cinemascope movies are 100 percent the size as the method under

discussion will yield, and every other format uses equal area on the screen,

or more, depending on the individual setup.


A great thing about Marquees is that you get 99 channels to put all your

setups in. You can store a full set of presets for EVERY aspect ratio, and call

them up at the touch of a few buttons on the remote. I remind you of this

because you don't lose ANY performance on your Cinemascope formatted

movies if your default is 16:9, and every other format can be set up for the

same screen area if you wish so that the Cinemascope movies aren't actually

smaller than the rest.


My current setup is the complete opposite of yours. Everything I show is

eight feet wide, and height is adjusted to match. This favors 4:3 aspect

ratio programs most of all. But my plan is to totally rework my setup for

native 16:9 operation for the best overall compromise.


There are three schools of thought here:


Optimize for cinemascope. Everything else shows smaller. Makes least efficient use of phospor area.


Optimize for flexibility. That's 16:9. It's the overall compromise setup. Properly set up, all formats use equal screen area.


Optimize for 4:3. All other formats show smaller. Moderately efficient use

of phosphor area.


CJ


----------



## CZ Eddie

Hey CJ, is there any reason why you crapped on my thread after I politely asked you not to.


----------



## cmjohnson

Sorry, but some ideas are just so wrong I can't get behind them even when I try to, even for "what if"'s sake.


My initial response was to point out the many flaws and zero advantages to your proposal, not knowing that this may have been hashed out before.


My second response started out as a thought exercise on my part in support

of your idea, but I couldn't complete it in that direction as it seemed to me

that it utterly lacks technical merit. I literally couldn't find anything appealing

about such a setup and still don't. And though you don't want to hear it

from me, or anyone else, for that matter, (apparently...), it STILL lacks

technical merit and it's STILL the worst way you could POSSIBLY set up your

projector!


I'm going to withdraw from this topic now, permanently I hope, but not after

asking YOU this one question:


Why are you so hung up on pursuing this approach when it has been made

absolutely clear that it's the worst possible setup, and for so many clearly

articulated and technically sound reasons? Smallest picture in all formats.

Loss of definition and resolution. Loss of light output due to small driven

phosphor area. High power density in that phosphor area, resulting in early

screen burn as a distinct probability. What's not to hate?


Most people will eventually abandon a bad idea and go with one that works,

once a better, more functional approach has been shown to them. Don't be

so stubborn, and try listening to the advice that is being thrown at you from

several sources, for once.


When a dozen people are telling you you're putting your spare tire on

backwards, and nobody is saying any different, stop and consider the idea

that they might be right. Flip the rim around and see if it fits better. You benefit if it does.


You want a killer solution that meets your needs? Here it is: Pick up a

second marquee. Install it side by side with the first one. Using blending

software, run both at half the 2.35:1 aspect ratio, (which is not far from 4:3)

and you can have your cake and eat it too. Everything looks good, you've

got almost full utilization of the phosphor areas, and the picture will

absolutely and always kick the @$$ off of what your current setup could

achieve on a perfect day.






CJ


----------



## Jim in Cincy

CJ,

As a Marquee 8500 owner I've been following this thread to learn and to see how Eddie's situation gets resolved. I appreciate yours and others views and facts as it has helped me to choose how I will configure my projector.


BUT, Eddie appears to be an intelligent person and I really don't think you have presented anything that he hasn't already heard or considered. He started this thread to find out how he can achieve what he has chosen to do. I feel it is best if we respect his desire and either help him or stay out of the way.


Just an opinion.


----------



## techman707

Eddie,


I just had to answer him, sorry.


Bruce


Quote:

_Originally posted by cmjohnson_
*If you're making plans to ONLY show material that's in 2.35:1 aspect ratio, (cinemascope), then the used phosphor area is going to be a short window

in the middle of the tube, and your best option would be to maximize your

width and set the vertical height to whatever it needs to be to get the aspect

ratio right. Obviously there's just no way around the fact that this is going to

utilize roughly half the usable phosphor area and that's all you're going to get.*
ONE MORE TIME - If you are going to run films in the 2.35 aspect ratio, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT METHOD YOU USE, THE AMOUNT OF AREA USED ON THE TUBE FACE WILL BE THE S-A-M-E !!! So if you run 2.35 films, you are only going to use half the raster height.

Quote:

_Originally posted by cmjohnson_

But to use the resulting height setting as your standard, that is, use a

variable width, constant height setup with the constant height factor equal to the height of cinemascope movies....that's just nutty. Particularly when you

consider that the catalog of Cinemascope formatted movies is not particularly deep. [/b]
Nearly 50% of the new releases coming out today have a 2.35 AR. If you take into consideration the balance, 16:9, 1:85 and 2.35 account for over 90% of all films being released. For the most part 4:3 is a DEAD format today for DVDs.

Quote:

_Originally posted by cmjohnson_

There literally is NOT another way to set up your projector that results in your

using LESS of your available screen area than this, unless you were to go to an even longer aspect ratio as your reference...a ratio that has no real world equivalent!


This setup idea is literally the worst one possible as far as flexible use of

phosphor area is concerned. It's a worst case scenario, resulting in tiny

pictures and heavy phosphor wear in a limited area. [/b]
While 1:85 is probably the most versatile format, since many films use it and 1:66/16:9 films can easily be cropped with losing important information and 2.35 will show with the minimum black bars on the top and bottom, 2.35 isn't as bad as you describe. If the raster width is set to maximum for 2.35 films, going to 1.85 on a constant height system will still use nearly as much of the tube width as most people set their raster width anyway. The only AR that uses a very small amount of tube face is 1.33 filmsm but since they are few and far between today, developing a 1.33 wear pattern shouldn't be a problem if the tubes aren't being overdriven.


----------



## M NEWMAN

Quote:

_Originally posted by cmjohnson_
*


You want a killer solution that meets your needs? Here it is: Pick up a

second marquee. Install it side by side with the first one. Using blending

software, run both at half the 2.35:1 aspect ratio, (which is not far from 4:3)

and you can have your cake and eat it too. Everything looks good, you've

got almost full utilization of the phosphor areas, and the picture will

absolutely and always kick the @$$ off of what your current setup could

achieve on a perfect day.


CJ*
Best suggestion in this thread so far. If you're really, really dedicated to 2:35, then this would be the most dramatic performance gain possible. I was advising Eddie only on the proper technical direction for his mod, however, I personally agree that it's not in his best interest to do this.


Frankly, I have my system set up for a 4:3 aspect, with everything under that letter boxed in. this is because I use it for everything, and satellite is displayed 95% of the viewing time. Of which, 90% of the programming is still native 4:3. I've been used to bars on the top/bottom for years, so it's not a concern, but I can't even begin to tell y'all how much I despise bars on the sides too. Therefore, I'll never have bars on the sides with my setup. As we gradually switch over to predominantly 16:9 programming, then I'll simply mask off top/bottom excess (width won't change, ever). Then I'll only have smaller bars for 1:85 & 2:35 stuff. Maybe one day, everybody will stop screwing around and make everything the same aspect and we'll all be happy campers...


----------



## techman707

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by cmjohnson



You want a killer solution that meets your needs? Here it is: Pick up a

second marquee. Install it side by side with the first one. Using blending

software, run both at half the 2.35:1 aspect ratio, (which is not far from 4:3)

and you can have your cake and eat it too. Everything looks good, you've

got almost full utilization of the phosphor areas, and the picture will

absolutely and always kick the @$$ off of what your current setup could

achieve on a perfect day.


CJ

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And what do you do for 4:3 with that setup?  Now you've ruined 6 tubes.


----------



## Energeezer




> ONE MORE TIME - If you are going to run films in the 2.35 aspect ratio, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT METHOD YOU USE, THE AMOUNT OF AREA USED ON THE TUBE FACE WILL BE THE S-A-M-E !!! So if you run 2.35 films, you are only going to use half the raster height.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and that is why I asked earlier in the thread if the machine can resolve the full 720 lines in the 2.35 area. It really makes no difference to wear area of the tubes what your native setup is if you plan to view 2.35 all the time. Where it does matter is when you wish to run a bigger size say 4/3 and it runs inside the 2.35 area as you have made 2.35 the max height.
> 
> I firmly believe 4/3 native is the way to go for CRT (all things considered) as it makes the most use of phosfur possible. This is due to the inherant shape of the phosfur area and tube design. Of course if you have other considerations like you never watch anything larger than 16/9 then maybe 16/9 is the best native for you. I guess what i'm trying to say is that IMO a user should deceid what the largest (tallest) format he will use and make that the native AR. Anything with a higher width to height ratio will run inside. In the end if you set up like this and run only 2.35/1 there is no less phosfur area used than if you setup 2.35 as native. This method (tallest possibel) also has the advantage of a better resale value of PJ should you ever want to sell. A PJ with 2.35 or 16/9 wear is harder to sell than one with full tubeface 4/3 wear. Its just easier for the next owner to setup within the wear area.
> 
> Eddie
> 
> I am not saying your way is wrong or even hinting that you didn't do your research. I know you understand AR / Raster size / wear area and how they all relate. If you plan to do all your viewing 2.35/1 then your way is as good from a perf aspect as a 4/3 native (maybe even better if the CRT can resolve 720 lines in a 2.35 height)
> 
> I'll bet a 2.35/1 screen properly masked looks real good in a basement all done up right and if all your viewing will be 2.35/1 material then nothing is lost or compromised.
> 
> The suggestions for a blended setup while maybe having the best perf and most efiecient phosfur use is beyond MOST of us from a monatary standpoint.
> 
> IMO most people go with CRT since it is the best bang for the buck but once you start blending and adding the additional equip and cost to do so the advantage fade. It becomes more of a performance at all costs thing like ARTs G-90 setup.
Click to expand...


----------



## cmjohnson

Quote:

_Originally posted by techman707_



And what do you do for 4:3 with that setup?  Now you've ruined 6 tubes. [/b]
Simple.


Just shut one projector down and run the remaining one at 4:3, full frame!


Easy.


What, would you prefer doing a 2x2 double stack? Four 9501s with custom

X-Y blending software?


I'd LOVE to see that! 



And yes, I do understand that if you were to run 2.35:1 at full width on the

screen, it wouldn't matter how you did it. It'd alway occupy the same area

of phosphor and screen. I might have been a bit hazy on how I stated it,

though.





CJ


----------



## CZ Eddie

Carumba !



Yes, I've spent dozens of hours reading 2.35 threads and seen all the debates from you 4:3 guys.


Do you know that of the last 100 DVD's I've watched, only one was 4:3 and that's because it was in a box labled 1.85.


Do you realize that I am currently running the largest screen possible for my area. I have tons of width available but only a certain amount of height available. I'm using up all of my height right now.


For me to go with a 16:9 screen would make my 2.35 smaller than it is right now, and 16:9 would still be the same size.


I have made it a point to buy ONLY 2.35 DVD's.


So I say again, if you want to debate 2.35 versus 16:9 or 4:3 fixed height/fixed width, please do so on another thread.


THIS THREAD.... is for people who are or will be going with 2.35 fixed height viewing. No if's, and's or but's. So if you're going to debate on this thread (I encourage it  ), please do so in a manner that is constructive towards the intended goal of this thread.


Carry on


----------



## techman707

Quote:

_Originally posted by cmjohnson_
*Simple.


Just shut one projector down and run the remaining one at 4:3, full frame!


Easy.


What, would you prefer doing a 2x2 double stack? Four 9501s with custom

X-Y blending software?


I'd LOVE to see that! 



And yes, I do understand that if you were to run 2.35:1 at full width on the

screen, it wouldn't matter how you did it. It'd alway occupy the same area

of phosphor and screen. I might have been a bit hazy on how I stated it,

though.



CJ*
If 2 projectors was the answer to anything, I would already be doing it. If you SHUT down one machine and just "use the other full frame", you'll have a picture that is off center, unless you put the projectors on sliding rails.


There is no foolproof way around the 4:3 issue. 16:9 was A BIG MISTAKE ALSO, since in the world of movies NOTHING IS 16:9.


The best all around choice for a screen AR, like I said before, is 1.85:1 and just watch the 2.35 material at slightly less height and mask the top and bottom. If it wasn't for the fact that I like older movies, I would NEVER use 4:3 and the sooner it's gone, the better off we'll be.


----------



## cmjohnson

Actually, 16:9 is the optimum COMPROMISE, because as I mentioned earlier,

if you were to take sample screens of all aspect ratios in use and normalize

them so they had the same area as each other, they all fit neatly in a 16:9 box.


The problem is that few people would know how to normalize their settings so

that each aspect ratio was actually displayed as equal area, or if they did, they

still wouldn't do it that way. They'll just maximize the size of each given AR

until it hits the top or side edges of the display device, if they can.


CZ Eddie is right....let's take this to another topic.


CJ


----------



## CZ Eddie

Quote:

_Originally posted by cmjohnson_
*


CZ Eddie is right....let's take this to another thread.


CJ*
I've got just the perfect one for the size debate.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...ighlight=2.351 


There is a TON of good info in there. Consider it *Part I* of this thread topic as it questioned the purpose of going 2.35 and whether it was possible.


The next thread below discusses the different ways to go 2.35 and how to get it working with different inputs. Consider it *Part II* of this thread topic.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...ighlight=2.351 





Most of the other cool 2.35 threads are in the archives and I don't have them linked to my favorites here.


----------



## cmjohnson

I've been giving some thought to what you're trying to do, and reviewing the other threads.


I presume your primary source is DVD?


If so, you need to set your projector up with the 16:9 anamorphic mod

and set your active screen area to 16:9.


This is because 2.35:1 media is LETTERBOXED inside the 16:9 anamorphic

presentation. The black bars on top and on bottom that make up the

difference between the 2.35:1 program material and the 16:9 active area are

actually encoded into the DVD.


You'll have to set up your projector for 16:9 and overscan your screen

vertically. As the overscanned area will have no content, being the black bar

area, this won't be noticeable to you as long as you're playing only 2.35:1,

anamorphically recorded material.


That's your simple answer. If you try to set up the projector so that the

active area is 2.35:1, you will end up with a squashed movie when you hit

the play button.


The situation would be different if DVDs were encoded with multiple

anamorphic ratios, but they're not. There's only one, 16:9, and after that,

formatting is done with encoded letterboxing.


That's that. I'm afraid you're going to HAVE to accept a modified 16:9 setup.


CJ


----------



## CZ Eddie

Quote:

_Originally posted by cmjohnson_
*


That's that. I'm afraid you're going to HAVE to accept a modified 16:9 setup.


CJ*
Guess you have some catching up to do. Are you here to help or just throw your opinion around?


----------



## cmjohnson

Really, trying to help now.


What alternative do you have when the source itself is encoded at 16:9?


None that I can think of, at least if using conventional equipment.


The original idea, to set up the projector as 2.35:1 "native" (despite the fact

that the only true "native" format is the format of the CRTs themselves), runs

into this simple problem. The source isn't encoded at 2.35:1, it's encoded

at 16:9 and letterboxed to 2.35:1 visually.


The SOURCE is your big stumbling block. It ALWAYS comes back to that. If

your projected format isn't matched to the source format, geometric distortion

is a given.


I'm interested in hearing how you propose to get around this mountain that

stands in your way.


I suppose that there are various ways to stretch out the source vertically with

the right software in an HTPC, and then send it on to a projector that's set

up in 2.35:1, but I don't see how that's going to improve anything. And it's

fair to mention that I don't really think in terms of HTPCs and software

manipulation of the imagery as I don't use such a setup. I use conventional

components in a conventional home theater. I have a PC that I have used

experimentally in an HTPC application, but I haven't plugged that in for at

least six months as I found the setup was not at all convenient for my

particular system and the way I have it set up. Its performance was no

improvement, either, so why bother?


Maybe software solutions can give you what you want, but I don't see that

extra processing is necessarily a good thing. I like to keep things simple,

and to me, that means leaving computers out of the equation as much as is

possible. I'm funny about things like that.


CJ


----------



## CZ Eddie

CJ, read the threads. I'd like to explain to you whats been done already but my dinner is ready and I'm about to watch a 2.35 movie on a 2.35 screen with a 2.35 raster and a 1280x720 resolution. My zoomplayer is going to fit the 2.35 movie perfectly on my screen without any black bars and it's going to look pretty damn good as well as proportionate.

I use an HTPC.


There is no such thing as native 2.35. Where did you get that idea from?


----------



## CZ Eddie

Btw, I just walked into the dining room and saw my roomates watching monday night football on the Sanyo Z1. The poor machine sounds like a hair dryer on full blast, probably due to the house heater being turned on. I'm glad it's quiet in my area (and I say this with my Electrohome above my head). lol


----------



## Jim in Cincy

Quote:

_Originally posted by cmjohnson_
*trying to help now.

CJ*
I thought the discussion on which raster size was best was on the other thread. This thread is for helping Eddie achieve what he has already decided to do.



Eddie must feel like this (CJ on top; Eddie on bottom) http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung...smiley-060.gif


----------

