# Cine4Home: Zooming with PT-AE 3000 is better than utilizing Anamorphic Lens



## Eternal_Sunshine

 http://www.cine4home.de/Specials/PT3...Lensmemory.htm 


Main point: Stretching scope material to use the full panel leads to scaling artifacts and hence loss of fine detail.


Zooming:



























With Anamorphic Lens (Schneider):


----------



## taffman

Your post is meaningless without a detailed explanation of what you are supposed to be showing.


----------



## Brajesh

You need just compare the 2nd & 3rd screenshots in zooming vs. lens. The latter shows artifacts. But, I'm guessing if one uses a high quality lens or scaler, the non-zoom method would provide better results.


----------



## stanger89

The problem with that test is that the test pattern isn't a sampled image, it's an artificially generated one for which sampling theory is not applicable. Basically it's like a signal that was sampled below the Nyquist rate, thus cannot be uniquely reprodued. They cannot be resampled because the original signal cannot be recreated.


However real world images (scanned flim, CGI, etc) are sampled images that are sampled below the Nyquist rate, so they can be resampled effectively.


Basically this test doesnt's show what happens with real-world content.


----------



## Alan Gouger

I am sure that is showing the patterns with the Panasonic, something is very wrong. Is it from cheap processing?

I can show you 1080 line structure pattern in vertical stretch with perfect scaling. Ill take the pictures and post to this thread when I get the chance.

Those pictures do not reference all equipment.


----------



## Brajesh

Google-translated verbiage...


> Quote:
> Now we set the anamorphic-design. It will always be the whole number of pixels used projector, which means the full 2 megapixel resolution in the CinemaScope format. This sounds very good first and suggests a greater detail, as more resolution is available. But the practice is different:





> Quote:
> Particularly disturbing is beside the scaling artifacts of the strong level waste: Small details are no longer reach the full dynamic range, resulting in a loss of sharpness has. Despite higher paying pixels, the image is softer than without Anamorphic.



Goes on to say that even w/a highly regarded scaler...


> Quote:
> The specialists among our readers are now scaling the internal electronics of the PT-AE3000 for the artifacts blame. With the aim to achieve better results, we have a quality scaler of € 3000th - class used the "DVDO iScan VP50", for his good performance is known. But he succeeds no better than Vorverzerrung scaling, the results are nearly identical to those of the PT-AE3000 internal signal processing. The vertical scaling designed to be so difficult that even costly external solutions do not guarantee perfection.



They conclude that...


> Quote:
> In our objective comparison of all aspects, the picture zoom through the practical variant Lens memory function with 4.5 to 3 points clear as the winner. It is the sharper, easier to implement and "last but not least, much cheaper and more elegant solution, in full Cinemascope pleasure to come.



So, it seems they're partly blaming the AE3000U's convergence & internal scaling's (v-stretch) less-than-stellar performance for preferring the zoom method. Basically saying a lens won't help/correct what the Panny is projecting after internal scaling (v-stretch).


----------



## taffman

That's not the way I read it. They are saying that zooming is much better than using the Schneider A-lens, even when utilizing a very expensive external scaler.


----------



## Brajesh

I think you're right ... after re-reading this:


> Quote:
> The specialists among our readers are now scaling the internal electronics of the PT-AE3000 for the artifacts blame. With the aim to achieve better results, we have a quality scaler of [] class used the "DVDO iScan VP50", for his good performance is known. But he succeeds no better than [PT-AE3000's] scaling, the results are nearly identical to those of the PT-AE3000 internal signal processing.


----------



## Eternal_Sunshine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/15023251
> 
> 
> That's not the way I read it. They are saying that zooming is much better than using the Schneider A-lens, even when utilizing a very expensive external scaler.



Exactly. They first suspected that the internal stretching/scaling of the AE3000 may have been to blame for the artifacts, then used a DVDO iScan VP50 to do the stretching/scaling but the artifacts remained the same.


----------



## twenty/twenty

Interesting.


----------



## WillyGib

You know the scaling photos look like a non bit mapped image. I can get a test image like this if I send a 1:1 mapped image from the VP to the PJ then do some sort of scaling with the PJ (over scan, keystone) it will just trash the image.


----------



## jayrader

OHhhh. Might as well paint a target on this thread.


----------



## Bytehoven

I made an informal comparison between the AE3000 V-FIT anamorphic vertical stretch mode to the DVDO Edge V-Stretch mode.


On normal program material, I could not notice a drop in quality that you might expect given the pictures above, but I did not put up any patterns that would test the AE3000 scaler quality.


However, zooming the AE3000 to fill a 2.35:1 screen makes the pixel structure more apparent, and having used several anamorphic lenses in the past, IMHO the PQ quality advantage goes to the lens + scaler technique.


he AE3000 solution is cheaper, to some degree more convenient, perhaps preserves some degree of contrast and presents no chromatic aberration beyond the artifacts already in the lens.


2.35:1 purists are going to want to use a good quality lens to squeeze all of the vertical pixels into a 2.35:1 image.


----------



## JeffY

This is excatly what I would expect to see with test patterns, it doesn't mean to say that normal material would be visibly worse. But to say scaling is completely transparent is clearly wrong.


----------



## Alan Gouger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/15023251
> 
> 
> That's not the way I read it. They are saying that zooming is much better than using the Schneider A-lens, even when utilizing a very expensive external scaler.



That is simply incorrect. I have never seen a 1080 line pattern look like that in the vertical stretch mode. Something is wrong.


----------



## JeffY

I have to say it looks just like what I see on my Lumagen.


----------



## Alan Gouger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffY* /forum/post/15025559
> 
> 
> I have to say it looks just like what I see on my Lumagen.



What is your source for the test pattern. Ill post some pics tonight using my Acupel with the Radiance, Crystalio and VP50pro and with the Marantz 11S2 all performing the stretch.


----------



## JeffY

I normally use a mixture of HD DVE test screens, the response ones with the circles are quite good for scaling errors, but anything showing alternate horizontal lines should work.


----------



## Alan Gouger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffY* /forum/post/15025656
> 
> 
> I normally use a mixture of HD DVE test screens, the resonse ones with the circles are quite good for scaling errors, but anything showing alternate horizontal lines should work.



I should back up and say I have never noticed this before. Lets see how well my memory serves me. The pics look like a scaling error but maybe that is what happens when using the vertical stretch. This gives me something to do tonight


----------



## DB2

I posted my impressions about the AE3000 a while back. In my post I mentioned how I was able to see the Panasonic PT-AE3000U zooming 2.35:1 material directly compared to the PT-AE2000U in stretch mode with a Panamorph lens. I was shocked when I detected very little difference in sharpness or detail clarity. Maybe this is why? Maybe what Cine4Home discovered is true?


----------



## Bytehoven

DB2... what size 2.35:1 screen and how far back was your viewing position?


Thanks


----------



## Aussie Bob

Much ado about very little here.


Firstly, you might observe that horizontal resolutuion remains basically unchanged between "before" and "after" images. It is mostly only vertical detail that goes through the wringer. So, only half our definition is affected, for the most part. There is nothing surprising in any of this. 810 vertical lines cannot be successfully interpolated by a ratio of 4:3 into 1080 clearly delineated lines. They just won't fit: 3 into 4 doesn't go.


Secondly, the paradox is resolved by noting that most practical picture detail is NOT at Nyquist frequency (one the checkerboard patterns above the inverse of the distance between the center of one white pixel and the center of the next white pixel).


In other words, most movie detail is at much LOWER frequencies than Nyquist. A head that fills half the screen width in close up is many hundreds of times lower than Nyquist ferequency. The eyes on that head are tens of times lover than Nyquist frequency. The eyelashes may come close to Nyquist frequency, or perhaps a wisp of hair, blowing in a breeze, but even then you have to take _movement_ of detail into account.


Movie detail is dynamic. That is: it is not static, like the test patterns above. The human eye is not built to be able to perceive detail in movement, merely _the fact_ of movement. That's a hand-me-down from our amphibian ancestors (if you believe in evolution, that is). Our visual system is geared to see a very small angular cone of fine detail (nowhere near a full screen's worth). If that detail is at rest - as in a static, repetitive test pattern - our brains settle on this pattern, they come to a "state of rest". Given enough time to concentrate on a regular, repeating static pattern you start to notice artefacts of the digital interpolation process (as in the second set of illustrations). Then, when something moves - a fly on a pond in the case of an amphibian, or a moving detail in a movie - we notice the change all the more acutely. In a _moving picture_ situation, with pseudo random movement all over the screen to distract you, you not only _don't_ see the artefacts, you _can't_ see them. You mostly only see the _transition_ from static to moving.


This observation leaves us with the question: does any of the above matter?


My answer is: it depends on how anal you are going to get about detail you can't (or _shouldn't_ be able to) - in any practical sense of the word - see anyway .


Once you factor movement detail and add viewing distance into the formula, _the entire aim_ of viewing a projected image is to NOT see individual pixels. See what I mean? If you can see individual pixels *you're sitting too close!* If you're bothered about it.... move further away! In the case of eliminating interpolation artefacts I'm talking _a few inches_ further away, not feet or yards. There you go: problem solved.


Nobody ever said that even the best scaler could render perfection in the interpolation process (or if they did they were pulling your leg, or their own). The advantages of 'scope lenses remain the same as they were before this not-so-startling observation from the German HT-droids at Cine4Home, who clearly spend FAR too much time being, well, "German", than they do enjoying movies absent buyer's remorse. They should get out of their darkened rooms a LOT more. Anamorphics are good for off-center positioning of the projector. They deliver a slightly brighter picture and they are easy to use. A good one offers superb sharpness, excellent color performance and value for money.


There is only one projector that offers a calibrated zoom and offset re-positioning between two settings: the Panasonic AE-3000. Just one. Reports vary as to the repeatability of its settings over the long term. The slightest variation, even of a couple of millimetres in the accuracy and repeatability of the auto-zoom function will give cause for re-calibration. You still see the mesh of pixels one third bigger in each direction if you're sitting too close (yes, that's right, Smooth-Screen isn't perfect). And there is still a "gray" black sheen top and bottom of the picture (you have to pay a LOT more than a few grand to get rid of that).


I'm amazed that so many here don't seem to have thought this through. Cine4Home haven't "discovered" anything at all. They've stated the bleedin' obvious! The paradox of interpolation isn't really a paradox. It's simple arithmetic, that only figures as significant right at the margins, which no-one should be occupying, if they have any sense. The case for anamorphic lenses is one of balancing benefits against disadvantages, not of perfection in any and every situation.


----------



## taffman

I have to disagree with Aussie Bob. Getting rid of the grey bars does NOT cost thousands of dollars. I did my 4-way remote controlled masking system for about $500.00 and it looks just as good as a professional masking system. After all, its not rocket science, all you are trying to get is a sharp edged noveable black frame. If I can do it, anybody can.

The Projector Central report on the AE3000 did note that it appeared that Panasonic had somewhat reduced the effect of the 'Smooth Screen' feature, such that very slight SDE was visible at close range. But the SDE was no worse than a typical 1080p DLP projector.


----------



## Aussie Bob

Glad you didn't disagree with me on anything important.


----------



## Cine4Home




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/15023251
> 
> 
> That's not the way I read it. They are saying that zooming is much better than using the Schneider A-lens, even when utilizing a very expensive external scaler.




Well, our conclusion was basically: With the Panasonic PT-AE3000, using an anamorphic lens for Cinemascope projection ist not necessary at all. For different reasons by the way, not only the scaling artefacts you guys are discussing here. Our article gives an objective overview of the different advantages / disadvantages of either solution in relation to the PT-AE3000 characteristics and possibilities (which are mentioned also).


Regards,

Ekkehart


----------



## taffman

Ekkehart,

Is there an English translation of your full AE3000 Test Report published anywhere on the web?


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> Is there an English translation of your full AE3000 Test Report published anywhere on the web?



Why bother? They haven't discovered anything new or unusual, no cure for cancer or a way to defeat gravity or something else mind-boggling. They're just restating the obvious: when you scale up you lose some of the fine detail, mostly in the vertical direction.


What they don't tell you is that 99.99% of the picture is at lower frequencies and that the finest, Nyquist detail is lost anyway at any more than about 6 feet away from the screen... _which is the whole point of the viewing exercise_. We're not watching pixels. We're watching movies. After 6 feet the "lost" detail _literally_ is invisible anyhow, lens or no lens.


Too much navel gazing. Too little _joie de vivre_.


Oops, sorry... _joie de vivre_ is French, isn't it?


----------



## Eternal_Sunshine

So I guess that you also don't care for 1:1 pixel mapping on other 1080p fixed pixel displays like LCDs and Plasmas as according to you the loss of detail caused by scaling/overscanning is not visible anyway?


----------



## Cine4Home




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/15027798
> 
> 
> Why bother? They haven't discovered anything new or unusual, no cure for cancer or a way to defeat gravity or something else mind-boggling. They're just restating the obvious: when you scale up you lose some of the fine detail, mostly in the vertical direction.
> 
> 
> What they don't tell you is that 99.99% of the picture is at lower frequencies and that the finest, Nyquist detail is lost anyway at any more than about 6 feet away from the screen... _which is the whole point of the viewing exercise_. We're not watching pixels. We're watching movies. After 6 feet the "lost" detail _literally_ is invisible anyhow, lens or no lens.
> 
> 
> Too much navel gazing. Too little _joie de vivre_.
> 
> 
> Oops, sorry... _joie de vivre_ is French, isn't it?




Well, Mr Downunder: You obviously have not understood our article at all. So my advise is not to comment articles written in a language you can not read. I assume your german is as horrible as your french?


Again: When you read the article (and understand it by the way) you will notice, that we just list the advantages / disadvantages of either solution. For the PT-AE3000, an anamorphic lens does hardly give you any advantage, but a few disadvantages so it is not too useful to spend a few thousand $ to get such a lens for this projector.


If you think otherwise, well then just give us a good reason WHY anyone should get an anamorphic lens for the Panasonic? So far, you just try to defend the anamorphic solution by saying, that its drawbacks are invisible in movies, which is, by the way, plain wrong. If you read our article properly, you would have noticed, that we give examples in every chapter, what kind of movie scenes are affected.


So a simple question to you: Why / when would you recommend an anamorphic lens for the PT-AE3000?


Regards,

Ekki


----------



## Cine4Home




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Eternal_Sunshine* /forum/post/15028937
> 
> 
> So I guess that you also don't care for 1:1 pixel mapping on other 1080p fixed pixel displays like LCDs and Plasmas as according to you the loss of detail caused by scaling/overscanning is not visible anyway?




He does not care.


He probably has an anamorphic fresnel lens in front of his Flat Screen and is calling this "joie de vivre".


----------



## Art Sonneborn

I appreciate the work cinema4home has done here. I too would like to see an english version of this article.


Art


----------



## pocoloco

Ekkehart... Thanks for this report! It's nice to see some objective comparisons. People that hate on this report obviously have an axe to grind.


Here's what I gathered:

1. The lens cut the blue gains by 10% and altered the gray scale/color temperature.

2. No degradation of focus with the lens.

3. Lens caused CA in the far edges, particularly the corners.

4. When using a minimum amount of lenshift/offset with the lens, geometric issues are negligible.

5. No loss in ANSI contrast with the lens.

6. Lens offers 15% increase in brightness vs. zooming.

7. Scaling distortions reduces resolution/detail.


The biggest surprise for me is that the lens altered the gray scale/color temperature and cut the blue gains by 10%.


[Caveat to mitigate flaming]

How much of this is visible to the naked eye at normal viewing distances on normal viewing material??? YMMV. And performance will vary with different equipment and setups.

[\\Caveat to mitigate flaming]


----------



## taffman

Did they conclude that the PQ was better with zooming, compared with vertical scaling and the Schneider A-lens?


----------



## den110




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cine4Home* /forum/post/15029030
> 
> 
> Well, Mr Downunder: You obviously have not understood our article at all. So my advise is not to comment articles written in a language you can not read. I assume your german is as horrible as your french?
> 
> 
> Again: When you read the article (and understand it by the way) you will notice, that we just list the advantages / disadvantages of either solution. For the PT-AE3000, an anamorphic lens does hardly give you any advantage, but a few disadvantages so it is not too useful to spend a few thousand $ to get such a lens for this projector.
> 
> 
> If you think otherwise, well then just give us a good reason WHY anyone should get an anamorphic lens for the Panasonic? So far, you just try to defend the anamorphic solution by saying, that its drawbacks are invisible in movies, which is, by the way, plain wrong. If you read our article properly, you would have noticed, that we give examples in every chapter, what kind of movie scenes are affected.
> 
> 
> So a simple question to you: Why / when would you recommend an anamorphic lens for the PT-AE3000?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Ekki




Ekki,


Great article on the drawbacks of an external anamorphic lens. What do you think about the panny 3000 overall in terms of performance. This includes sharpness, contrast, 3d pop etc. Would you say this is a dlp killer?


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pocoloco* /forum/post/15030918
> 
> 
> Ekkehart... Thanks for this report! It's nice to see some objective comparisons. People that hate on this report obviously have an axe to grind.
> 
> 
> Here's what I gathered:
> 
> 1. The lens cut the blue gains by 10% and altered the gray scale/color temperature.
> 
> 2. No degradation of focus with the lens.
> 
> 3. Lens caused CA in the far edges, particularly the corners.
> 
> 4. When using a minimum amount of lenshift/offset with the lens, geometric issues are negligible.
> 
> 5. No loss in ANSI contrast with the lens.
> 
> 6. Lens offers 15% increase in brightness vs. zooming.
> 
> 7. Scaling distortions reduces resolution/detail.
> 
> 
> The biggest surprise for me is that the lens altered the gray scale/color temperature and cut the blue gains by 10%.
> 
> 
> [Caveat to mitigate flaming]
> 
> How much of this is visible to the naked eye at normal viewing distances on normal viewing material??? YMMV. And performance will vary with different equipment and setups.
> 
> [\\Caveat to mitigate flaming]



The lack of ANSI contrast difference is diametric from the prevailing dogma.


Art


----------



## R Harkness

I was gratified to see that cine4home reported anamorphic lens maintained ANSI contrast! That's one of the main hesitations I had about an anamorphic lens. And the one lens set up I've seen certainly allowed for excellent apparent intrascene/ansi contrast.


----------



## stef2

So, from what I understand, Ekkehart says that if you buy the Panasonic PT-AE 3000 and plan to use it with a 2.35:1 screen, it is useless to buy an anamorphic lens. You won't see any improvement in picture quality versus the zooming method even when using high quality lens and scaler. Also the panasonic throws enough lumens while properly calibrated to light up a large 2.35:1 screen.


Did I understand correctly? (I don't want to know if that's true, I just want to know if that's what Ekkehart wrote).


Please Ekkehart, post an english version of this one! I am french, I don't speak a word of german and my english is only average...










(and please guys don't tell me to use babblefish...I've tried and the result is barely readable...)


----------



## Monkey_Man

Does the 3000u perform internal scaling for vertical stretch if one does elect to use an external lens? I have been using an anamorphic lens for the last 4.5 years and under the right conditions I could see how the zoom method could be useful to some people. However, the zoom method can't compete with a properly setup anamorphic lensed display period. The big question is how much is it worth to you? When I have a movie party, about 80% of the people over do not understand or see the difference between a 2.35:1 display like mine to the standard 16X9 setup. I then tell them no black bars for star wars and then they say, cool. I always chuckle at that response given the cost that it takes to get there


----------



## Alan Gouger

First, I am pro anamorphic however there are pros and cons to both methods. Nether are without negatives.

My AccuPel ( I have the original that has been replaced with a new model ) did not have the needed test patterns that would allow me to test several scalers but the Crystalio does have the needed patterns and to my results were the same as Ekkeharts. You will see two pictures via the Marantz 11S2. The screen is AT so that introduced its own moire into the pictures which you will have to look past









I shot two pictures one 1080p and one 720. Scaling 720 using the vertical stretch does not give the same result, its a clean pattern. Strange.

We do not watch test patterns and we do not see the same results in movie material even when there are vertical lines. Why do we see this with test patterns and not movies. I want to ask one the VP manufactures this week for a explanation. Maybe Ekkeharts would have the answer.

1080









720


----------



## JeffY




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Monkey_Man* /forum/post/15031908
> 
> 
> However, the zoom method can't compete with a properly setup anamorphic lensed display period.



Based on what?


----------



## JeffY

Thanks Alan for posting your results, they are as I expected. The V stretch just isn't enough of a scale to give good results, it works better when you are scaling a lot more, a 2 x scale should look about perfect. I think this is why the 720p scaled and stretched fairs better. I believe you would see the effects of scaling errors (with stretched 1080p) with regular film material but only very occationally.


----------



## Monkey_Man




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffY* /forum/post/15031989
> 
> 
> Based on what?



Through my scientific A and B analysis







I'm not going into depth on this one because from my experience and countless threads out there that already compared this question. If there wasn't a difference then none of us would have spent hundreds of dollars for an anamorphic lens based set up if zooming yielded the same picture quality. Granted I come from 720 land so the gap may be tighter when using a 1080 PJ. My hunch is that the crowd that is buying the budget line 3000u do so because of $$$ and will rationalize how there is no difference between zoom and external A-lensed based on cost. Again, it just comes down to how much it is worth to you.


----------



## stopdog

Another advantage to using a lens is you can project a much larger 2.40 image from the same throw. In my small theater My Epson Powerlite 1080 and UH380 lens produces a 110" wide image 2.40 image from about 12 feet. That's all the room I have so without the lens my 2.40 image would be much smaller. I do have a little CA but slight overscan takes care of it. I haven't looked much at test patterns but normal viewing of BluRay looks focused tightly all across the screen. Not very technical but really it looks incredible. Not sure about the Panny 300 could be smoothscreen and anamorphic lenses don't mix well.


----------



## JeffY




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Monkey_Man* /forum/post/15032056
> 
> 
> Through my scientific A and B analysis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going into depth on this one because from my experience and countless threads out there that already compared this question. If there wasn't a difference then none of us would have spent hundreds of dollars for an anamorphic lens based set up if zooming yielded the same picture quality. Granted I come from 720 land so the gap may be tighter when using a 1080 PJ. My hunch is that the crowd that is buying the budget line 3000u do so because of $$$ and will rationalize how there is no difference between zoom and external A-lensed based on cost. Again, it just comes down to how much it is worth to you.



Regarless of the relative merits of zoom vs anamorphic lens, I think you would be better off simply buying a better projector, forgetting the lens and keeping 1:1 pixel mapping with 1080P source material. If you don't like black bars there is always masking as an option.


----------



## Aussie Bob

My French is rotten and my German is even worse, but I can see how some of the more impressionable members around here have taken your article wholly the wrong way.


The "amazed" reaction to the not-so-startling news that zooming image data digitally loses pixels and therefore doesn't look the same as the original - right up close to the screen - is proof of that.


My point was that if you are going to stare at pixels all day, you have a very sad life ahead of you. The whole idea of watching a movie on a digital projection screen is to move back far enough away from the screen so that you _don't_ see the pixels. Otherwise you'd be distracted by the pixelation. So, the whole premiss of your conclusions is based in theory, not reality.


There are so many agonized posts here about proper seating distance, just about one per week, all asking the same question: how far is too far? How close is too close? Some responders say they like to sit up close. Some say back a bit. But _no-one_ says they like to sit so close they can see pixelation. And I haven't met anyone who enjoys staring at test patterns for more than about five minutes at a time, either.


So, viewing pixels is for the laboratory, and viewing movies is for real life. It's like asking someone whether they prefer to see the dots in a printed image, or read the article and enjoy the words and illustrations. I know what I'd rather do.


Your assumption that I'm using a fresnel anamorphic lens is wrong. I have designed and constructed my own, a cylindrical with 6 elements in three groups. Some people who should know (they'll remain anyonymous, but they're probably reading this thread, one of them is for sure) say it out-performs both the Isco and the Schneider in clarity in an objective side-by-side test. It should, it's more complex than either.


In my time designing my lens I have had to use test patterns... yes, Nyquist line patterns and Nyquist checkerboard patterns, just like the ones in your test. I designed my own, but an alternate white and black pixel pattern is hardly rocket science to acquire for personal use. A little familiarity with Photoshop will do the trick.


It is a matter of little surprise to me that 3 into 4 pixels (the job of vertical stretching) doesn't compute, no matter how sophisticated the algorithm or the scaler hardware used. And if it was just a matter of watching test patterns, that would be the end of the story. But it's not.


Human visual acuity is a complex thing. It's special to humans. My dogs, for example, can't see the colors on my screen. The continuous 24 fps movie image to them looks like a stroboscope. They can't see a thing that makes sense to them, as dogs. One of my cats occasionally paws at a bird on the TV, but mostly he just ignores it. Red, green and blue are good as primary colors for humans, but lousy for other species. Our vision is a compromise between sharpness, evolutionary inheritance and God knows what else.


One thing is for sure: the further you stand away from a screen the less Nyquist-level fine detail is significant. For every centimetre you stand away from the limit of human angular resolution (a varibale factor from person to person) as you watch a projected or plasma screen image, you see less and less detail in an image. I'd take bets that very few viewers who contribute to this Forum stand at the precise distance necessary for perfect Nyquist visualization. If they've had a few beers, or their vision isn't perfect, or even if they just get dizzy from being too close to the screen, then even getting the distance perfect won't do them any good. If they're watching an absorbing movie, then they couldn't care less about Nyquist or any other theoretical limit on their perception.


Analogously take the example of digitally encoded music: unless you have a sound reproduction system that is capable of a flat response from 0 - 22kHz, and ears that can tell the difference, you're wasting your money trying to achieve perfection. This is also assuming the sound engineer during the recording also has these talents in providing the listener with perfect listening source material. Maybe there's an echo-free chamber in an acoustic lab somewhere where you might get close, but in a normal living room or cinema auditorium, you haven't got a chance.


So your unsurprising test results, in this case, don't mean a thing in the practical world of movie pleasure.


Why would I use an anamorphic lens with a Panasonic 3000? Mainly because I would have a fighting chance of _not_ seeing pixels as they are enlarged 33% in both vertical and horizontal direction. I have owned and used three Panasonic projectors, one 720p and two 1080ps, and I can _always_ see pixels when I zoom them. When I use my lens the vertical pixels are still the same size. I'm not talking about source material pixels, I'm talking about projector pixels, the ones that are there whatever the original image is.


Even though I have designed and built several anamorphic lenses over the past few years, I can't wait to get away from the test patterns and do some real viewing, of actual movie material. Even so, I still, out of habit, can't help looking at the images on screen with a very technical eye, and they look fine to me, as they should to anyone else who isn't obsessed with _literally_ irrelevant technical detail.


Alan Gouger: the reason you don't see the same patterning on a movie V-stretch is because the scaling algorithms work better with pseudo-random movie pixels (color, intensity, position, movement) than they do with fixed patterns. There's an element of the "amphibian eye" in there too, in that our human visual systems tends to be overwhelmed by movement when it is competing with detail. It's like not being able to hear a pin drop when a Jumbo jet is passing above. The sound waves form the pin are still there in the mix, but they get drowned out by the overwhelming extra input from the jet. Our vision confuses detail when surrounded by the stronger input of movement. This is the whole basis of MPEG predictive encoding and compression. They're lousy at encoding Nyquist test patterns too.


P.S. It doesn't work with dogs


----------



## Drexler




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/15033287
> 
> 
> My point was that if you are going to stare at pixels all day, you have a very sad life ahead of you. The whole idea of watching a movie on a digital projection screen is to move back far enough away from the screen so that you _don't_ see the pixels. Otherwise you'd be distracted by the pixelation. So, the whole premiss of your conclusions is based in theory, not reality.
> 
> 
> Why would I use an anamorphic lens with a Panasonic 3000? Mainly because I would have a fighting chance of _not_ seeing pixels as they are enlarged 33% in both vertical and horizontal direction.



This just doesn't make any sense...


If you are seated far enough not to see the artefacts introduced from the scaling, then you are not going to see the pixels either!!! If you can see the pixels with the zoom method, you will be able to see the scaling artefacts with the a-lens method from the same viewing angle! Hence no point to use an a-lens from a seating distance perspective.


----------



## syncguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Drexler* /forum/post/15034033
> 
> 
> This just doesn't make any sense...
> 
> 
> If you are seated far enough not to see the artefacts introduced from the scaling, then you are not going to see the pixels either!!! If you can see the pixels with the zoom method, you will be able to see the scaling artefacts with the a-lens method from the same viewing angle! Hence no point to use an a-lens from a seating distance perspective.



Interesting discussion.


When zoomed, the pixels are larger than a-lens method. Hence, pixels and associated minor artifacts may not be seen at a particular seating distance although the pixels could be seen if the zoom method is used. Hence, the lens method allows sit closer to the screen for an immersive experience (subject to the amount of scaling anomalies).


----------



## Randomcreek

"I'm amazed that so many here don't seem to have thought this through."

Really?? I'm not, but happy someone else has.







How nice is the state of home cinema today, when add-ons that cost at least as much as the projectors do provide at best _perhaps_ marginal benefits and at worst imperceptable noise that trades one aspect of PQ for another. IMO the lumen output argument is today null and void. If you want more lumens then just buy a projector that's an even bigger light cannon than the one you have (not an anamorphic lens), it will come with newer panels, a better scaler and lots of new wizbang technology (not to mention a new bulb). I seriously researched and considered anamorphic lens to optimise my system several years ago and even then came to the conclusion that the poor-man's method wins out after considering all the pros and cons. Bright people may differ with this opinion and if you already have one of these lens set-up from before, then putting it to use makes sense as well, but seriously - if you were starting with x number of dollars and a blank slate, then would a seasoned HT enthusiast spend money on anamorphic lens + PJ or just use the extra money to buy better PJ? Today (especially with the AE3000 memory functionality) that's a no brainer IMO.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffY* /forum/post/15032886
> 
> 
> Regarless of the relative merits of zoom vs anamorphic lens, I think you would be better off simply buying a better projector, forgetting the lens and keeping 1:1 pixel mapping with 1080P source material. If you don't like black bars there is always masking as an option.



The loss of pixels employed with zooming makes close seating (

Art


----------



## JeffY

The v stretch adds 25% extra panel resolution and I guess the thiner pixels might make a small difference to the visibility of the pixels when sitting very close. I think the benefit is a little over stated IMO. I did run an anamorphic solution many years ago but I think the benefits back then where greater due to the low resolution of the projectors.


----------



## Art Sonneborn

In my case I don't think it is overstated. Of couse, I sit at the SMPTE minimum distance but, none the less ,in my case at least, it is a big deal.


I'm still surprised that no ANSI CR difference was found in the tests.


Art


----------



## Alan Gouger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/15034770
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still surprised that no ANSI CR difference was found in the tests.
> 
> 
> Art



Icing on the cake!


----------



## JeffY




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/15034770
> 
> 
> In my case I don't think it is overstated. Of couse, I sit at the SMPTE minimum distance but, none the less ,in my case at least, it is a big deal.
> 
> 
> I'm still surprised that no ANSI CR difference was found in the tests.
> 
> 
> Art



Is resolution/ pixel visibility still an issue with the anamorphic lens and it makes it less bad or does the anamorphic lens get it to the point it becomes a non issue?


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/15034785
> 
> 
> Icing on the cake!



Absolutely !!










Art


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffY* /forum/post/15034850
> 
> 
> Is resolution/ pixel visibility still an issue with the anamorphic lens and it makes it less bad or does the anamorphic lens get it to the point it becomes a non issue?



Still a minor issue at my seating distance. I can occasionally make out pixel structure at 11' to 12' back.


Art


----------



## widerscreen

If you did not have the two side by side to compare (zoom or anamorphic lens) you would never know the difference as its so small. As a professional photographer anytime you add extra glass or elements in front of the original lens you do start to degrade the image or light being transmitted but is so small and depends on the quality of the glass. as I said before its so small. My question is is it worth the fuss for the little extra lines with all the stretching and un-stretching?


----------



## Drexler




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *syncguy* /forum/post/15034152
> 
> 
> Interesting discussion.
> 
> 
> When zoomed, the pixels are larger than a-lens method. Hence, pixels and associated minor artifacts may not be seen at a particular seating distance although the pixels could be seen if the zoom method is used. Hence, the lens method allows sit closer to the screen for an immersive experience (subject to the amount of scaling anomalies).



Think about this. Let's assume the picture size and seating distance is identical. We have the same horizontal resolution. The vertical image information is the same, i.e. the original number of pixels from the source is the same. If you are able to see the pixel grid with the zoom method you have be able to resolve sub pixel width resolution. If you can do this you can also, from the same distance, see the artefacts from the scaling which are all bigger than the pixel grid from the zoom method by definition.There are no sub pixel width artefacts from the scaling.


The information from the source is supposed to be at exactly the same place using either method. So if there is supposed to be a horizontal line 1 pixel wide with the zoom method and you can resolve a pixel from your seat, the line should be the same size with the lens, but this is not possible since you can't devide 3/4 evenly. Instead it gets bigger and a bit out of focus and you will be able to see the artefact from this distance. This is just logical reasoning!


You will actually loose picture information and real resolution as a tradoff to get pixels that are 25% smaller in the vertical dimension. Is it worth the tradeoff? That's for you to decide. but it's self deception stating there are no tradeoffs in resolution going with an a-lens.


However, if the pixel grid is such a big problem it's strange that the smooth screen technology isn't more popular. Also, would think projectors with higher fill ratios would allow you to sit much closer.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *widerscreen* /forum/post/15035034
> 
> 
> If you did not have the two side by side to compare (zoom or anamorphic lens) you would never know the difference as its so small. As a professional photographer anytime you add extra glass or elements in front of the original lens you do start to degrade the image or light being transmitted but is so small and depends on the quality of the glass. as I said before its so small. My question is is it worth the fuss for the little extra lines with all the stretching and un-stretching?



No side by side, back and forth and to answer your last question,in my case emphatically yes.


Art


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/15031982
> 
> 
> First, I am pro anamorphic however there are pros and cons to both methods. Nether are without negatives.
> 
> My AccuPel ( I have the original that has been replaced with a new model ) did not have the needed test patterns that would allow me to test several scalers but the Crystalio does have the needed patterns and to my results were the same as Ekkeharts. You will see two pictures via the Marantz 11S2. The screen is AT so that introduced its own moire into the pictures which you will have to look past
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I shot two pictures one 1080p and one 720. Scaling 720 using the vertical stretch does not give the same result, its a clean pattern. Strange.
> 
> We do not watch test patterns and we do not see the same results in movie material even when there are vertical lines. Why do we see this with test patterns and not movies. I want to ask one the VP manufactures this week for a explanation. Maybe Ekkeharts would have the answer.



Oh, Alan, give some of dr1394's test patterns a shot:
http://www.w6rz.net/ 



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Randomcreek* /forum/post/15034274
> 
> 
> "I'm amazed that so many here don't seem to have thought this through."
> 
> Really?? I'm not, but happy someone else has.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How nice is the state of home cinema today, when add-ons that cost at least as much as the projectors do provide at best _perhaps_ marginal benefits and at worst imperceptable noise that trades one aspect of PQ for another.



The same could be said of the difference between a lot of projectors these days.



> Quote:
> IMO the lumen output argument is today null and void.



Only if you're using a relatively small screen, and/or able to use a relatively high gain. What happens if you want a 100"+ wide AT screen? I've got a "not very large" 110x46" AT, 1.16x gain screen, that means that with a lens I need 500 Lumens to hit SMPTE recommended 16ftL. Make that more like 750 if you want to plan for lamp dimming. My choices in PJ are already limited. The VW60 is out, the RS1 is on the harry edge...


What if I weren't using a lens, I'd need 33% more, 650 minimum, 1000 lumens to plan for aging. How many projectors are there that can shoot 1000 lumens _calibrated_.


What if you go a bit bigger?

120" wide: 900 Lumens with, 1200 Lumens without

130" wide: 1000 Lumens with, 1300 Lumens without

...


If you want a large screen, and don't want to or can't use a High Power, your options are already limited, the difference in light between a lens an not, is significant.



> Quote:
> If you want more lumens then just buy a projector that's an even bigger light cannon than the one you have (not an anamorphic lens), it will come with newer panels, a better scaler and lots of new wizbang technology (not to mention a new bulb).



Like what? Even the RS20, with it's capability for over 800 Calibrated lumens, is reaching it's limits on a large scope screen. But lets say we're going with the RS20, lets look at a little comparison RS20, 120" wide scope screen, low lamp (becasue we're saving high lamp for later as the lamp dims):
Zoom method:
2.35:1 mode - 560 Lumens - 11.5 ftL - 24,300:1
1.78:1 mode - ~400 Lumens - 14.3 ftL - ~31,000:1

Lens method A (brightness optimized):
2.35:1 mode - 560 Lumens - 15.3 ftL - 24,300:1
1.78:1 mode - 560 Lumens - 20.2 ftL - 24,300:1

Lens method B (contrast optimized):
2.35:1 mode - 450 Lumens - 12 ftL - ~30,000:1
1.78:1 mode - 350 Lumens - 12ftL - ~40,000:1



So, to get reasonable brightness on that screen with a (very bright) RS20, you have to be at max zoom for the zoom method. Yet for the les method you have much more flexibility, you can set it up to be much brighter, or much better contrast.



> Quote:
> I seriously researched and considered anamorphic lens to optimise my system several years ago and even then came to the conclusion that the poor-man's method wins out after considering all the pros and cons.



That's fine, lenses aren't for everyone.



> Quote:
> Bright people may differ with this opinion and if you already have one of these lens set-up from before, then putting it to use makes sense as well, but seriously - if you were starting with x number of dollars and a blank slate, then would a seasoned HT enthusiast spend money on anamorphic lens + PJ or just use the extra money to buy better PJ?



Probably depends on what your budget is, as always. You get much above $5k budget and extra money really isn't going to buy you a lot in terms of a projector, but a lens could make a significant addition to your setup.



> Quote:
> Today (especially with the AE3000 memory functionality) that's a no brainer IMO.



I love how the AE3000 fans can't imagine that someone would want a projector other than the AE3000. I agree, if the AE3000 meets your needs and satisfies you, I'd see no value in buying a lens. But like lenses, the AE3000 isn't for everyone. What about all the people who are getting RS20s? People getting C3X-1080s? Used RS1s and 2s, people buying DLPs which don't have the required zoom range?


----------



## JeffY

I think both methods have their merits, it's simply a case of educateing yourself to the pros and cons, trying them out if you can and making a choice. The extra cost of an anamorphic lens is just another parameter to take into account.


----------



## JeffY




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/15035145
> 
> 
> What if I weren't using a lens, I'd need 33% more, 650 minimum, 1000 lumens to plan for aging. How many projectors are there that can shoot 1000 lumens _calibrated_.



Cine4home reported only a 10% increase in lumens over zoomed.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffY* /forum/post/15035193
> 
> 
> Cine4home reported only a 10% increase in lumens over zoomed.



Yes, but they used different zoom settings between the anamorphic lens and the "zoom method". That's actually pretty impressive if you look at it, 15% increase, despite being at a longer throw (lower lumens from the PJ).


So while the reduced benefit is true of the combination of AE3000 and Schneider lens, it is not universally true. Projectors with longer throws or lenses with larger apertures would show closer to the theoretical difference. It would be interesting to see the difference in brightness at the same zoom setting.


----------



## taffman

Screen brightness is probably the least important parameter influencing picture quality. a loss of 10 or 15% is pretty insignificant unless you are looking at side-by-side comparisons, because the eye adapts itself very quickly to accomodate illumination levels. But loss of resolution and increased chromatic aberations are definately something to be concerned about. Unless the addition of an A-lens can be proven to actually signifcantly improve PQ compared with equivalent zooming then it is of little use other than an expensive A/V 'Trophy'.

So far, I have read no convincing evidence that PQ is improved by use of an A-lens, and in the case of the Panasonic AE3000 the opposite seems now to be proven true. But on some projectors such as Arts, which apparently exhibit visible SDE with the zoom method, then it seems to help to reduce that effect somewhat. But as Aussie Bob points out, all you have to do anyway is move back a little bit if you have SDE - or buy a Panasonic!

Lets not equate a reduction of SDE as an improvement in picture quality.


----------



## Vern Dias

Because of Smoothscreen, the AE3000 doesn't deliver a full 1080 resolution image with clearly delineated pixels. I'm guessing the frequency response at 1080 is down at least 3 DB.


For this reason, any conclusions drawn regarding the anamorphic lens vs zooming which are based on this projector and pixel visibility are only applicable to this particular projector and not to other projectors which can present a full 1080 image with clearly visible pixels.


Vern


----------



## mustang5o

Great discussion. I currently have a Panny PT-AX100U with a Prismasonic lens and I can tell you it smooth screen works just fine it. Then again I don't stare static images....well pretty much ever. I'm glad this was posted as I am strongly considering the 1080p upgrade with income taxes next year. Since I already have the lens I had though about just trying to pick up a PT-AE2000 if they are still around. If not and I go with the 3000 i may do some of my own testing to see what "I" see and choose from there.


My biggest question is how accurate and repeatable are the zoom/lens shift settings to be able to just hit a button on the remote? The expanded black bars won't be a problem for me since I am setting a dedicated room and may just black out the whole front wall anyway.


Thanks again AVS-F!


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/15035500
> 
> 
> Screen brightness is probably the least important parameter influencing picture quality. a loss of 10 or 15% is pretty insignificant unless you are looking at side-by-side comparisons, because the eye adapts itself very quickly to accomodate illumination levels.



True, 10-15% isn't that big of a deal, but what about 30%, when you're designing your system, these issues become important. 30% could be the difference between having a good buffer for lamp dimming, and not.



> Quote:
> But loss of resolution and increased chromatic aberations are definately something to be concerned about.



What loss of resolution?



> Quote:
> Unless the addition of an A-lens can be proven to actually signifcantly improve PQ compared with equivalent zooming then it is of little use other than an expensive A/V 'Trophy'.



Define "significantly". That's the problem, for many, anamorphic lenses provided a significant improvement. For other people, they don't. There's no objective measure of "significant". But lenses definitely aren't "trophies", no more than an RS20 is over an AE3000, even though to many the RS20's advantages may not be "significant".



> Quote:
> So far, I have read no convincing evidence that PQ is improved by use of an A-lens,



What are you looking for, we have Aussie Bob, Vern Dias, Art Sonneborn, me, Alan, and quite a number of others who have tried lenses and say they produce a better, smoother, picture. If that's not convincing enough, save your money and don't get one.



> Quote:
> ...and in the case of the Panasonic AE3000 the opposite seems now to be proven true.



Maybe for the Panasonic, but Cine4Home's report didn't say anything about the resulting quality of image, only that by their measurements the light benefit was small.



> Quote:
> But on some projectors such as Arts, which apparently exhibit visible SDE with the zoom method, then it seems to help to reduce that effect somewhat. But as Aussie Bob points out, all you have to do anyway is move back a little bit if you have SDE - or buy a Panasonic!
> 
> Lets not equate a reduction of SDE as an improvement in picture quality.



And lets not equate Cine4Home's measurements as "proof" of the superiority of zooming. No doubt the benefits of an Anamorphic lens are small, and they aren't without their drawbacks. But for some, the benefits outweigh the costs and theoretical drawbacks. The sooner we can all acknowledge that the whole lens vs zooming "issue" is really nothing more than various people's take on the cost/benefit ratio, the sooner we'll be able to put these relatively useless threads to bed.


----------



## taffman

The problem for people like me is that there is no way to 'road test' a lens. Surely you can understand that forking over $6,500 for a lens without even seeing it work is a big leap of faith for a lot of people. You say that Art, yourself, and others , see an improvement using an A-lens. But thats just for your particular situation, with your projector in your screening room. Suppose I spend that $6,500 for an Isco 3 and see little or no improvement with my projector in my screening room - then I am going to feel that I have just burned a whole lot of money.

That is why in-depth test reports like the one we are all talking about are so important. They are the only way to get some sort of impartial evaluation. In this case they say zoom is better than the Schneider lens. Well I tend to believe that, because they have provided a lot of published test data to back it up, as opposed to your's and Art's opinions, which are only valid for your particular home theater situations.


----------



## 5mark

Can we all agree that 1080p projectors and letterboxed BDs make using a lens less necessary than when is was 720p projectors and anamorphic DVDs? At least from a PQ only perspective. IMO these discussions should be about what method makes the most sense in a given setup given someone's budget, equipment, tolerance for artifacts and inconvenience etc.


In Art's case, if you can afford an HT5000, it's almost a no-brainer to just get an Isco III and move on. But if you spent


----------



## HogPilot

A person can get their hands on a nice anamorphic lens like a used UH380 or Prismasonic FE1500 for far less than $6500 if they want to "road test" the lens scope method. I would hope that most people here understand that, just as with anything else, it's not an all or nothing proposition. It's akin to someone looking to buy their first projector and wandering into the $20K+ forum seeking advice - they could easily walk away with the impression that a "good" projector will cost them a minimum of $20K-$30K.


The Cine4Home article seems to be a great evaluation, however the problem lies with people like the OP who take a single statement and misapply it to bolster an incorrect, blanket assertion. I've personally tried zooming and using an anamorphic lens in my RS1/UH380 scope setup, and I found the lens to be absolutely superior to zooming except in the case of geometry, but that's only noticable when watching a grid test pattern.


When people rely on solely on specs, reports, and the written opinions of others instead of experiencing something with their own eyes, it's very easy for "situational truths" to become misrepresented and parroted as unilateral, unequivocal fact.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/15036615
> 
> 
> A person can get their hands on a nice anamorphic lens like a used UH380 or Prismasonic FE1500 for far less than $6500 if they want to "road test" the lens scope method.



Yes, that seems to be lost on many here. I've got $500 invested in my Panamorph, which I got used. No it's not perfect, nor is it as good as an ISCO III, but none of its limitations show up in real-world content, not even on subtitles.


----------



## 5mark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/15036615
> 
> 
> I've personally tried zooming and using an anamorphic lens in my RS1/UH380 scope setup, and I found the lens to be absolutely superior to zooming except in the case of geometry, but that's only noticable when watching a grid test pattern.



Specifically what aspects were superior? Also, what was your viewing ratio and throw distance? Just curious.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *5mark* /forum/post/15036829
> 
> 
> Specifically what aspects were superior? Also, what was your viewing ratio and throw distance? Just curious.



I had an RS1 mounted with the lens about 18' from a 125" wide (viewable) 2.35:1 screen (which equated to a 96" wide 1.78:1 image), and I sat at about 11.5' so my viewing distance was about 1.1 'scope screen widths. My VP50 did all the scaling, and my room was completely light controlled, although the walls and carpet were a light color.


Not only did the UH380 provide a noticably brighter picture as opposed to zooming (I never took any actual measurements, but the visual difference was clearly evident), but it also allowed me to sit at 11.5' without seeing any pixel structure. When I zoomed, the screen was simply too large to fill with the RS1's light output and the image had a dull, flat look to it - not to mention that pixel structure was often clearly visible. I should note that seeing pixel structure and seeing SDE are two different things, and that seeing the former does not equate to seeing the latter. I am fortunate (or unfortunate, depending on how you look at it) to have 20/15 vision so I can probably see pixel structure before the average person. When watching movies I was never personally displeased with the contrast of the images I was seeing, nor did I see a significant increase in ANSI contrast when I would remove the lens from the light path (although I never did any extensive A/B'ing either). CA wasn't noticable from where I sat, but if I looked at the screen from inside of 6" it was noticable out towards the edges of the screen. The convergence on my RS1 was just about spot on between blue and green, but red was about 1/4 pixel off in the center and 3/4 pixels off towards the right side, and that was more significant to me than the small amount of CA added at the outskirts by the UH380.


I also left the lens in place for all material, so changing ARs was done with my VP50. This was VERY convenient since I only had to press a couple buttons from my seat, and any AR between 1.33:1 and 2.35:1 filled the full height of the screen. I personally never noticed any detail degredation due to the scaling when viewing normal material. I'm sure had I sat down and nitpicked over static scenes and test patterns I could have seen losses in detail due to the scaling - but when viewing real world material it simply wasn't noticable to me.


As I have stated before, these are my personal obvservations of my own setup, so everything above comes with the big caveat of "YMMV."


----------



## 5mark

Thanks for the summary, Hogpilot. It makes sense that the two improvements were brightness and reduced pixel visibility. You certainly are blessed/cursed with excellent eyesight. Many people wouldn't see any pixel structure at that distance (or at least not often enough to be bothered by it). I can see why you needed plenty of brightness for a screen that size. Although you could have gotten a moderate brightness increase zooming by moving the projector over 3ft closer (sorry, couldn't help myself). And I've personally seen the difference that darkening the walls/carpet can make with the RS1 (more depth, pop and apparent brightness) Don't know what to tell you about those eyes of yours though...


----------



## HogPilot

I was in an apartment with 13' tall ceilings at the time (it used to be a bank way back when), and although I had the option of painting the walls I knew I wasn't going to be there long term, and I didn't feel like having to paint them back prior to leaving. The ceiling height required me to use a pole with a 3.5' drop, and it was originally screwed into the concrete ceiling based on my SP5000's throw, which worked for my H79, so I didn't feel like moving it when I put in the RS1. I'd already planned on using the lens for a higher pixel density, so the throw was conveniently long to reduce pincushion. Plus the hassle of having to reach up and screw with the zoom and lens shift when switching between ARs would have been too big of a hassle. Obviously the 3000 fixes the convenience issue by automating everything, but I'd still lose a lot of pixels which isn't an option for me. But for many, it's a perfectly viable option that doesn't involve spending extra money on a lens.


----------



## Art Sonneborn

I'd actually be interested in seeing how many of the anamorphic lens naysayers here have seen both techniques used with their projectors employing a high quality lens like the ISCO III.


Art


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/15037551
> 
> 
> I'd actually be interested in seeing how many of the anamorphic lens naysayers here have seen both techniques used with their projectors employing a high quality lens like the ISCO III.
> 
> 
> Art



If I were to guess I would say that the number is significantly smaller than the number of people who use an anamorphic lens and have tried zooming with their projector. Zooming is free and relatively easy to try; adding a lens into your setup is not.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/15037746
> 
> 
> If I were to guess I would say that the number is significantly smaller than the number of people who use an anamorphic lens and have tried zooming with their projector. Zooming is free and relatively easy to try; adding a lens into your setup is not.



You get my point.


Art


----------



## 5mark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/15037551
> 
> 
> I'd actually be interested in seeing how many of the anamorphic lens naysayers here have seen both techniques used with their projectors employing a high quality lens like the ISCO III.
> 
> 
> Art



Hope I'm not being included as a naysayer. I might use a lens someday if I was going with a bigger screen, had a longer throw to work with and had an ultra sharp projector with a lot of visible pixel structure. I'm just trying to get the point across that some setups are a no brainer to use a lens (yours) and some aren't (mine). I know we've had the discussion before about some projectors being better suited for using the zoom method (LCOS in particular) and I seem to remember you agreeing with me.


----------



## Aussie Bob

Something that hasn't been considered in the "movie" versus "test pattern" discussion is that the test pattern in use would have been losslessly encoded, i.e. a 1:1 TIFF file or similar. One pixel of data on disk would equal a clear, single pixel of image and on screen after being projected.


But as soon as you JPEG that test pattern, particularly at the very high compression ratios typical of even a BluRay presentation, a your test pattern or your movie is so horribly compromised - compared to a lossless encoding method - that I'd predict you couldn't notice and artefacts viewing a movie with an A-lens.


Losslessly, even at 8 bits per byte (and 10 or 12 bits is the norm), each frame of high definition data is 1920 x 1080 x 3 bytes = 6,220,800 bytes _per frame_ for separate R, G and B components.


That's 14,929,9200 bytes per second (almost 15 megabytes per second).


In one minute you end up with 60 x 14,929,9200 bytes = 8,957,952,000... almost _nine *giga*bytes_ of data per minute.


One hour is 60 x 8,957,952,000 = 537,477,120,000, 537 gigabytes.


Two hours (the length of an average movie) is 1,074,954,240,000, or just over a _tera_byte of raw data in a 2 hour movie.


Now let's say that this is compressed into roughly 20 gigabytes of a BluRay or an HD-DVD disk.


This gives us a compression ratio of 54:1 at 8 bits per color channel (much more when the original image is captured at 10 or 12 bits per color channel).


Try compressing your single pixel checkerboard pattern into a 54:1 JPEG and see what you get.


It'll probably look something like Cine4Home's stretched test pattern.


Now, apply this same compression to a moving picture, with lots of variation, but major changes occurring only at key frames, and wouldn't you agree that any loss from the vertical stretch of the projector is more than outweighed by the compression loss from cramming a one terabyte movie into 20 gigabytes? A little extra digital image processing - stretching the image vertically by one-third - would make for a negligable extra loss of image quality.


The whole argument of the German guys is NOT comparing apples to apples. They are taking a lossless test pattern, presented statically (i.e. without movement to distract the viewer) under ideal conditions and claiming that a 54:1 compressed _moving_ picture image - with all that entails in challenging the limits of human visual acuity as to detail - will suffer from the use of an anamorphic lens passing a v-stretched image.


As far as what's got many people going here - the compression artefacts introduced by the process of vertical stretching - it's a pointless claim that has little basis in reality or relevance.


I can see that looking at the optical quality of an anamorphic lens is relevant to the issue, but not the digital extrapolation part of the argument.


If the Schneider has some color problems at the edges, then that's only to be expected, as it uses the simplest possible design for a cylindrical anamorphic. A more sophisticated design virtually eliminates these problems. Sitting back from the screen at a sensible distance should _completely_ obliterate them.


One extra point: having read through the article tortuously in Babel Fish, one thing was clear... the _theoretical_ light gain advantage from an anamorphic lens is not "25%" as stated in the article. It is 33.3%. If you're going to write off a whole optical process that's been around for over 50 years, you may as well get your facts straight, _kameraden_.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/15039129
> 
> 
> Two hours (the length of an average movie) is 1,074,954,240,000, or just over a _tera_byte of raw data in a 2 hour movie.



What we need is 4TB capacity holographic disks for uncompressed 1920x1080p transferred anamorphically! Mmmmmm how beautiful that would be with an anamorphic lens.


Art, I meant to ask you - when you were putting together your current theater, did you look at any other lenses than the Isco? I'm only asking because I'm currently trying to sell my UH440 - I'm out of the scope game for the next several years at least - but when I get back in I'd consider an Isco if it really offered a noticably better image with respects to CA and pincushion.


----------



## JeffY




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/15039129
> 
> 
> 
> The whole argument of the German guys is NOT comparing apples to apples. They are taking a lossless test pattern, presented statically (i.e. without movement to distract the viewer) under ideal conditions and claiming that a 54:1 compressed _moving_ picture image - with all that entails in challenging the limits of human visual acuity as to detail - will suffer from the use of an anamorphic lens passing a v-stretched image.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cine4Home* /forum/post/15029030
> 
> 
> 
> If you read our article properly, you would have noticed, that we give examples in every chapter, what kind of movie scenes are affected.



Some one else needs to get their facts right.


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> Some one else needs to get their facts right.



That's just wrong. They showed a _static_, very low resolution image of a beach and that was it for "real world" examples.


Lots of pictures of boring test patterns, and nothing of movie - moving - images, especially at the highly magnified state they presented their test patterns. Just one shot of a beach.


Their argument is that the v-stretch renders an anamorphically widened image inferior in all circumstances compared to zooming. They presented little evidence of that. Rather, they inferred that because a lossless test pattern showed extrapolation artefacts that it followed that a 54:1 compressed moving image would suffer the same fate, _and be noticeable as such_. That is - I'm sorry don't know the German word - total crap. The French, however, call it _merde_.


Not "apples with apples" I'm afraid.


You have to understand, these guys make big bucks from endorsing projectors that have been lent to them for "evaluation". They have a cosy relationship with the manufacturers, so cosy that they can gut a projector, voiding the warranty, perhaps ruining the fine adjustments done at the factory, just so they can show what the main circuit board, or the iris mechanism looks like. Big Deal! Projector manufacturers don't let just anyone do this. They only allow it when the disassembler says something nice about their product.


On cue, Cine4Home have written up the AE-3000 as ... what a coincidence... the anamorphic lens killer. I say "amazing" because that's exactly what Panasonic wanted them to say, and exactly why they built the box in the first place. I'm sure it's a good projector, but I didn't come down in the last shower either. The real fact is that in any realistic comparison, using an anamorphic lens with digital vertical extrapolation already involves processing a _heavily_ processed, moving image. Compared to the high compression already applied to the image, due to the MPEG-4 encoding process, an extra 4:3 stretching wouldn't show up negatively in any significant way.


The test pattern used is just that: a _test_ pattern...uncompressed, optimized for a situation that does not present itself in the movie-viewing situation.


----------



## Drexler




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/15039129
> 
> 
> Losslessly, even at 8 bits per byte (and 10 or 12 bits is the norm), each frame of high definition data is 1920 x 1080 x 3 bytes = 6,220,800 bytes _per frame_ for separate R, G and B components.
> 
> 
> That's 14,929,9200 bytes per second (almost 15 megabytes per second).
> 
> 
> In one minute you end up with 60 x 14,929,9200 bytes = 8,957,952,000... almost _nine *giga*bytes_ of data per minute.
> 
> 
> One hour is 60 x 8,957,952,000 = 537,477,120,000, 537 gigabytes.
> 
> 
> Two hours (the length of an average movie) is 1,074,954,240,000, or just over a _tera_byte of raw data in a 2 hour movie.
> 
> 
> Now let's say that this is compressed into roughly 20 gigabytes of a BluRay or an HD-DVD disk.
> 
> 
> This gives us a compression ratio of 54:1 at 8 bits per color channel (much more when the original image is captured at 10 or 12 bits per color channel).
> 
> 
> Try compressing your single pixel checkerboard pattern into a 54:1 JPEG and see what you get.



You don't have your facts straight and your calculation is flawed.


For once, you are not using the a-lens for a 16:9 image are you? So why do you use 1920*1080 pixels for the calculation???


Also, you can compress data losslessly. If you for instance have a big uniform area or an identical pixels appearing in many subsequent frames you can easily compress it without loosing any information. Someone more knowledgeble than me can maybe share how much you can typically compress movie material without loosing any information?


What you are really claiming is that no movie source material contain details at fine pixel level? Do you really think this is true???


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Drexler* /forum/post/15039300
> 
> 
> You don't have your facts straight and your calculation is flawed.
> 
> 
> For once, you are not using the a-lens for a 16:9 image are you? So why do you use 1920*1080 pixels for the calculation???
> 
> 
> Also, you can compress data losslessly. If you for instance have a big uniform area or an identical pixels appearing in many subsequent frames you can easily compress it without loosing any information. Someone more knowledgeble than me can maybe share how much you can typically compress movie material without loosing any data?
> 
> 
> What you are really claiming is that no movie source material contain details at fine pixel level? Do you really think this is true???



Correct me if I'm wrong, but the discs that we watch - even high bit-rate BDs - aren't even close to losslessly compressed. Even with MPEG-4, on any given frame you're still only getting a maximum of half the original luma pixels and far less of the chroma pixels actually stored on the disc, with the rest having to be interpolated.


----------



## Drexler




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/15039311
> 
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the discs that we watch - even high bit-rate BDs - aren't even close to losslessly compressed. Even with MPEG-4, on any given frame you're still only getting a maximum of half the original luma pixels and far less of the chroma pixels actually stored on the disc, with the rest having to be interpolated.



Never said they were. just pointed out that the calculation was flawed. Still, I am pretty sure BD material is sharp enough to benefit from pixelmapping...


I can understand why many choose to have an a-lens, and I would consider one myself for reasons of flexibility if there was a solution for the subtitles.


I just get a bit annoyed with the cherry picking of arguments that is going on in this thread and the dogmatic defence of the expensive a-lens purchase no matter what the measurements tell. A-streching, though it has merits, can not be done without compromises as some people seem to suggest.


----------



## Eternal_Sunshine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Drexler* /forum/post/15039383
> 
> 
> I just get a bit annoyed with the cherry picking of arguments that is going on in this thread and the dogmatic defence of the expensive a-lens purchase no matter what the measurements tell.



Me too.










I think for most people the main problem with the zooming method was the hassle associated with changing the aspect ratio. The AE3000 takes care of this beautifully. The other advantages of utilizing an anamorphic lens (brighter picture, less visible pixel structure if you want to sit closer) are very probably only essential for a minority of people thinking about going CIH.


That every kind of scaling (vs. 1:1 pixelmapping) is bad for image quality is so extremely obvious that it's actually kinda hilarious to see posters (or one poster in particular) argue so fervently against it...


----------



## Cine4Home




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/15033287
> 
> 
> Once you factor movement detail and add viewing distance into the formula, the entire aim of viewing a projected image is to NOT see individual pixels. See what I mean? *If you can see individual pixels you're sitting too close*! If you're bothered about it.... move further away! In the case of eliminating interpolation artefacts I'm talking a few inches further away, not feet or yards. There you go: problem solved.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/15033287
> 
> 
> So, *viewing pixels is for the laboratory*, and viewing movies is for real life.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/15033287
> 
> 
> Why would I use an anamorphic lens with a Panasonic 3000? Mainly because *I would have a fighting chance of not seeing pixels* as they are enlarged 33% in both vertical and horizontal direction. *I have owned and used three Panasonic projectors, one 720p and two 1080ps, and I can always see pixels* when I zoom them.













No comment necessary but Bobs own:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/15033287
> 
> *My point was that if you are going to stare at pixels all day, you have a very sad life ahead of you.*













I rather spend my limited time discussing with forum members, who are actually willing to discuss this topic objectively without any bias into any direction.


Regards,

Ekki


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/15039209
> 
> 
> Art, I meant to ask you - when you were putting together your current theater, did you look at any other lenses than the Isco? .



No I did not but I received information from several people I trust that it was the best.There is about 1/2" of pincushion over 14' of width .


Art


----------



## Cine4Home




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/15035258
> 
> 
> So while the reduced benefit is true of the combination of AE3000 and Schneider lens, it is not universally true. Projectors with longer throws or lenses with larger apertures would show closer to the theoretical difference. It would be interesting to see the difference in brightness at the same zoom setting.




This is the whole point, some are missing here. Our artcicle was not about Anamorphic lenses in general, but in the special combination with the PT-AE3000. There is no doubt that for certain setup, certain tastes and with certain equipment, an anamorhic lens can be helpful. But for 99% of homecinema setups in combination with the Panasonic PT-AE3000, it just does not seem to make any sense.


BTW: The topic of this thread is clearly the PT-AE3000. So please do not start a general "Anamorphic Pro / Contra War".


Regards,

Ekki


----------



## Cine4Home




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/15031049
> 
> 
> The lack of ANSI contrast difference is diametric from the prevailing dogma.
> 
> 
> Art




We were also very surprised.


Regards,

Ekki


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cine4Home* /forum/post/15039804
> 
> 
> BTW: The topic of this thread is clearly the PT-AE3000. So please do not start a general "Anamorphic Pro / Contra War".



That was a given the moment you stated "is better than utilizing Anamorphic lens" in title of this thread...


Mark


----------



## Cine4Home




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/15039790
> 
> 
> I'd actually be interested in seeing how many of the anamorphic lens naysayers here have seen both techniques used with their projectors employing a high quality lens like the ISCO III.




We know the Isco III very well and there is no doubt, that with that lens, you can get even better results. But we wanted to stay realistic pricewise and I guess you agree that a combination of PT3000 + Isco III does not sound appealing to 99,99% of potential PT3000 owners.










Regards,

Ekki


----------



## Cine4Home




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/15039850
> 
> 
> That was a given the moment you stated "is better than utilizing Anamorphic lens" in title of this thread...
> 
> 
> Mark




I did not start this thread, nor gave it this title










Regards,

Ekki


----------



## Cine4Home




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Eternal_Sunshine* /forum/post/15039634
> 
> 
> That every kind of scaling (vs. 1:1 pixelmapping) is bad for image quality is so extremely obvious that it's actually kinda hilarious to see posters (or one poster in particular) argue so fervently against it...




I find it rather sad. Especially as with growing lack of arguments, he starts being more and more insulting. This kind of behavior is below my standards and probaly below most of other participants too. And I hope that this aggressive form is not going to be tolerated in this great Forum. Main reason I liked AVS so much so far, is because it gives place for technical discussion without anger and personal aggression.


Regards,

Ekki


----------



## Varrius




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/15037551
> 
> 
> I'd actually be interested in seeing how many of the anamorphic lens naysayers here have seen both techniques used with their projectors employing a high quality lens like the ISCO III.
> 
> 
> Art



In the other thread, I've been posting in favor of the AE3000 as my solution. That doesn't necessarily make me a A-lens naysayer though. My point is though, if I can use the AE3000 and get more than satisfactory results, then I have no need for an A-lens. I'm typically a "purist" type of person, but in this particular case I can't even come close to justifying the A-lens setup's cost and hassle if the AE3000 works well.


I've seen a few others that are favoring the AE3000 solution posting as well, and they seem to be of the same mindset that I am. They don't all seem to be A-lens naysayers, but moreso excited and hopeful that the AE3000 will be a good solution. If it isn't, then I think most of us will be back to researching A-lenses.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cine4Home* /forum/post/15039774
> 
> 
> 
> I rather spend my limited time discussing with forum members, who are actually willing to discuss this topic objectively without any bias into any direction.
> 
> 
> 
> Ekki




Good luck !


----------



## airliner

Just happened I'd been able to compare the 3000 vs. an EpsonPanamorph380 set up. My sensation was that the second won handdown. If you "need" something more pratic you can absolutely go with the Panasonic, but from my expirience the PQ was much better the second, impling the versus of a lense (slide, cost, etc.etc.). Marco


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cine4Home* /forum/post/15039804
> 
> 
> This is the whole point, some are missing here. Our artcicle was not about Anamorphic lenses in general, but in the special combination with the PT-AE3000. There is no doubt that for certain setup, certain tastes and with certain equipment, an anamorhic lens can be helpful. But for 99% of homecinema setups in combination with the Panasonic PT-AE3000, it just does not seem to make any sense.



I wish more people would read it like that. Unfortunately your article just became fuel to an already raging fire. A previous thread was (at on point) titled "Anamorphic lens is now a dinosaur" and contained a raging debate about the merits of the anamorphic lens.



> Quote:
> BTW: The topic of this thread is clearly the PT-AE3000. So please do not start a general "Anamorphic Pro / Contra War".



Then your article came out an this tread was created seeming to latch onto your test as "proof" that anamorphic lenses are bad. That zooming is better.


Anyway, thanks for your efforts, I know I always look forward to your reviews of projectors. And I agree with you that the AE3000 buyer/owner is not going to be one very inclined to be buying a lens to go with it. No do I think it would be of much benefit to them.


----------



## Cine4Home




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/15041321
> 
> 
> I wish more people would read it like that. Unfortunately your article just became fuel to an already raging fire. A previous thread was (at on point) titled "Anamorphic lens is now a dinosaur" and contained a raging debate about the merits of the anamorphic lens.
> 
> Then your article came out an this tread was created seeming to latch onto your test as "proof" that anamorphic lenses are bad. That zooming is better.




Oh, I did not know this. I just got into this thread as I saw that a discussion about our article went on. And I was surprised about how much anger and aggression is coming from this guy. Never expected that such a topic could cause so many emotions.












Regards,

Ekki


----------



## pocoloco

Don't sweat it Ekki. I for one appreciate your reports and wish you did a zoom vs. lens comparison for every projector you review. :


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

From my own personal experience, zooming meant that SD material looked noticeably chunky, since it was the equivalent of moving my seat closer to the screen. It wasn't screendoor but the source material that made zooming unworkable for me. An A lens however fixed that problem. Like Hogpilot and Aussie Bob say, scaling makes no real visible difference with the process either (theoretically it does of course) and like Hogpilot, I eventually settled for a system where I never moved the lens out of the way for 16:9. (I had a Prismasonic with pass through mode before getting the ISCO, but ended up never using the PT mode).


Very interesting that the Schneider lens had no measurable ANSI loss. I would have said placing any piece of glass in front of the projector lens would have resulted in some measurable loss of ANSI contrast so this is a very big surprise (having said that, testing my last PJs ANSI with A lens attached yielded results very close to the native ANSI in a non ideal session but I figured there must be some loss. I'll have to measure it again when I next get a pj). Some people have said they can see the negative (ANSI loss) effects of the Schenider lens when it is in place but I think that is for one of two reasons, placebo being one of them. Even a 20 to 30 percent drop of ANSI contrast would be unlikely to be visually determined anyway because our visual system is not linear so this would amount to a very very small perceptible drop if it was perceptible at all. As an example, an 82 percent drop in lumens is perceived as a 50% drop within the HVS. Hence a Kodak 18% grey card is 50% white and 50% black IIRC.


I think it's great that Panasonic is at least trying to get CIH into the hands of the pj buying public. As has been said, there are pros and cons for both methods and this is at least a move in the right direction IMHO even if it's not perfect (what pj and system is?), but it's a start.


Gary


----------



## pocoloco

I know the room makes a big impact on ANSI measurements. Not sure how Cinehome measured ANSI but could it be that the lens' effect on ANSI was dwarfed by the room's impact on ANSI, thereby making the lens appear like it didn't impact ANSI at all?


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

I would think C4H would have done their measurements so that the room wasn't part of the equation so they could come to that conclusion.


Gary


----------



## Cine4Home




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/15042534
> 
> 
> I would think C4H would have done their measurements so that the room wasn't part of the equation so they could come to that conclusion.
> 
> 
> Gary




Room did not have influence on our measurement. And there was a drop of about 1,5%










Regards,

Ekki


----------



## Aussie Bob

My compression calculations were right, as the black areas top and bottom of a 'scope picture still have to be ultimately presented on screen. They are part of the picture as presented for encoding on disk and thus need to be dealt with by the compression algorithm.


That arithmetic post was to point out that taking the results of a lab test employing an uncompressed, static test pattern and then trying to extrapolate them into a general conclusion regarding the presentation quality of heavily compressed images, with random movement in low frequency components, was not comparing "apples" with "apples".


Try this simple test. Project an uncompressed 1x1 checkerboard pattern on the screen. Move back from the screen until you can just see the texture of the pattern, so that if you moved back another foot or so the pattern would appear as an untextured gray. This is the limit of your eyes' angular resolution with the combination of screen, projector and pattern you are using.


Now put on a movie, but don't change your viewing distance.


Tell us if you can still see patterns of, or even any individual pixels in the way you can see them with the static pattern.


You won't be able to. Your visual system will be overwhelmed by:


(a) movement,


(b) random shapes and colors in the movie image,


(c) low contrast between adjoining pixels (as opposed to 100% contrast between adjacent checkerboarded pixels),


(d) the random noise, especially related to film grain, generated by heavily compressed images, typically over 50:1 on BluRay disks.


Conclusion: comparing a test pattern at a distance of inches (e.g. heavily magnified images such as the ones at the top of the thread) against a moving, dynamic image at a natural viewing distance, suitable for the media you are viewing, is not only not a _fair_ test, it is a completely _irrelevant_ one.


When you're staring at trees it's easy to get lost in the forest.


----------



## JeffY

Video compression is variable and unlike DVD no filtering of detail is done. If there is a fairly static image with some high detail then the detail should be retained after compression.


----------



## John Ballentine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/15042333
> 
> 
> I think it's great that Panasonic is at least trying to get CIH into the hands of the pj buying public. As has been said, there are pros and cons for both methods and this is at least a move in the right direction IMHO even if it's not perfect (what pj and system is?), but it's a start.Gary



Well said and I agree 100%.


----------



## Drexler




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/15042618
> 
> 
> My compression calculations were right, as the black areas top and bottom of a 'scope picture still have to be ultimately presented on screen. They are part of the picture as presented for encoding on disk and thus need to be dealt with by the compression algorithm.



Using your calculations the following space is required to encode the black bars on a 2.35:1 movie:


1920 x 263 x 3 bytes = 1,514,880 bytes per frame for separate R, G and B components.


Two hours (the length of an average movie) is 261,771,264,000, or just over 260 gigabites of raw data to encode the black bars (losslessly..







)


Do you think we loose a lot of information by compressing these 260 GB of black bars? Do you think we loose any information at all??? Do you think it is impossible to compress other data without loosing information???


----------



## stef2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cine4Home* /forum/post/15041436
> 
> 
> Never expected that such a topic could cause so many emotions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Ekki





You must be kidding, right???







That very topic ALWAYS causes many emotions and always will...


----------



## wse

Very heated discussions I see, I was wondering if any one has compared the Panasonic AE3000 vs JVC RS2 could let us know what you found.


I am in favor of using the Zoom as anamorphic lenses are way too expensive for my buget


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> Do you think we loose a lot of information by compressing these 260 GB of black bars? Do you think we loose any information at all???



Even if - and that's a bif "if" - the black bars are compressed at optimum compression, separately to the rest of the 16x9 image, we still have about 45:1 (as opposed to 54:1) compression for the rest of the picture. It doesn't change my calculations materially. You're still trying to fit over 800 gigabytes in 20 gigabytes.



> Quote:
> Do you think it is impossible to compress other data without loosing information???



No, it's not impossible, but you'd never cram a movie in 20 gigabytes if you did this. MPEG4, or other moving picture compression, as far as I know, does not use Lev-Zempel type (in Photoshop it's called "LZW", generally "L-Z") lossless compression. So your question is moot.


Lev-Zempel compression is based on the idea that data in text (it was originally for text) or other regularly patterend data sets is repetitive. For example 10,000 bytes of all zeros could be encoded (at the most efficient compression possible) as 10,000 x "00"... a few bytes of data. But MPEG - "_Motion_ Picture Experts Group" - compression expects the data it is compressing to be moving. So it uses a different, JPEG-based algorithm which looks at compressing frequencies via clever mechanisms such as Discrete Cosine Transforms and similar, which do not account for repetitiveness in the same (rather crude, but lossless) way that L-Z compression does. Movement between key frames is _predicted_, not fully encoded, frame-by-frame with MPEG compression. In short, there are a number of reasons why L-Z compression is not applied to BluRay movies and hence why no movie compression on BluRay is truly lossless.


Looking at moving picture pixels microscopically (as the Cine4Home people did with _uncompressed_ static images) gives about the same level of pictorial quality whether it is stretched or unstretched vertically. The extra little bit of compression, after the main compression from 800 gig down to 20 gig - makes no discernable difference.


Which is why I say your second question is "moot", i.e. beside the point. You ask a theoretical question that has little basis in reality.


Compressing a screen of 1x1 pixel checkerboard pixels in Photoshop (I just did the experiment) occupies 354 kBytes of disk space. Let's say this is one frame. Let's also assume that Photoshop overheads (file headers etc.) multiply the disk space by two. That would make a single frame 167 kBytes. Multiplying this out to fill an entire 2 hour movie length disk (although I shudder at a 2 hour-long test pattern) brings our data to about 60 gigabytes, still requiring a 3:1 compression. And that's if the _entire_ movie was a static test pattern, which it is absolutely NOT. It would still have to be MPEG compressed to fit into the available space, thus losing definition.


A moving picture with extensive grain and moving low frequency artefacts would be hopelessly compromised with L-Z compression, or rather the 20 gigabyte disk space available on BluRay would be.


Hence, your question is still moot.


The basic reality is this: the limitation when using anamorphics is not whether the v-stretch process causes any discernable loss in a real-life moving picture scenario. It doesn't. The issue is how good the glass is. The Cine4Home guys made some good points there, with their observations on color problems at the edges and so on, and I never said they didn't.


It was their unsurprising conclusion that the comparison between an unprocessed and a processed static image showed up the pitfalls of processing _any and every_ image (and therefore of using an anamorphic lens) that rankled me. When the whole basis of BluRay movie is extremely high compression, any extra loss introduced by stretching the image by an extra 33% would be the least of the anamorphic lens user's problems.


Criticise the glass, not the process leading up to the glass.


----------



## Drexler




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/15046476
> 
> 
> Even if - and that's a bif "if" - the black bars are compressed at optimum compression, we still have about 45:1(as opposed to 54:1) compression for the rest of the picture. It doesn't change my calculations materially. You're still trying to fit over 800 gigabytes in 20 gigabytes.
> 
> 
> Which is why I say your second question is "moot", i.e. beside the point.



What I meant to say was that your comparison of 54:1 or 45:1 isn't really meaning much. You can compress your 800 gb of data further without loosing information. What you really should compare is the space required for lossless data compared to BD space, not totally uncompressed data compared to BD. They are not the same thing. P.S. I'm not saying that BD is lossless, just that it's not as lossy as you seem to claim.


What really matters though is how much detail is shown on the screen in the real world. Do you mean to say there are no detail at the pixel level on blueray? It's just all compression artefacts at this level? Maybe you can't see any difference then between 720p and 1080p displayed on a 1080p device since there are no fine details anyway?


I am not saying scaling will cause huge effects on the picture, but there is a reason why key stoning isn't recommendend by most HT-people...


----------



## Aussie Bob

This (I'm sure you will all say "Halleujah!") is positively my last comment on this thread.


The detail "at the pixel level" on BluRay is an _approximation_ of the real image, as it presents on the original reel of film. Seated at a natural distance from the screen, it looks pretty convincing. But it is still an approximation of reality.


I never said (you are putting words into my mouth if you think I did) that there is "no detaill" at the pixel level of a BluRay disk. But there are "pixels" and there are "pixels". There are _original_ pixels as the film is scanned. Then there are _processing_ pixels as the film is put through various filters (sharpening, gamma increase, de-noising etc.) on its way to disk as it is being scanned. Then there are _yet more_ pixels due to heavy compression - be it 54:1 or 45:1, it's still a lot of compression - as the film is finally laid down into a form that can be pressed onto a BluRay disk.


After that there is a whole _other_ set of pixels involved in the decoding of the heavily compressed and processed data, including _predictive_ pixels (a nice of way saying the computer chips "made up the stuff in-between key frames"). Finally there are _projector_ pixels... some projectors are better than others.


In short, there are many, _many_ variables, many, _many_ different forms of pixels, between the original image on film and the final image on your screen, with or without an anamorphic lens.


A little bit of extra processing - yes, even digital keystoning processing - is not going to make one whit of discernable difference to the final image, given a natural seating distance. I know this might sound like heresy, but it's true: the image - between film and eventual screen - goes through so much compression and processing that a little bit more doesn't matter a hill of beans. Even at 1:1 (no keystoning) the image is not - in the Cine4Home "German" sense of the word - anything like the original, if you look at it with a powerful enough microscope.


Go ahead, laugh at my naive belief that keystone compensation, v-stretching, gamma compensation, color timing and so on inside the projector doesn't matter very much, if anything at all... but it doesn't. You couldn't tell the difference, and you're fooling youself if you think you can.


And with that final comment (much, I am sure, to the relief of fellow Forum members) I bid "goodbye" to this thread.


Whatever convincing argument you come up with, I won't answer it. Not because I don't have an answer, but because I just can't be bothered participating in this wretched argument any longer. For all my lens design expertise and understanding of the technology involved, I just like watching movies and enjoying myself. That's the most important thing to me, by _far_.


I'm sure Art, someone with all the gear to drool over, but first and foremost a film fan, who (I suspect) likes nothing better than to put on an old black-and-white 4:3 classic and laugh or cry his head off at it, would agree with me.


----------



## Cine4Home

Maybe we can put this scaling issue by side for the moment and just concentrate on the question: What advantages can a "mid class" anamorphic lens like the Schneider Cine Digitar for example add to the picture quality of the PT-AE3000, which are worth to take the compromises it brings?


Regards,

Ekki


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cine4Home* /forum/post/15046823
> 
> 
> Maybe we can put this scaling issue by side for the moment and just concentrate on the question: What advantages can a "mid class" anamorphic lens like the Schneider Cine Digitar for example add to the picture quality of the PT-AE3000, which are worth to take the compromises it brings?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Ekki



Now what qualifies you to state it brings a compromise?

Anamorphic lenses like the Schnieder have fully adjustable optics, so they can be set to be totally infocus from corner to corner. If the image seems soft once dialed in, that would be an effect of the Panny's "smoothscreen".


The key reason you wouldn't put a lens like Schnieder infront of the Panny is that the lens costs more than the projector...


Mark


----------



## Cine4Home




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/15046993
> 
> 
> Now what qualifies you to state it brings a compromise?
> 
> Anamorphic lenses like the Schnieder have fully adjustable optics, so they can be set to be totally infocus from corner to corner. If the image seems soft, that would be an effect of the Panny's "smoothscreen"...
> 
> 
> Mark




We wrote this in our article. Sharpness was not an issue, but the color-shift at the far edges / corners. This could not be eliminated completely...


Regards,

Ekki


----------



## syncguy

Is it higher pixel density and smaller pixels in the centre versus colour shift at the far corners?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cine4Home* /forum/post/15047025
> 
> 
> We wrote this in our article. Sharpness was not an issue, but the color-shift at the far edges / corners. This could not be eliminated completely...
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Ekki



Thank you for that. However it does not mean that the lens is at fault, as it could be problem with the projectors lens. I did a test of a high end anamorphic lens back in June, and some people commented on CA that could be seen in my photos - the truth is, the CA was from the BenQ W5000's lens, not the anamorphic lens adding this to the image as it (and I should have documented this) was still present when the anamorphic lens was removed - just more obvious due to the anamorphic 1.33x optical stretch. Testing the same lens at the same throw on a SONY WV60 showed no CA. This lens was cylindrical like the Schnieder, and it didn't seem to add any colour shift to the images...


Mark


----------



## ilsiu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/15047271
> 
> 
> Thank you for that. However it does not mean that the lens is at fault, as it could be problem with the projectors lens. I did a test of a high end anamorphic lens back in June, and some people commented on CA that could be seen in my photos - the truth is, the CA was from the BenQ W5000's lens, not the anamorphic lens adding this to the image as it (and I should have documented this) was still present when the anamorphic lens was removed - *just more obvious due to the anamorphic 1.33x optical stretch.* Testing the same lens at the same throw on a SONY WV60 showed no CA. This lens was cylindrical like the Schnieder, and it didn't seem to add any colour shift to the images...
> 
> 
> Mark



I think that's a good point. If you're starting with a projector that's has some CA and misconvergence to start with, any lens (even the almighty ISCO) will make it more apparent (mostly at the edges) due to the magnification.


If your projector has very little CA/misconvergence, the a good lens (5-element prism or cylindrical) won't introduce any (see Anssi's post in the other thread).


Edit - upon further review, I'll have to back track a bit. Assuming the lens doesn't have CA, then the magnification of the projector's intrinsic CA via lens shouldn't be any worse than simply zooming to the same size. As was pointed out by Pocoloco and Ekkehart, this wasn't the case in the Cine4Home comparison, as the Schneider lens introduced *additional* CA beyond the intrinsic CA of the projector.


----------



## pocoloco




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/15047271
> 
> 
> Thank you for that. However it does not mean that the lens is at fault, as it could be problem with the projectors lens. I did a test of a high end anamorphic lens back in June, and some people commented on CA that could be seen in my photos - the truth is, the CA was from the BenQ W5000's lens, not the anamorphic lens adding this to the image as it (and I should have documented this) was still present when the anamorphic lens was removed - just more obvious due to the anamorphic 1.33x optical stretch. Testing the same lens at the same throw on a SONY WV60 showed no CA. This lens was cylindrical like the Schnieder, and it didn't seem to add any colour shift to the images...
> 
> 
> Mark



CAVX, did you even read the report? It clearly show zooming vs. lens screenshots and the lens definitely causes/exacerbates CA in the edges and corners.


----------



## pocoloco

Yes, projectors have their own level of CA, but to say that CA is not the fault of the lens in the examples we talk about is ridiculous.


Here's a good example of bad vs. good CA on lenses from prismasonic.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post15046951


----------



## Cine4Home




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pocoloco* /forum/post/15047459
> 
> 
> CAVX, did you even read the report? It clearly show zooming vs. lens screenshots and the lens definitely causes/exacerbates CA in the edges and corners.




Yes, we showed the same exact area without the Schneider optics but at the same zoom level. So the scale is the same.


Result: The PT-AE3000 showed no blue CA whatsoever without lens, so it was not a "magnification". The blue CA came from the anamorphic lens, fullstop. And only the far outer edges and corners were affected.


Afterall it is not a huge issue (as the other artefacts neither), so back to my question: What advantage does such a lens give the Panasonic PT-AE3000 in order to take the "small" compromises like CA, Scaling, barrel, cost, installation hassle?


Regards,

Ekki


----------



## GoCaboNow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cine4Home* /forum/post/15046823
> 
> 
> Maybe we can put this scaling issue by side for the moment and just concentrate on the question: What advantages can a "mid class" anamorphic lens like the Schneider Cine Digitar for example add to the picture quality of the PT-AE3000, which are worth to take the compromises it brings?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Ekki



That is the question. I would like to do a 60" high scope screen which runs about 60 sq ft and 12' wide, using a good "mid class" PJ that gives 600-700 calibrated lumens. Any conjecture on image quality comparing a zoom method or using a lens fo rthis setup? Total light control and high power screen.


----------



## taffman

I think CINE4HOME has definately made the case that, at least for the Panasonic 3000, an A-lens is not going to do anything to improve PQ. The defensive posture of some of the A-lens proponents on this thread and others, that CA and scaling artifacts are a non-issue with A-lenses, despite fairly convincing data by CINE4HOME to the contrary , says to me that they just cannot accept that zooming can do just as well as an A-lens under the vast majority of HT situations. Maybe if I had spent a small fortune on a lens I would feel the same way.

Anyway, I have now decided that for my particular HT set up (114 ins wide 2.35 screen) zooming is just fine, and I have no plans to ' upgrade' (if that is the right word) to an A-lens. For me, the cost / questionable benefit ratio is so high as to not be worthy of further consideration. There is no A-lens in my future, unless true anamorphic 16:9 2.35 DVD's are ever issued.

Next step: Panasonic AE3000.


----------



## Person99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/15046615
> 
> 
> This (I'm sure you will all say "Halleujah!") is positively my last comment on this thread.



Well, I appreciate the participation. I think there is a two-fold problem here:

1) I don't think everyone reading really understands what you are saying and,

2) "Enthusiast" type sites like this one tend to be focused more on the theoretical/ideal cases rather than the real world/practical case which you are trying to elucidate.


I've found that among home theater enthusiasts, attempts to introduce practical and pragmatic points into a discussion are met with derision. I was certainly guilty of it, perhaps my epiphany that an approach tempered with scientific facts, real world approaches, etc. has led to my decreased participation on forums.


About the Cine4Home review and any other reviews for that matter comparing two options such as a zoomed vs. anamorphic. These must be taken with HUGE and MANY grains of salt. All of these reviewers consistently fail to do the single most useful real world test: a double blind comparison using actual program material.


It would be interesting to do a double-blind comparison of zooming vs. anamorphic. Although my pocketbook tends to like zooming, I fear anamorphic would win with real world content for many of the reasons Bob has stated including the fact that the loss of detail in movie content will be imperceptible if actually watching a movie (and not looking for detail loss), however the increase in brightness and decreased pixel visibility (as pointed out by Art) will be more obvious.


----------



## syncguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pocoloco* /forum/post/15047459
> 
> 
> CAVX, did you even read the report? It clearly show zooming vs. lens screenshots and the lens definitely causes/exacerbates CA in the edges and corners.



Of course any A-lens would exacerbate CA if it was present in the original image. This is expected as the lens stretches CA by about 33%. This is not a fault of the lens. If there is no CA to start with, there is nothing to exacerbate. If the lens causes CA it is a different matter. So it is important to find out whether the lens exacerbates or causes CA.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/15051935
> 
> 
> Anyway, I have now decided that for my particular HT set up (114 ins wide 2.35 screen) zooming is just fine, and I have no plans to ' upgrade' (if that is the right word) to an A-lens.



Come on, you are a zooming proponent. You had made that decision prior to this article.


Art


----------



## Bytehoven

May I just comment regarding CA and the anamorphic lens... this is yet another reason I wish manufacturers would implement better convergence controls on our digital projectors.


If there were the range of convergence controls available like we used to see on our CRT projectors, we could dial out some or all of the CA artifacts as well as affect changes on geometery.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/15051935
> 
> 
> Maybe if I had spent a small fortune on a lens I would feel the same way.



I thought you posted some time back you did (Prismasonic FE1500), but couldn't make it work with your projector due to a mounting issue, so you decided to zoom instead...


Mark


----------



## taffman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/15052424
> 
> 
> I thought you posted some time back you did (Prismasonic FE1500), but couldn't make it work with your projector due to a mounting issue, so you decided to zoom instead...
> 
> 
> Mark



Not me Mark - I have never owned a VP anamorphic lens. The only A-lens that I posess is an Isco 2X lens that I use for film projection, and as I have said before it definately reduces sharpness and contrast when projecting Cinemascope anamorphic film. I figure if an Isco A-lens has this effect on film, its video counterpart may possibly have similar effects with video projectors, which is why I am so questioning of some of the A-lens hype. Maybe if Art would lend me his Isco 3 for a few days, it would put my fears to rest!

I have never used this lens in front of my video projector because a) the aperture of the lens would be way to small and b) its the wrong expansion ratio for 16:9 anyway.


----------



## ilsiu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Person99* /forum/post/15052069
> 
> 
> Well, I appreciate the participation. I think there is a two-fold problem here:
> 
> 1) I don't think everyone reading really understands what you are saying and,
> 
> 2) "Enthusiast" type sites like this one tend to be focused more on the theoretical/ideal cases rather than the real world/practical case which you are trying to elucidate.




I found Aussie Bob's post to have useful information too, but the problem is three-fold. Statements like these:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/15026654
> 
> 
> ..this not-so-startling observation from the German HT-droids at Cine4Home, who clearly spend FAR too much time being, well, "German", than they do enjoying movies absent buyer's remorse. They should get out of their darkened rooms a LOT more...



do not add any value to the discussion. All they do is distract from the discussion and turn into a snappy comeback contest.



> Quote:
> I've found that among home theater enthusiasts, attempts to introduce practical and pragmatic points into a discussion are met with derision. I was certainly guilty of it, perhaps my epiphany that an approach tempered with scientific facts, real world approaches, etc. has led to my decreased participation on forums.



I think you were implying that Aussie Bob's 'practical and pragmatic points' were 'met with derision.' I think it's very valid to say that Cine4Home's pragmatic points were met with Aussie Bob's derision.




> Quote:
> About the Cine4Home review and any other reviews for that matter comparing two options such as a zoomed vs. anamorphic. These must be taken with HUGE and MANY grains of salt. All of these reviewers consistently fail to do the single most useful real world test: a double blind comparison using actual program material.
> 
> 
> It would be interesting to do a double-blind comparison of zooming vs. anamorphic. Although my pocketbook tends to like zooming, I fear anamorphic would win with real world content for many of the reasons Bob has stated including the fact that the loss of detail in movie content will be imperceptible if actually watching a movie (and not looking for detail loss), however the increase in brightness and decreased pixel visibility (as pointed out by Art) will be more obvious.



I think what's lost is that Cine4Home took a very detailed look at a very specific comparison, but they don't claim that the conclusions reached are universal to all situations. So they can run double blind comparisons, but that won't be able to settle the question of zooming vs lens, because there is no single answer that fits all situations.


Besides, it's hard to do a double blind test for this. If you can see the pixels, then you know which is zooming and which is lens (square vs rectangular pixels). But if you sit far enough away to be unable to resolve the pixels, then you defeat one of the main advantages of a lens - the ability to sit closer.


----------



## ilsiu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *syncguy* /forum/post/15052334
> 
> 
> Of course any A-lens would exacerbate CA if it was present in the original image. This is expected as the lens stretches CA by about 33%. This is not a fault of the lens. If there is no CA to start with, there is nothing to exacerbate. *If the lens causes CA it is a different matter. So it is important to find out whether the lens exacerbates or causes CA*.



I think his point was that the lens created CA that wasn't in the zoomed image. See post #122 in this thread.


----------



## redcar54




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/15033287
> 
> 
> Human visual acuity is a complex thing. It's special to humans. My dogs, for example, can't see the colors on my screen. The continuous 24 fps movie image to them looks like a stroboscope. They can't see a thing that makes sense to them, as dogs. One of my cats occasionally paws at a bird on the TV, but mostly he just ignores it. Red, green and blue are good as primary colors for humans, but lousy for other species. Our vision is a compromise between sharpness, evolutionary inheritance and God knows what else.
> 
> P.S. It doesn't work with dogs



Well Bob you are wrong on one statement with the dogs and watching movies. Every time on put on Departed and my Jack Russell Terrier, Rascal sees the rat at the end of the movie he goes after it! He chases it to the end of the screen and goes crazy looking for it in the curtains! Rascal also went after a chicken in another movie, so the proof is here at my house. My Shepherd, Beauty things he is crazy, but she does watch movies and gives bewildered looks at the screen and me sometimes!


PS, I have the glass, Panamorph U380 lens sitting in box for a 9 months, and yes I'm going to use it. Wondering if I should upgrade to the 480, or if I can still send it in for 440 upgrade? Thinking about getting the 3000 and waiting for reviews on Epson products, using Sony HS20 now. Also want to go curved screen, 120 wide 2.35 CIH.


Jim


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *redcar54* /forum/post/15053470
> 
> 
> Wondering if I should upgrade to the 480, or if I can still send it in for 440 upgrade?



I believe that there was a small window of time which has passed for the UH440 upgrade, but it wouldn't hurt to e-mail Shawn at Panamorph and ask the question. From what I've read the 440/480 is a rather significant improvement over the 380 in both light passthru and increase in contrast/reduction in retroreflections, although I've never pulled my 440 out of the box to check.


----------



## syncguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *redcar54* /forum/post/15053470
> 
> 
> ........
> 
> PS, I have the glass, Panamorph U380 lens sitting in box for a 9 months, and yes I'm going to use it. Wondering if I should upgrade to the 480, or if I can still send it in for 440 upgrade? Thinking about getting the 3000 and waiting for reviews on Epson products, using Sony HS20 now. Also want to go curved screen, 120 wide 2.35 CIH.
> 
> 
> Jim



Upgrade if you could. Based on what I could see, UH480 is a significant improvement to UH380. It is sharper, higher contrast, brighter and also lacking slight colour-cast (i.e. it is clearer) that I could see with UH380.


----------



## madshi

@Ekki, which throw were you using with the Schneider lense? The Schneider lense is not as big as the ISCO III, so anyone who plans to use the Schneider lense should better use a long throw setup. Did you?


I have 3 things to say about scaling:


(1) Many of you guys seem to think that scaling to a higher physical resolution is inherently bad. Sorry guys, but you're flat out wrong. I suggest reading this thread where Dale Adams (DVDO/ABT) has commented on this topic:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1083768 


Now whether upscaling by a factor of 1.33x is a good idea is another topic and I'm not sure about that myself. Maybe 1.33x is too low a factor...


(2) Judging loss of image detail/sharpness by looking at scaled test patterns doesn't make much sense. See Nyquist frequency, explained by stanger89 in this post:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...7#post15023117 


(3) Using the VP50 as the external scaler of choice doesn't make much sense, either, cause the VP50 has the worst scaling algorithm of all modern video processing chips available. Even a Lumagen HDP (which is cheaper than the VP50) easily beats it in scaling quality. Or most devices with a Reon chip inside. The VP50 is a good deinterlacer, but not such a good scaler. Now I don't know whether the difference in scaling quality is big enough to make an obvious image quality difference. Maybe not. Especially not on scaling test patterns (see (2)).


But I have to say that I'm asking myself whether an external lense is worth it. For me probably not. Should I choose to buy the AE3000 I'd definitely use the zoom method and not buy an additional lense. And I strongly hope that all other projector manufacturers copy Panasonic's CIH functionality to their next projector models.


But still I think a fair comparison between zooming and an anamorphic lense should (1) use a long throw setup for the anamorphic lense, (2) not judge image quality based on test patterns and (3) not use an inferior scaling algorithm for vertical stretching.


----------



## Cine4Home




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *madshi* /forum/post/15054376
> 
> 
> @Ekki, which throw were you using with the Schneider lense? The Schneider lense is not as big as the ISCO III, so anyone who plans to use the Schneider lense should better use a long throw setup. Did you?





Hi there. Well we actually wrote that in our article: When you use the maximun screen size, the picture doe snot fit through the Schneider anymore. Therefore, we used a zoom which fit well thru the optics. This is why only 15% of more light was possible.


If we chose a setup with even longer throw, even the last advantage of the Anamorphic optic, more light, would have been eliminated. This is by the way a factor, many forget: If you go to a longer throw with your anamorph-optics than without, you will lose your light benefit by a big margin or even completely. For maximum light power, you have to get as close to the screen with most projectors.


Regards,

Ekki


----------



## madshi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cine4Home* /forum/post/15054537
> 
> 
> Hi there. Well we actually wrote that in our article: When you use the maximun screen size, the picture doe snot fit through the Schneider anymore. Therefore, we used a zoom which fit well thru the optics. This is why only 15% of more light was possible.



Thanks Ekki,


read your article twice, but somehow I missed that.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cine4Home* /forum/post/15054537
> 
> 
> If we chose a setup with even longer throw, even the last advantage of the Anamorphic optic, more light, would have been eliminated. This is by the way a factor, many forget: If you go to a longer throw with your anamorph-optics than without, you will lose your light benefit by a big margin or even completely. For maximum light power, you have to get as close to the screen with most projectors.



That makes sense. Although, of course, if you go long throw, usually you get more on/off contrast. So although you lose light output you do gain something in return.


So if I put all the pieces of the puzzle together I guess it all plays out like this for me now:


(a) For budget consumers, an anamorphic lense is normally not such a good idea. The AE3000 with its new CIH functionality fits the bill perfectly here.

(b) For consumers where money is no object, going with the best of the best (e.g. ISCO III), an anamorphic lense might still be an option, depending on the exact circumstances...


I guess I'm more in the (a) group.


----------



## Cine4Home

Ok guys, let me get a bit provocative here:


I asked a simple question about four times: What benefit can a middle class anamorphic lens like the Schneider add to the picture quality of the PT-AE3000 in order to take its several (little) compromises?


No one really answered that question. Instead we keep discussing how big or small the impact of each of the little compromises is.


Do I have to conclude that there is no real benefit for the AE3000? If so, we do not have to keep discussing. Without benefit, there is no need for the anamorphic lens. As easy as that. But if there is any benefit, we should discuss it first.











Regards,

Ekki


----------



## Cine4Home




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *madshi* /forum/post/15054583
> 
> 
> Thanks Ekki,
> 
> 
> read your article twice, but somehow I missed that.
> 
> 
> 
> That makes sense. Although, of course, if you go long throw, usually you get more on/off contrast. So although you lose light output you do gain something in return.



Ok, you could put it this way: You can get a higher contrast at the same light level. True... especially as the Schneider did have no ANSI loss in our setup.


Well see, I put up now the *first Pro-anamorphic* argument for the AE3000. And one in addition, most did not expect. Funny that I had to do this and not all the A-lens supporters.











Regards,

Ekki


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/15053321
> 
> 
> I think what's lost is that Cine4Home took a very detailed look at a very specific comparison, but they don't claim that the conclusions reached are universal to all situations. So they can run double blind comparisons, but that won't be able to settle the question of zooming vs lens, because there is no single answer that fits all situations.



Unfortunately some are trying to use it as universal proof that lenses are bad/unecessary.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *madshi* /forum/post/15054376
> 
> 
> Now whether upscaling by a factor of 1.33x is a good idea is another topic and I'm not sure about that myself. Maybe 1.33x is too low a factor...



It really shouldn't be with properly sampled data.[/quote]



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cine4Home* /forum/post/15054537
> 
> 
> Hi there. Well we actually wrote that in our article: When you use the maximun screen size, the picture doe snot fit through the Schneider anymore. Therefore, we used a zoom which fit well thru the optics. This is why only 15% of more light was possible.
> 
> 
> If we chose a setup with even longer throw, even the last advantage of the Anamorphic optic, more light, would have been eliminated. This is by the way a factor, many forget: If you go to a longer throw with your anamorph-optics than without, you will lose your light benefit by a big margin or even completely. For maximum light power, you have to get as close to the screen with most projectors.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Ekki



I really think that the way you did this comparison, max zoom, to "max zoom that will fit" is not really a fair, or real-world comparison. Or at the very least, isn't a complete comparison without doing at least one more test. With the projector at min zoom (long throw) through the lens vs zoomed to the same width.


I think this would be closer to a real-world setup, that being someone using a lens would both pick a lens that works at the desired throw, and place the projector at a throw so as to minimize artifacts. Your comparison placed the projector at a throw so as to maximize artifacts. And in general, I'd say you usually want your projector at the longest throw practical in your setup so as to maximize contrast.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cine4Home* /forum/post/15054600
> 
> 
> Ok guys, let me get a bit provocative here:
> 
> 
> I asked a simple question about four times: What benefit can a middle class anamorphic lens like the Schneider add to the picture quality of the PT-AE3000 in order to take its several (little) compromises?



Same as for any other projector, fill factor and brightness. But to answer your real question, no I don't think a lens would be a significant benefit to an AE-3000 setup.



> Quote:
> No one really answered that question. Instead we keep discussing how big or small the impact of each of the little compromises is.



I think I've answered it a few times.



> Quote:
> Do I have to conclude that there is no real benefit for the AE3000? If so, we do not have to keep discussing. Without benefit, there is no need for the anamorphic lens. As easy as that. But if there is any benefit, we should discuss it first.



If you've still got the projector and lens, I'd try the comparison again at max throw, and then compare the lens vs zooming to achieve the 2.35:1 width. Or at the very least, try a throw (for both) that's at least greater than the recommended minimum throw, eg (if my math is right) 1.8x for an AE1000 (so presumably the AE3000 as well):
http://www.schneideroptics.com/proje...ater/chart.htm


----------



## madshi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cine4Home* /forum/post/15054600
> 
> 
> I asked a simple question about four times: What benefit can a middle class anamorphic lens like the Schneider add to the picture quality of the PT-AE3000 in order to take its several (little) compromises?
> 
> 
> No one really answered that question. Instead we keep discussing how big or small the impact of each of the little compromises is.



Ok, let me try. Benefits of the Schneider with the AE3000 would be:


(1) You gain either some more lumens or you gain some more on/off contrast or you gain a tiny bit more lumens + a tiny bit more on/off contrast, depending on the throw ratio you're using.

(2) You get slightly reduced SDE.


That's it, as far I can see. And you buy the advantages with some disadvantages - and with a lot more $$$. Personally, I don't consider the Schneider lense to be an attractive option with the AE3000. So although I'm not 100% happy with all aspects of your article (mentioned before), I certainly agree with the conclusion and the bigger picture of your article.


I preserve judgement about e.g. RS20 + ISCO III, though. That might still be an attractive combination...


----------



## Drexler

It would be very interesting to see a comparison of a really good projector with and without a really good a-lens. Light output, contrast, test patterns, screen shot comparisons of movie material, max distance for pixel visibility etc.










For me, the main benefit with an a-lens must be the flexibility. Without it many projectors are not able to do CIH at all, since the zoom range is simply not big enough.







Even with the AE3000 there could be an increased flexibility in projector placement, if the image size on the lens is not a big limitation?


Another benefit is that you get rid of the black bars, which might be visible on the wall if it has a light colour.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cine4Home* /forum/post/15054600
> 
> 
> Ok guys, let me get a bit provocative here:
> 
> 
> I asked a simple question about four times: What benefit can a middle class anamorphic lens like the Schneider add to the picture quality of the PT-AE3000 in order to take its several (little) compromises?
> 
> 
> No one really answered that question. Instead we keep discussing how big or small the impact of each of the little compromises is.
> 
> 
> Do I have to conclude that there is no real benefit for the AE3000? If so, we do not have to keep discussing. Without benefit, there is no need for the anamorphic lens. As easy as that. But if there is any benefit, we should discuss it first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Ekki



This has taken on a life of it's own ,irrespective of the original topic, I'm afraid.


Art


----------



## pocoloco




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *syncguy* /forum/post/15052334
> 
> 
> Of course any A-lens would exacerbate CA if it was present in the original image. This is expected as the lens stretches CA by about 33%. This is not a fault of the lens. If there is no CA to start with, there is nothing to exacerbate. If the lens causes CA it is a different matter. So it is important to find out whether the lens exacerbates or causes CA.



If we are to follow your logic, green and red would also stretch by the same margin as blue. But it doesn't and that's exactly what CA is... it's the non-uniform bending of light. In scientific terms, the lens refracts different wavelengths of light differently.


So by "exacerbate" or "cause", I do not mean the lens simply magnifys the existing CA in a uniform manner and thereby making it more obvious to the naked eye. Instead, I'm saying that different wavelengths of light are getting stretched differently. Just look at the images in the report.


I think it's quite funny that we're even debating this point as this is a well established fact.


Lens-lovers, you should actually be thrilled with this report!!! It stated that the lens had no decrease in ANSI contrast and had great focus and sharpness. Those are the biggest negatives against lenses which got debunked.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pocoloco* /forum/post/15055660
> 
> 
> Lens-lovers, you should actually be thrilled with this report!!! It stated that the lens had no decrease in ANSI contrast and had great focus and sharpness. Those are the two biggest negatives against lenses which got debunked.



Where is Cineramax ?










Art


----------



## madshi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pocoloco* /forum/post/15055660
> 
> 
> Lens-lovers, you should actually be thrilled with this report!!! It stated that the lens had no decrease in ANSI contrast and had great focus and sharpness. Those are the biggest negatives against lenses which got debunked.



Yes, but the article also reports about visible chromatic abberations which reduce sharpness in the edges of the screen. That is not what I expected and it makes me concerned. Although it might eventually be caused by a too short throw. It might also not occur with an ISCO III.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *madshi* /forum/post/15055746
> 
> 
> Yes, but the article also reports about visible chromatic abberations which reduce sharpness in the edges of the screen. That is not what I expected and it makes me concerned. Although it might eventually be caused by a too short throw. It might also not occur with an ISCO III.



CA occurs with any lens and exists even with the primary but with the ISCOIII it is extremely small, equivalent to about 1/4 pixel width in my set up.


Art


----------



## pocoloco




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *madshi* /forum/post/15055746
> 
> 
> Yes, but the article also reports about visible chromatic abberations which reduce sharpness in the edges of the screen. That is not what I expected and it makes me concerned. Although it might eventually be caused by a too short throw. It might also not occur with an ISCO III.



I don't think you need to be too worried as CA will always vary by the size of the lens and throw distance. The schneider aperture is actually pretty small, approx


----------



## GoCaboNow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *madshi* /forum/post/15054376
> 
> 
> @Ekki, But still I think a fair comparison between zooming and an anamorphic lense should (1) use a long throw setup for the anamorphic lense, (.



What qualifies as a "long throw"? 1.8, 2.0...?


----------



## ilsiu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *madshi* /forum/post/15054376
> 
> 
> (3) Using the VP50 as the external scaler of choice doesn't make much sense, either, cause the VP50 has the worst scaling algorithm of all modern video processing chips available. Even a Lumagen HDP (which is cheaper than the VP50) easily beats it in scaling quality. Or most devices with a Reon chip inside. The VP50 is a good deinterlacer, but not such a good scaler. Now I don't know whether the difference in scaling quality is big enough to make an obvious image quality difference. Maybe not. Especially not on scaling test patterns (see (2)).



I think the choice of scalar was fine - the VP50 is a very popular unit that many people already have, so it represents a 'typical' VP as well as any other unit.


The only thing I would think that more people would do is the use the projector's built in v-scale feature and forgo buying an external VP. Does the VP50 underperform this as well?


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *madshi* /forum/post/15055746
> 
> 
> Yes, but the article also reports about visible chromatic abberations which reduce sharpness in the edges of the screen. That is not what I expected and it makes me concerned. Although it might eventually be caused by a too short throw. It might also not occur with an ISCO III.



But I think if you look at the setup it's not a surprise. The way I understand the article, Cine4Home moved the projector back just far enough so that the picture would fit through the Schneider.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GoCaboNow* /forum/post/15056112
> 
> 
> What qualifies as a "long throw"? 1.8, 2.0...?



By my math, >1.8x according to Schneider for the AE1000 (and thus presumably the AE3000 too).


----------



## madshi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/15056206
> 
> 
> I think the choice of scalar was fine - the VP50 is a very popular unit that many people already have, so it represents a 'typical' VP as well as any other unit.
> 
> 
> The only thing I would think that more people would do is the use the projector's built in v-scale feature and forgo buying an external VP. Does the VP50 underperform this as well?



As far as I know, the Reon and Gennum chips used in many newer projectors have superior scaling quality compared to the VP50. Best in class should be Lumagen. But to be honest I don't know how big the differences really are. Also I don't know how good the AE3000's scaling quality is...


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/15051935
> 
> 
> I think CINE4HOME has definately made the case that, at least for the Panasonic 3000, an A-lens is not going to do anything to improve PQ. The defensive posture of some of the A-lens proponents on this thread and others, that CA and scaling artifacts are a non-issue with A-lenses, despite fairly convincing data by CINE4HOME to the contrary , says to me that they just cannot accept that zooming can do just as well as an A-lens under the vast majority of HT situations. Maybe if I had spent a small fortune on a lens I would feel the same way.



Some of us actually compared zooming vs using an A lens before buying anything, and then taking into account the pros and cons of each method still found the best method (for us and our particular situation) was to use an A lens. YMMV but you'll find your own hands on experiences with the various methods will give you a better idea of what works best for you than reading about other peoples experiences and set ups since you're not seeing what they're seeing. It's not always a black or white situation either, as one persons set up may suit zooming better than another persons set up that may better suit using an A lens.


Gary


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/15054752
> 
> 
> Same as for any other projector, fill factor and brightness. But to answer your real question, no I don't think a lens would be a significant benefit to an AE-3000 setup.



I think I'd agree with Stanger on this, going on just what has been written in their report, but it shouldn't be used as a means to dismiss using an A lens with another projector (without getting a demo first of course).


I wonder if what Vern Dias has seen and measured on a Panasonic Ae2000 with Smoothscreen, allows zooming to be less of an issue than it may be on non Smoothscreen pjs? The drawback of course is that it's not reversible. Do 1080 pjs really need a Smoothscreen feature though?


Gary


----------



## 5mark

Now we're getting somewhere. Discussing what setups make the most sense to use a lens with. The Pannys having low pixel visibility and less than stellar sharpness (compared to say DLP) don't seem to be ideal for using a lens. Not to mention that even a mid-priced lens will be more than the projector.










As far as smoothscreen, I used an AE900 for a little while and was impressed with the film-like image, even zoomed to 1x SW. (Too bad the convergence wasn't very good at that viewing distance) On the AE3000, the combination of lens memory and smoothscreen seem to be made for each other, allowing close viewing in a CIH setup.


----------



## Cine4Home




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *5mark* /forum/post/15058063
> 
> 
> Now we're getting somewhere. Discussing what setups make the most sense to use a lens with. The Pannys having low pixel visibility and less than stellar sharpness (compared to say DLP) don't seem to be ideal for using a lens. Not to mention that even a mid-priced lens will be more than the projector.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .




Yes, exactly. We just showed with our article, that the Lens memory / Zoom solution of the AE3000 is not a "poor man's solution" with inferior results, but a worthy method with in some ways even better results. This is all and has nothing to do with the advantages of A-lenses in certain setups.



Yesterday I had a talk with a main distributor of different Anamorphic lenses and prisms. He suggested that we make a comparison article with different solutions / projectors. From cost effective up to Ultra-HighEnd.


I like that idea. We might do it early next year. Any proposals?


Regards,

Ekki


----------



## stanger89

The only thing I would suggest, is make sure you do "apples to apples" comparisons, ie with the projector setup with a throw that's at least as long as recommended by the lens manufacturer, and that you have the projector in the same location for the zoom method.


The other suggestion I would make is to test some "real world" content. You should be able to find some very sharp, very detailed content that should give an indication if there's any real detail loss. Stuff like CG with fine detail like fur or something, or closeups of detailed fabrics.


And one last suggestion, how about a "blind" test between lens and no lens at the same screen size/seating distance.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cine4Home* /forum/post/15054600
> 
> 
> Ok guys, let me get a bit provocative here:
> 
> 
> I asked a simple question about four times: What benefit can a middle class anamorphic lens like the Schneider add to the picture quality of the PT-AE3000 in order to take its several (little) compromises?



What it does is allow the full 1920 x 1080 pixles of the panel to be used for both 16:9 and Scope (assuming the lens is moved out of the light path in this case) and the full 1080 all the time if leaving the lens in place.


Zooming is really simply making a larger 16:9 image, just in this forum where we use a Scope screen and not a HDTV screen, we have to end up shooting the top and bottom of the image off the screen (for zooming) which then gives us about 1920 x 810 pixels on the screen of enlargened pixels. Sure that might be fine for some people, but why exactly would you buy a 1080 projector if your just going to throw 25% of the vertical rez off the screen?


Mark


----------



## John Kotches




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/15060246
> 
> 
> What it does is allow the full 1920 x 1080 pixles of the panel to be used for both 16:9 and Scope (assuming the lens is moved out of the light path in this case) and the full 1080 all the time if leaving the lens in place.
> 
> 
> Zooming is really simply making a larger 16:9 image, just in this forum where we use a Scope screen and not a HDTV screen, we have to end up shooting the top and bottom of the image off the screen (for zooming) which then gives us about 1920 x 810 pixels on the screen of enlargened pixels. Sure that might be fine for some people, but why exactly would you buy a 1080 projector if your just going to throw 25% of the vertical rez off the screen?
> 
> 
> Mark



Lest we forget, you're losing the lumens for using only ~2/3 of the panel and even more lumens for zooming to size.


This will restrict practical screen size.


----------



## Jerrym303

Cine4home,


I would say just the opposite of what stranger said. Compare each with the best setup for that set of equipment, like one would for themselves. Who cares if one is better at some particular throw ratio? All that matters is what each has to offer.


If you want to control for factors like brightness, fine, but artificial restrictions on either setup just to be "the same" don't add any info of practical use.


----------



## taffman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jerrym303* /forum/post/15060814
> 
> 
> Cine4home,
> 
> 
> I would say just the opposite of what stranger said. Compare each with the best setup for that set of equipment, like one would for themselves. Who cares if one is better at some particular throw ratio? All that matters is what each has to offer.
> 
> 
> If you want to control for factors like brightness, fine, but artificial restrictions on either setup just to be "the same" don't add any info of practical use.



I agree. The comparison criteria should be a) same size screen b) same viewing distance. And thats all. Where the projector sits in relation to the screen is irrelevant. Then get an impartial non A/V audience , with no knowledge of this whole zooming versus lens question, of about 10 people and have them vote on the following PQ parameters: Brightness, sharpness, contrast and which picture they liked the best overall.

Publish those results and we may have something really meaningful.


----------



## 5mark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jerrym303* /forum/post/15060814
> 
> 
> I would say just the opposite of what stranger said. Compare each with the best setup for that set of equipment, like one would for themselves. Who cares if one is better at some particular throw ratio? All that matters is what each has to offer.



Agreed. It should be about comparing the maximum potential performance for both methods. If someone was going to design a setup for use with the zoom method, they would likely mount the projector at minimum throw to maximize brightness. Just like deciding to use a long throw with a lens based system for best geometry. If you really wanted to maximize potential you could even use different seating distances for each method (sitting a little closer using a lens)


----------



## pocoloco

I would really love to see a comparison article.


Theoretically, there are a huge number of variables (sure i'm missing some):

- pj technolgy (LCD, DLP, LCOS)

- pj resolution (720, 1080)

- pj brightness

- pj throw distance

- pj mount configuration/offset

- Lens type (prism, cylindrical)

- Viewing Distance

- Screen size

- participants eye sight


It would be a logistical and resourcing nightmare to factor in all these variables.


So practically speaking I would like to see a test with the following variables:

- pj technolgy (DLP, LCOS)

- pj resolution (1080)

- pj throw distance (short & long)

- pj mount configuration (ceiling, lens aligned to top/bottom edge of screen)

- Lens type (UH480 & ISCO 3)

- Viewing Distance (1.4x and 1.8x)

- Screen size (120" diagonal 2.35 screen)


Even with these reduced variables, it becomes rather overwhelming. Nevertheless, here's an example testing protocol that we can maybe use as a starting point and simplify as needed until it can become practical to execute.


The overall objective for this test is to demonstrate:

1. how a prism lens and cylindrical lens differ in performance

2. how different throw distances affect lens performance.

3. how DLP and LCOS performance differs (maybe this variable can be sacrificed for simplicity)


Test scenarios

1. JVC RS20 + zoom (w/ realistic zoom factor)

2. JVC RS20 @ 1.5x throw + UH480

3. JVC RS20 @ 2.1x throw + UH480

4. JVC RS20 @ 1.5x throw + ISCO 3

5. JVC RS20 @ 2.1x throw + ISCO 3

6. Marantz VP-15S1 + zoom (w/ realistic zoom factor)

7. Marantz VP-15S1 @ 1.5x throw + UH480

8. Marantz VP-15S1 @ 2.1x throw + UH480

9. Marantz VP-15S1 @ 1.5x throw + ISCO 3

10. Marantz VP-15S1 @ 2.1x throw + ISCO 3


Test Session one: quantitative measurements across the 10 testing scenarios

Measure the following:

- Contrast

- Focus/Sharpness

- Brightness

- Geometry

- Chromatic Aberration


Test Session two: qualitative evaluation by a test panel watching movie scenes

I'm not sure how to go about this.

- We would need scenes with low, mid, high APL scenes.

- Ideally, we could see the 10 test scenarios x the 2 different viewing distances. I would actually like to see 1.3x, 1.6x, and 1.9x. But practically speaking we may have to simplify this approach.

- In terms of blind testing, I don't think that would be too productive. One can easily identify zoom vs. lens by looking for geometric distortion overscanned onto the screen border or the black bars zoomed off the screen.

- I don't think it's productive to have joe-the-plumber evaluate as almost all of them would say everything would more or less look the same. There differences are not night and day.


----------



## redcar54




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pocoloco* /forum/post/15061143
> 
> 
> I don't think it's productive to have joe-the-plumber evaluate as almost all of them would say everything would more or less look the same. There differences are not night and day.



Why not joe-the-plumber he is already known in political circles, so I'm sure his input would be widely accepted here too










PS guy's thanks for the input on the 380 converison to 440/480 lens, looks like I'm going to try to upgrade my lens even before I use it, was on my mind, so you sort of pushed me over the edge!


Jim


----------



## madshi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cine4Home* /forum/post/15059045
> 
> 
> Yesterday I had a talk with a main distributor of different Anamorphic lenses and prisms. He suggested that we make a comparison article with different solutions / projectors. From cost effective up to Ultra-HighEnd.
> 
> 
> I like that idea. We might do it early next year. Any proposals?



That would be awesome! Here are my suggestions:

*Short/long throw:*


(1) First of all both solutions (zoom method and anamorphic method) should be setup in such a way to maximize image quality - and NOT to maximize artifacts. I think it will be interesting to see how things play out then.


(2) Sometimes you're forced to place the projector at a specific throw due to room geometry/setup. So an additional interesting test would be to check how the two methods compare at the same throw. So I'd suggest to test both projectors at rather short and rather long throw extremes. This test might give us some clues about which setups to avoid. Or about which CIH method is preferable if you're forced to a specific throw. For the rather short throw test it would be interesting to compare a large lense (ISCO III) to a small lense to see how much difference it makes and whether even the ISCO III is still usable at very short throw at all.

*Projector/lense choice:*


(1) Some people may buy an affordable projector and then couple that with an affordable anamorphic lense. So that would be an interesting thing to test.


(2) Some people may buy a top class anamorphic lense, because such a lense usually doesn't get outdated. It's often seen as a one time life long investment. But projectors get outdated so soon that although an expensive lense is used, the projector might still be a budget model.


(3) For some people money is no object. So they'll use the best projectors with the best anamorphic lense.


I'd not test a high end projector with a cheap lense because I don't think that's a very common or reasonable combination...

*Lense comparison:*


Maybe that is outside the scope of such an article, but an independent comparison of the available anamorphic lenses would be interesting. But I think the test is already complex enough as it is. So I think it would probably make sense to only choose one affordable lense and the best lense that money can buy.

*Test material:*


Please calibrate with test patterns, but compare with the best real world material that is available. The reason for that is that scaling algorithms are optimized for real world material and not for test patterns. I'd suggest to test with one animated movie and one filmed movie. You should choose the sharpest, most detailed movies you can find.

*Scaling:*


If you can find a Lumagen video processor, that would clear any doubts about whether the scaling algorithm for the vertical stretch was good enough or not. If useful for you, I'd be willing to borrow you a Lumagen HDP which I'm currently not using in my setup (I'm located in Germany, too, so shipping would be easy). If you're interested, please let me know soon, because otherwise I might sell the Lumagen sooner or later...

*Projector/lense selection:*


Not sure which affordable lense to use. But for the top class lense I'd suggest the ISCO III. Projectors: For the budget model I'd suggest one of the new LCD models. The AE3000 would do fine. For the top class model I'd suggest the JVC HD750. If you think that DLP might show different results, that might be worth a test, too. But honestly I could live without that, since current DLP models are simply not very attractive to me. (Might change with LED fired units, of course).


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Kotches* /forum/post/15060760
> 
> 
> Lest we forget, you're losing the lumens for using only ~2/3 of the panel and even more lumens for zooming to size.
> 
> 
> This will restrict practical screen size.



What do you call "practical" John? When I did my lens tests back in June, I used a 135" wide (150" dia) 2.37:1 screen because I wanted to push limits and the lumanence chart was perfectly on the line using HCFR software with an eye one sensor.


IMO that size screen is above practical in most homes with 120" diagonal being more common. Any brighter, and the image would have been uncomfortable to watch...


Mark


----------



## JeffY




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/15060246
> 
> 
> What it does is allow the full 1920 x 1080 pixles of the panel to be used for both 16:9 and Scope (assuming the lens is moved out of the light path in this case) and the full 1080 all the time if leaving the lens in place.
> 
> 
> Zooming is really simply making a larger 16:9 image, just in this forum where we use a Scope screen and not a HDTV screen, we have to end up shooting the top and bottom of the image off the screen (for zooming) which then gives us about 1920 x 810 pixels on the screen of enlargened pixels. Sure that might be fine for some people, but why exactly would you buy a 1080 projector if your just going to throw 25% of the vertical rez off the screen?
> 
> 
> Mark



Lets be clear, zoom allows you to see the 1080p source 1:1 pixel mapped and exactly as intended. It is no different to watching it on a 16:9 screen, the only thing you get is masking. The only issue I have with zoom is the same reason I have an issue with CIH in general, is that you are taking the lowest resolution source and making it the bigger picture. There are plenty of white papers arguing why commercial cinemas should not do constant width and the main issue again is that it takes the lowest detailed projectable image and makes it the largest projected on the screen.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffY* /forum/post/15062066
> 
> 
> The only issue I have with zoom is the same reason I have an issue with CIH in general, is that you are taking the lowest resolution source and making it the bigger picture.



This was actualy my argument years ago to CIH. In those days there were many doing it with SD sources. At that point this wass too much of a leap for me but with good HD it isn't.


Art


----------



## JeffY

Art, may I ask how you handle the likes of 2001 Space Odyssey and Baraka (both 2.20:1)? Do you crop the picture to fit your scope screen?


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffY* /forum/post/15062066
> 
> 
> Lets be clear, zoom allows you to see the 1080p source 1:1 pixel mapped and exactly as intended. It is no different to watching it on a 16:9 screen, the only thing you get is masking.



It is different Jeff, because with zooming you're now effectively sitting closer to the screen with larger pixels from both source and pj - that's one of the prime reasons zooming doesn't work for me (though it might with the AE3000 due to smoothscreen, but I don't know how SD material will look with it so it could still be a problem). If you're sitting far enough back for this to not be noticeable then I agree it's not an issue but some people like to sit closer so for those it is an issue - some of us like to sit close to SMPTEs minumum, like 1 x sw. It depends on set up, it's not black and white. If you want to see things 'as intended' then you should be going scope, not CIA or CIW by the way.


As for 1:1 pixel mapping, I agree in theory that's the way we'd like to see things, but in practice it's hardly an issue with video material these days like it used to be years ago. You may see 'issues' with scaling if you think you should be seeing them (and lets face it, some people will see what they want to see, like a loss of ANSI through a lens that doesn't have a loss for example). If scaling was such an issue people wouldn't be doing it. It's only an issue if you want it to be. I know that sometimes merely knowing something can be enough to not want to have it, and we're all guilty of that to some degree I think.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffY* /forum/post/15062066
> 
> 
> The only issue I have with zoom is the same reason I have an issue with CIH in general, is that you are taking the lowest resolution source and making it the bigger picture. There are plenty of white papers arguing why commercial cinemas should not do constant width and the main issue again is that it takes the lowest detailed projectable image and makes it the largest projected on the screen.



I hope you're 'buying' those white papers now.










Again it's a 'knowing' thing. You think it's bad so instantly dismiss it, but in practice it isn't bad or visible in the same way larger pixels and light overspill may or may not be. Pros and cons again. Many here still have a large DVD back catalogue so watch a lot of upscaled SD on their HD displays (plasma or projector), but they don't seem to see the bad scaling you're suggesting is there. I've seen worse images on some pixel mapped projectors but that's another story.


I don't think in your case with your size screen that going anamorphic will gain you anything at all unless you sit that much closer to the screen to get back to the field of view you are currently at. That's why overall for you constant area is the best solution IMHO. Not sure why you're posting against CIH so much when you've already made up your mind about your own set up though.


Gary


----------



## JeffY

Constant height interests me because it shares many of the same issues as constant area. They both use wider aspect ratios and are bespoke solutions. Most of the strategies for dealing with not so friendly aspect ratios apply to constant height and constant area.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

If you have a scope screen then all screen ratios will fit within it, you just have to adjust the side masking (open or close the curtains more or less). It's probably the simplest solution of all.


Gary


----------



## JeffY




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/15062318
> 
> 
> If you have a scope screen then all screen ratios will fit within it, you just have to adjust the side masking (open or close the curtains more or less). It's probably the simplest solution of all.
> 
> 
> Gary



It's not simple at all. Anything that isn't 2.35:1, 178:1 or 1.33:1 requires a lot of thinking and if you use an amamorphic lens rather than a manual zoom, you almost inevitably end up with veriable height and or cropping of the picture.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jerrym303* /forum/post/15060814
> 
> 
> Cine4home,
> 
> 
> I would say just the opposite of what stranger said. Compare each with the best setup for that set of equipment, like one would for themselves. Who cares if one is better at some particular throw ratio? All that matters is what each has to offer.



I probably should have said it, but they should do that too.



> Quote:
> If you want to control for factors like brightness, fine, but artificial restrictions on either setup just to be "the same" don't add any info of practical use.



I disagree, many have throw restrictions placed upon them, and would need to choose between a lens and zooming, ie if the projector is at a fixed location, what are the differences between zooming and a lens.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *5mark* /forum/post/15060964
> 
> 
> Agreed. It should be about comparing the maximum potential performance for both methods. If someone was going to design a setup for use with the zoom method, they would likely mount the projector at minimum throw to maximize brightness.



Not necessarilly, look at the RS20, I'm sure a lot of RS20 buyers are going to stick it at long throw to get the best CR possible. There are very good reasons for sticking the projector at max throw.


That in and of itself would be very interesting to see. How does an RS20 fare when placed at max throw for 16:9. What happens to brightness and contrast when zooming vs using a lens. Since contrast drops as you increase zoom. How does reality work out, does a lens compensate for the smaller aperture while retaining contrast?


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffY* /forum/post/15062343
> 
> 
> It's not simple at all. Anything that isn't 2.35:1, 178:1 or 1.33:1 requires a lot of thinking and if you use an amamorphic lens rather than a manual zoom, you almost inevitably end up with veriable height and or cropping of the picture.



With CIH and a scope screen the height stays the same and you open or close the side masking for ratios less than scope. Honest, it's that simple. That's all I ever had to do.


Gary


----------



## JeffY




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/15062415
> 
> 
> With CIH and a scope screen the height stays the same and you open or close the side masking for ratios less than scope. Honest, it's that simple. That's all I ever had to do.
> 
> 
> Gary



You must be cropping 2.35:1 and 1.78:1 to fit 1.85:1 then. You will be loosing even more of the image for 2.20:1. Any disc transfers that follow the ANSI/SMPTE Standard 195 already have 8% of the oringinal image removed, this is with no display overscan. Any further cropping should be avoided if possible.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

I was using HTPC Jeff, so I didn't have to crop anything as far as I can remember. Maybe Ben Hur would have presented a problem though with the 2.76:1 65mm presentation (IIRC).


Gary


----------



## R Harkness

There's one issue that I haven't seen specifically addressed regarding the advantages of an anamorphic lens.


Over the years there has been a lot of pixels spilled about the theoretical and practical losses of ANSI contrast when you put an anamorphic lens in the path. That's why one of the more fascinating results of the cine4home test is they measured no (or negligible) drop in ANSI with the lens. I don't think that closes the book on the subject, but it's very encouraging.


But another theoretical advantage of using an anamorphic lens _should_ be an increase in available contrast vs zooming.


As people here know, many projectors decrease contrast the more you zoom the picture bigger (and often increase brightness), and increase contrast the more you zoom the picture smaller. (Due to increasing light scatter with zooming out).


Generally, if you use the zoom method to make the image bigger you _should_ be taking a hit in your projector's contrast ratio. But if you use an anamorphic lens you don't have to zoom out nearly as much - since the lens is doing the expanding of the image for you and you have to have the image small enough to pass through many of the anamorphic lenses anyway. With you projector set at a lower zoom ratio with the anamorphic lens I'd think you _should_ be getting more contrast ratio than using the zoom method. Which is even more appealing if, as cine4home reports, you will maintain ANSI contrast.


Most discussions about anamorphic lenses have concentrated on _reductions_ in contrast ratio (ANSI and I think some On/Off) but theoretically one should see an _increase_ in contrast ratio with a lens. And this increase in contrast ratio combined with a boost in brightness in using the lens really should make for a perceptible increase in image quality/richness.


And yet, for whatever reason, I've never seen subjective reports stating someone with a lens notices an increase in on/off contrast ratio, nor have I ever seen measurements given that would indicate an increase in on/off CR when using a lens vs zoom. Mostly people talk about not seeing pixels and a bit brighter image when using the A-lens method.


Thoughts?


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

When I first got a Prismasonic lens, I measured it for light loss when in pass through mode vs without the lens (both images were the same 16:9) and the Lux measurement went from 101 to 99, so around a 2% drop. on/off stayed the same at 2707:1 with my Optoma H78 pj with or without the lens in place. I never directly measured the ANSI CR of that lens or the ISCO I replaced it with, but a rough and ready ANSI measure of the pj with lens in place was very close to the pjs native ANSI so I assumed the loss was not big. I never did measure the zoom effect on contrast though (and I'm now projectorless so couldn't measure it even if I wanted to, but I'll probably do that with my next pj as well as the ANSI of the ISCO).


Gary


----------



## JeffY




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/15062766
> 
> 
> I was using HTPC Jeff, so I didn't have to crop anything as far as I can remember. Maybe Ben Hur would have presented a problem though with the 2.76:1 65mm presentation (IIRC).
> 
> 
> Gary



With anamorphic you are normally using the full width (and height) of the panel, you can't make a 1:85 image wider than 1.78:1, all you can do is crop the sides if you keep full height. As the poll I'd did shows, most people with 2.35:1 screens don't stick to true constant height, they leave 1.85:1 letter boxed. That is fine for 1.85:1 but 2.20:1 would still be an issue.


----------



## pocoloco




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/15059267
> 
> 
> The only thing I would suggest, is make sure you do "apples to apples" comparisons, ie with the projector setup with a throw that's at least as long as recommended by the lens manufacturer, and that you have the projector in the same location for the zoom method.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jerrym303* /forum/post/15060814
> 
> 
> I would say just the opposite of what stranger said. Compare each with the best setup for that set of equipment, like one would for themselves. Who cares if one is better at some particular throw ratio? All that matters is what each has to offer.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/15060935
> 
> 
> I agree. The comparison criteria should be a) same size screen b) same viewing distance. And thats all. Where the projector sits in relation to the screen is irrelevant.



I agree that testing lens performance at the extreme long throw of a projector is worthwhile, but it's not that meaningful. For instance We could go and find a very long throw projector (say 3.0x throw) and show lens performance, but that is worthless information for most people on this board since hardly anyone will use a lens at this throw distance (not many people have a 30 foot long room for a 100 inch 16:9 screen).


Instead, this test needs to demonstrate lens performance at various throw distances to give people an idea of how image degrades as the throw shortens so they can make a valid judgement for their own setup. That would be the most valuable test. This test should not be about making the zooming/lenses look good or bad but to show how their performance varies across variables.


For zooming we are a bit more limited. All setups will have it zoomed out for 16:9 and zoomed in for 2.35. So given most CIH zoom capable pj's have a zoom factor between 1.4 and 2.2, it is best to test zooming with that pj zoomed to around 1.6x.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffY* /forum/post/15062343
> 
> 
> It's not simple at all. Anything that isn't 2.35:1, 178:1 or 1.33:1 requires a lot of thinking and if you use an amamorphic lens rather than a manual zoom, you almost inevitably end up with veriable height and or cropping of the picture.



An expert like Vern would be able to answer you best on this - I believe he has 10 preset ARs for his CIH system including 2.20 and 1.85, so it can be done and it can be done at the same height.


For me, if I look through my 300+ DVD collection or 40 HD discs looking for odd ball ratios like 2.20, I'll find one - the very first issue on Top Gun on DVD. Interestingly enough, I don't think there is a differnce to what I will see if I crop the small portions off the top and bottom to what I would see on the re-issue of that same film in 2.35:1. I own both of course...


I love scope, but I also like modern cinema, so really, how many films are not either flat or Scope these days anyway?


Mark


----------



## JeffY

Scaler presets are fine to a point but once you hit the full width or height of the panel that's it, home releases are already badly cropped, this just adds to it. 2001 Space odyssey and Baraka (both Blu-Ray) are 2.20:1. Generally cropping from the sides is safer than top and bottom.


----------



## ilsiu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/15062975
> 
> 
> I love scope, but I also like modern cinema, so really, how many films are not either flat or Scope these days anyway?
> 
> 
> Mark



Here are a few non-flat, non-scope movies that alot of movie buffs would (or should







) have in their collection:


Aladdin, From Russia with Love, Dr. No: 1.66

2001: 2.2

Sleeping Beauty: 2.55


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffY* /forum/post/15063156
> 
> 
> Scaler presets are fine to a point but once you hit the full width or height of the panel that's it, home releases are already badly cropped, this just adds to it. 2001 Space odyssey and Baraka (both Blu-Ray) are 2.20:1. Generally cropping from the sides is safer than top and bottom.



Ah, I see where you're going now. Unless you're happy to crop, then all scaling has to be done within the panel of course. I don't remember having any real problems with any movies all the time I was using an anamorphic lens and I have watched 2001. I don't remember that posing any real problems either.


If using an A lens was really that problematic I doubt people would even consider it. A bit like having to use the lens shift on some pjs if you want to use the zoom method and the zoom causes the image to rise or fall due to offset. I did try that with my Optoma but that was a real PITA, along with the chunky looking SD material. I can see where the AE3000 (yay, back on topic) comes into it's own in that respect if you're going to zoom.


I think until you've actually used an A lens it can seem quite complex, but really it isn't.


Gary


----------



## JeffY

When you are cropping it's hard to see what you are missing, yes it's unlikely to be significant, but it could be given the 8% cropping you get to start with. Many people going to the movie theaters see 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 movies all shown full screen on a 2.0:1 ratio screen, only a very few cinema buffs complain.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/15062272
> 
> 
> It is different Jeff, because with zooming you're now effectively sitting closer to the screen with larger pixels from both source and pj



This is exactly true. So, do people with "zoom" 2.35 setups zoom it so far they're sitting at less than 1x screen width? I don't. If not, why would it matter?


----------



## Dan P.

Now that digital projectors are becoming more common in commercial theatres how does it work there? Does a 2.35:1 movie, on digital media, get stretched and expanded with an anamorphic lens? Or, is it zoomed and masked?


----------



## erkq

I was thinking more about this. (sorry)


Anamorphic stretch IS a form of the "zoom" method... but completely in the horizontal direction; none in the vertical. So all arguments against the zoom method in terms of pixel size apply to anamorphic projection in the horizontal direction. It's always puzzled me why the resolution advantage in the vertical direction makes a $4k difference. Extra light... I buy that. But the resolution thing just passes me by.


----------



## Jerrym303




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/15062366
> 
> 
> I probably should have said it, but they should do that too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree, many have throw restrictions placed upon them, and would need to choose between a lens and zooming, ie if the projector is at a fixed location, what are the differences between zooming and a lens.
> 
> 
> What you are proposing is not really practical. Cine4home would need to run multiple tests at every possible throw setting to do what you want. That is a more projector-specific issue and delat with that way rather than creating an infinite number of combinations in an A/B comparison. I agree that certin projectors are better at certain points. It seems form the bulk of comments that the 3000 is better wide open for most.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarilly, look at the RS20, I'm sure a lot of RS20 buyers are going to stick it at long throw to get the best CR possible. There are very good reasons for sticking the projector at max throw.
> 
> 
> That in and of itself would be very interesting to see. How does an RS20 fare when placed at max throw for 16:9. What happens to brightness and contrast when zooming vs using a lens. Since contrast drops as you increase zoom. How does reality work out, does a lens compensate for the smaller aperture while retaining contrast?




I agree this is useful, but againn is an RS20 issue better investigated as such.



Just talking about process here, not so much a disagreement.


----------



## pocoloco




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/15063973
> 
> 
> I was thinking more about this. (sorry)
> 
> 
> Anamorphic stretch IS a form of the "zoom" method... but completely in the horizontal direction; none in the vertical. So all arguments against the zoom method in terms of pixel size apply to anamorphic projection in the horizontal direction. It's always puzzled me why the resolution advantage in the vertical direction makes a $4k difference. Extra light... I buy that. But the resolution thing just passes me by.



The argument goes that people are more sensitive to vertical resolution and thereby more important.


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cine4Home* /forum/post/15054537
> 
> 
> Hi there. Well we actually wrote that in our article: When you use the maximun screen size, the picture doe snot fit through the Schneider anymore. Therefore, we used a zoom which fit well thru the optics. This is why only 15% of more light was possible.
> 
> 
> If we chose a setup with even longer throw, even the last advantage of the Anamorphic optic, more light, would have been eliminated. This is by the way a factor, many forget: If you go to a longer throw with your anamorph-optics than without, you will lose your light benefit by a big margin or even completely. For maximum light power, you have to get as close to the screen with most projectors.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Ekki



I prefer not to get into this fray but I respectfully disagree with the generalization. By "last advantage of the Anamorphic" you ar generalizing the Schneider Cinedigitar to all lenses. I would point out this is not a fair assessment as as it applies to _this lens_, not all of them. I won't publically critisize details of the CineDigitar, but I have discussed it with several familiar with it, and they agree it does not do as well as the Isco III in more than one area. Your assesments were done with the smallest current-model A-lens made, and one that apparently did not fully fit your test conditions (with the lens). If you were at the limits of vignetting, I equate that to being at the limits of a PJ's zoom range. You shouldn't be at either place, especially an A-lens IMO. But in any case, the Isco III would have no trouble operating at the shorter throw. Nor would the Panamorph I expect. It's the #1 reason I recommend the Isco III over the alternatives. It's big, it fits everything (except maybe a C3X, recessed lens and a 1.0 throw (per Healthnut), you are no where near vignetting, and it passes much more light than the alternative lens.


Edit: But FWIW, no I do not see the Isco III as a "good" accessory for this PJ. They are from different markets. In my experience, those who buy the most expensive lens are not using LED projectors, no offense implied.


----------



## ilsiu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pocoloco* /forum/post/15064960
> 
> 
> The argument goes that people are more sensitive to vertical resolution and thereby more important.



Yes, I've seen that argument presented before. Is there some biological basis for this? Or is it psychological? Since the lenses in our eyes have circular symmetry (maybe they don't), then intuitively I'd think there shouldn't be a difference.


If I watch a movie laying on my side, will horizontal resolution become more important







?


----------



## Cine4Home




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/15062781
> 
> 
> There's one issue that I haven't seen specifically addressed regarding the advantages of an anamorphic lens.
> 
> 
> Over the years there has been a lot of pixels spilled about the theoretical and practical losses of ANSI contrast when you put an anamorphic lens in the path. That's why one of the more fascinating results of the cine4home test is they measured no (or negligible) drop in ANSI with the lens. I don't think that closes the book on the subject, but it's very encouraging.
> 
> 
> But another theoretical advantage of using an anamorphic lens _should_ be an increase in available contrast vs zooming.
> 
> 
> As people here know, many projectors decrease contrast the more you zoom the picture bigger (and often increase brightness), and increase contrast the more you zoom the picture smaller. (Due to increasing light scatter with zooming out).
> 
> 
> Generally, if you use the zoom method to make the image bigger you _should_ be taking a hit in your projector's contrast ratio. But if you use an anamorphic lens you don't have to zoom out nearly as much - since the lens is doing the expanding of the image for you and you have to have the image small enough to pass through many of the anamorphic lenses anyway. With you projector set at a lower zoom ratio with the anamorphic lens I'd think you _should_ be getting more contrast ratio than using the zoom method. Which is even more appealing if, as cine4home reports, you will maintain ANSI contrast.
> 
> 
> Most discussions about anamorphic lenses have concentrated on _reductions_ in contrast ratio (ANSI and I think some On/Off) but theoretically one should see an _increase_ in contrast ratio with a lens. And this increase in contrast ratio combined with a boost in brightness in using the lens really should make for a perceptible increase in image quality/richness.
> 
> 
> And yet, for whatever reason, I've never seen subjective reports stating someone with a lens notices an increase in on/off contrast ratio, nor have I ever seen measurements given that would indicate an increase in on/off CR when using a lens vs zoom. Mostly people talk about not seeing pixels and a bit brighter image when using the A-lens method.
> 
> 
> Thoughts?




Yes, we have mentioned that advantage in post #140.


Regards,

Ekki


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cine4Home* /forum/post/15065650
> 
> 
> Yes, we have mentioned that advantage in post #140.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Ekki



Thanks, but did you actually measure such contrast gains? And how visible are they? That's more what I'm getting at. It's been a theoretical undercurrent in these discussions; I just haven't seen anyone measure/observe the difference.


(Unless of course I missed it in your Panasonic/lens report).


Thanks.


----------



## 5mark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/15062366
> 
> 
> Not necessarilly, look at the RS20, I'm sure a lot of RS20 buyers are going to stick it at long throw to get the best CR possible. There are very good reasons for sticking the projector at max throw.



The RS20 has so much contrast to spare that I think most people would prioritize getting the brightness the way they want it (whatever that happens to be). The manual iris would also allow some brightness/contrast flexibility at a short throw. The point is that with the zoom method there is the option to move the projector for more bightness without worrying about geometry issues.


----------



## coldmachine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/15034770
> 
> 
> I'm still surprised that no ANSI CR difference was found in the tests.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/15034785
> 
> 
> Icing on the cake!



I posted on this way back around the time of my HT5k/ISCOIII install.


Zero ANSI drop with correct install geometry.


Also, zero light drop in lens, determined direct at lens and by obtaining exactly 33% at screen


I also debated this with one of our esteemed overseas friends and was able to determine how his mistakes arose.


Luigi concurs 100%.


PM me if either of you need further info.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *5mark* /forum/post/15065741
> 
> 
> The RS20 has so much contrast to spare that I think most people would prioritize getting the brightness the way they want it (whatever that happens to be). The manual iris would also allow some brightness/contrast flexibility at a short throw. The point is that with the zoom method there is the option to move the projector for more bightness without worrying about geometry issues.



Exactly. I see the RS20's contrast/brightness as a boon for more flexibility. I'll be able to use the "zoom" method of expanding the image, which when expanded will put the RS20 in effectively a shorter throw, but with the RS20 I'll still maintain a native contrast ratio beyond any other projector.


And, again, the iris control helps too with increasing contrast.


----------



## Alan Gouger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coldmachine* /forum/post/15065746
> 
> 
> I posted on this way back around the time of my HT5k/ISCOIII install.
> 
> 
> Zero ANSI drop with correct install geometry.
> 
> 
> Also, zero light drop in lens, determined direct at lens and by obtaining exactly 33% at screen
> 
> 
> I also debated this with one of our esteemed overseas friends and was able to determine how his mistakes arose.
> 
> 
> Luigi concurs 100%.
> 
> 
> PM me if either of you need further info.



More good news. Your knowledge has always proved accurate and useful to all. This solidifies what I have always thought my eyes were seeing but never ran the numbers. I really notice the light drop not using a lens. Not taking anything away from those who prefer the zoom method but it is good to know we can shave a few ammunition points from the anti lens arsenal.


----------



## R Harkness

While I plan to start off with the zoom method, I may end up going with an anamorphic lens at some point. Especially if the zoom method won't get me a big enough image from my throw distance.


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pocoloco* /forum/post/15064960
> 
> 
> The argument goes that people are more sensitive to vertical resolution and thereby more important.



I've never heard this before. I also doubt it very much. I ask this seriously. Are you being facetious?


----------



## Vern Dias




> Quote:
> It's not simple at all. Anything that isn't 2.35:1, 178:1 or 1.33:1 requires a lot of thinking



No it doesn't. It requires the press of a key on an HTPC or a menu selection on a scaler.


Simple, and elegant.... Unless you are going the poor man's route and depending on the projector to do the scaling.










Vern


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/15063184
> 
> 
> Here are a few non-flat, non-scope movies that alot of movie buffs would (or should
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) have in their collection:
> 
> 
> Aladdin, From Russia with Love, Dr. No: 1.66
> 
> 2001: 2.2
> 
> Sleeping Beauty: 2.55



Aladin (and other Disney) are interesting on as my copy is 1.78:1 (enhanced for home theatre - or so they claim), so regardless if you used a lens or zoomed, your not seeing this in its true AR anyway. The only true 1.66:1 video I have would be that T2 teaser from 1990 "Building a better Arnold" where it is a 16:9 program on my R4 copy (R1 is just letterboxed 4x 3?) but with small black pillars hard encoded on the sides to preserve the 1.66:1 AR. Cool, but very rare...


As for the other two films, I don't have 2001 (will buy the BD based on how good the transfer is) and I belive they P&S'd films like Sleeping Beauty on R4 here (you know the warning - this film has been modified from it's original format to fit your TV) to make them more kid friendly, so I never bought it either. P&S, what a joke, it only fits vertically on my screen...


Mark


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dan P.* /forum/post/15063874
> 
> 
> Now that digital projectors are becoming more common in commercial theatres how does it work there? Does a 2.35:1 movie, on digital media, get stretched and expanded with an anamorphic lens? Or, is it zoomed and masked?



The 2K D-Cinema projectors I have seen all use an ISCO 1.25x lens for Scope. The move the anamorphic lens for 1.85:1 material as their panels are actually 2048 x 1080 or about 1.9:1...


2048 x 1.25 = 2560 / 1080 = 2.37


Mark


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/15063973
> 
> 
> I was thinking more about this. (sorry)
> 
> 
> Anamorphic stretch IS a form of the "zoom" method... but completely in the horizontal direction; none in the vertical.



Technically correct...



> Quote:
> So all arguments against the zoom method in terms of pixel size apply to anamorphic projection in the horizontal direction.



And as it turns out, human sight is more sensitive to vertical than horizontal which is why scaling the image for all AR whilst leaving the lens place works - all images are made of 1080 vertical pixles...



> Quote:
> It's always puzzled me why the resolution advantage in the vertical direction makes a $4k difference. Extra light... I buy that. But the resolution thing just passes me by.



Forget about the ëxtra light"for one moment and concentrate on this - Using a 1080 projector and lens means that you have 1080 vertical pixels, not 810. If you use a Scope screen with a height of 1080mm and width of 2560mm, your pixles are 1mm high when using a lens, but they are 1.3333333mm high when zooming to fill the width. In the horizontal direction both the lens and zoom method have pixels 1.3333333mm wide...


Mark


----------



## pocoloco




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/15066713
> 
> 
> I've never heard this before. I also doubt it very much. I ask this seriously. Are you being facetious?



I'm no expert on human perception and haven't read any papers on the topic but that's the word on the street. Regardless, using the full vertical rez of the panel is better for pixel structure than using only 2/3rds.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coldmachine* /forum/post/15065746
> 
> 
> I posted on this way back around the time of my HT5k/ISCOIII install.
> 
> 
> Zero ANSI drop with correct install geometry.
> 
> 
> Also, zero light drop in lens, determined direct at lens and by obtaining exactly 33% at screen
> 
> 
> I also debated this with one of our esteemed overseas friends and was able to determine how his mistakes arose.
> 
> 
> Luigi concurs 100%.
> 
> 
> PM me if either of you need further info.



Ain't life grand !


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/15067485
> 
> 
> And as it turns out, human sight is more sensitive to vertical than horizontal



Oh. If that's true, then I finally "get" the resolution advantage. I had never really heard this before. Thanks for explaining.


----------



## 5mark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/15060246
> 
> 
> Zooming is really simply making a larger 16:9 image, just in this forum where we use a Scope screen and not a HDTV screen, we have to end up shooting the top and bottom of the image off the screen (for zooming) which then gives us about 1920 x 810 pixels on the screen of enlargened pixels. Sure that might be fine for some people, but why exactly would you buy a 1080 projector if your just going to throw 25% of the vertical rez off the screen?



Because with the right projector and room setup amazing results are possible. I watched Kung Fu Panda last night and was quite simply blown away by the experience. (Ok, the soundtrack was a big factor







) Even zoomed to 1x SW the images were incredibly smooth, sharp and detailed throughout. I didn't notice any hint of pixel structure and I certainly wasn't sitting there thinking, "wow, this would be really great if I wasn't wasting a bunch of my projector's pixels!"


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *erkq* /forum/post/15067904
> 
> 
> Oh. If that's true, then I finally "get" the resolution advantage. I had never really heard this before. Thanks for explaining.



Apparently with hearing, we are more sensitive to horizontal misalignment than vertical which is why many of us don't notice the break in the horizontal plain with our LCR speakers (centre above or below the display) and it works opposite for our vision.


Have you ever seen passive 3D HD video? It needs full vertical 1080 rez but can have the horizontal 1920 split into the left (960) and right (960) eye information...


Mark


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/15068366
> 
> 
> Apparently with hearing, we are more sensitive to horizontal misalignment than vertical which is why many of us don't notice the break in the horizontal plain with our LCR speakers (centre above or below the display) and it works opposite for our vision.
> 
> 
> Have you ever seen passive 3D HD video? It needs full vertical 1080 rez but can have the horizontal 1920 split into the left (960) and right (960) eye information...
> 
> 
> Mark



In audio-land we're (far) less sensitive to vertical localization because we don't have ears on the top and bottom of our head. We do get some clues from the way the sound comes in through our outer ear, though.


But in video-land it's different in that we're not localizing a 1 dimentional sense (sound) but taking in a 2 dimentional sense (flat image). But your point about the 960/960 split is interesting. Huh... IC...


----------



## JeffY




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vern Dias* /forum/post/15067061
> 
> 
> No it doesn't. It requires the press of a key on an HTPC or a menu selection on a scaler.
> 
> 
> Simple, and elegant.... Unless you are going the poor man's route and depending on the projector to do the scaling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vern



That is ease of use rather than ease of setup. it still require a lot of thought setting it up. In order to keep constant height you will have to crop the picture and by doing so change the original aspect ratio of the source, or in some cases keep the aspect ratio of the source and scale the image down looseing source resolution). You have to decide which aspect ratios to compromise and how. Having done all this you may or not completely satisfied with the results. I would not be happy to crop a 2.20:1 picture to 2:35 (or wider). I would rather scale the picture down and see the full image and have the black bars on the sides. I would also prefer to keep top and bottom bars with 1.85:1 rather than scale/zoom and crop to 16:9. Another way is to only pick movies that 'fit', I'm sure there are a few constant height users that will only buy 2.35:1 movies.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffY* /forum/post/15069415
> 
> 
> That is ease of use rather than ease of setup. it still require a lot of thought setting it up.



Even a projector running straight 16:9 will require some "thought" if you want a nice straight image...



> Quote:
> In order to keep constant height you will have to crop the picture and by doing so change the original aspect ratio of the source



Not on Vern's set up. His system is different from anyother CIH on these forums for the following reason - he uses a 1.5x stretch lens, not the standard 1.33x, so he has a wider (yes pun intended) AR range...



> Quote:
> or in some cases keep the aspect ratio of the source and scale the image down looseing source resolution).



The point to using a lens is to allow the full heigh of the panel. In the case of someone leaving the lens in place all the time, the image uses the full 1080 regardless of the AR...



> Quote:
> You have to decide which aspect ratios to compromise and how.



I might have to give that I display 1.33:1, 1.66:1, 1.78:1 and 2.37:1, but Vern is purist, so he preserves all ARs. I watch modern films and most modern films are either flat or Scope, hence why I am satisfied with the scaling of the projector...


> Quote:
> Having done all this you may or not completely satisfied with the results. I would not be happy to crop a 2.20:1 picture to 2:35 (or wider).



I have one title out of 300+ DVDs that would require "cropping", and therefore this is not an issue for me. Vern in the other hand watches 2.20:1 at 2.20:1...


I would rather scale the picture down and see the full image and have the black bars on the sides.


And he does, but of course he then coveres them up with his side masking...



> Quote:
> I would also prefer to keep top and bottom bars with 1.85:1 rather than scale/zoom and crop to 16:9.



And he watches 1.85:1 as 1.85:1 too...



> Quote:
> Another way is to only pick movies that 'fit', I'm sure there are a few constant height users that will only buy 2.35:1 movies.



Now I could be accused of being guilty of that







In fact my HD collection reflects that for sure...


Mark


----------



## JeffY




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/15069450
> 
> 
> 
> Not on Vern's set up. His system is different from anyother CIH on these forums for the following reason - he uses a 1.5x stretch lens, not the standard 1.33x, so he has a wider (yes pun intended) AR range...




I rest my case, he has put a huge amount of thought in how to implement his CIH setup. I have never seen that much attention to detail even in extreme high-end custom installs. Well done Vern, I applaud you.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Lol, you can't really use a single person as an example of everyone else.










Most anamorphic set ups are a lot simpler, but they don't have to be. Like most things they can be as simple or as complex as you like. Your choice.


Gary


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffY* /forum/post/15069415
> 
> 
> That is ease of use rather than ease of setup. it still require a lot of thought setting it up.



So what?



> Quote:
> In order to keep constant height you will have to crop the picture and by doing so change the original aspect ratio of the source, or in some cases keep the aspect ratio of the source and scale the image down looseing source resolution).



Huh? All you ever do is crop off the horizontal bars and padd with vertical ones (if necessary).



> Quote:
> You have to decide which aspect ratios to compromise and how. Having done all this you may or not completely satisfied with the results. I would not be happy to crop a 2.20:1 picture to 2:35 (or wider).



You obviously have no idea what Vern (or apparently and "complete" CIH config) is doing. Nothing get's cropped from 2.20:1, the bars are removed and the image is scaled to full height. The image is then padded on the sides to fill the gap between 2.20 and 2.35. No image or information is lost in the process.



> Quote:
> I would rather scale the picture down and see the full image and have the black bars on the sides.



That's exactly what Vern and other full-fledged CIH setups do. The only time that's not true is when someone has _chosen_ to not completely impliment their setup by using a scaler or HTPC.



> Quote:
> I would also prefer to keep top and bottom bars with 1.85:1 rather than scale/zoom and crop to 16:9.



Not sure what you mean, with a full-fledged CIH setup, you remove the bars off 1.85:1 and scale it to a 1.85:1 area, ie wider/bigger than 1.78:1



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vern Dias* /forum/post/15067061
> 
> 
> No it doesn't. It requires the press of a key on an HTPC or a menu selection on a scaler.
> 
> 
> Simple, and elegant.... Unless you are going the poor man's route and depending on the projector to do the scaling.



I was going to ask, what program are you using to play your BDs, is it still PowerDVD, and how are you controlling it? I've had a heck of a time getting Girder to control PowerDVD. Likewise I had horrible results with TMT (bad jaggies)


----------



## JeffY




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/15069673
> 
> 
> Lol, you can't really use a single person as an example of everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most anamorphic set ups are a lot simpler, but they don't have to be. Like most things they can be as simple or as complex as you like. Your choice.
> 
> 
> Gary



You can have simple but more compromised or complex with less compromises. I have no problem with people choosing either way.


----------



## JeffY




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/15069767
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously have no idea what Vern (or apparently and "complete" CIH config) is doing. Nothing get's cropped from 2.20:1, the bars are removed and the image is scaled to full height. The image is then padded on the sides to fill the gap between 2.20 and 2.35. No image or information is lost in the process.



You are right, I had no idea Vern was using 1.5x anamorphic lens. He can scale all aspect ratios to work. With a regular 1.33x anamorphic lens he couldn't do this. As I said, I applaud his attention to detail.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffY* /forum/post/15069889
> 
> 
> You are right, I had no idea Vern was using 1.5x anamorphic lens. He can scale all aspect ratios to work. With a regular 1.33x anamorphic lens he couldn't do this.



Even with a regular 1.33x it would work, with the slight exception that for movies > 2.35:1 you have to leave some of the bars intact.


I still don't know why you think cropping of the actual image is required if the screen is less than 2.76:1.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffY* /forum/post/15069859
> 
> 
> You can have simple but more compromised or complex with less compromises.



That doesn't necessarily follow does it Jeff.


As for compromises, all home cinemas are compromised to some degree or another, we just have to pick our poison.


Gary


----------



## JeffY




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/15069959
> 
> 
> Even with a regular 1.33x it would work, with the slight exception that for movies > 2.35:1 you have to leave some of the bars intact.
> 
> 
> I still don't know why you think cropping of the actual image is required if the screen is less than 2.76:1.




You can't do constant height full uncropped 1.85:1 without using the anamorphic lens and severly compromising the source resolution or crop other aspect ratios. With a 1.5x lens you can do everthing, but you loose a bit of panel resolution.


----------



## JeffY




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/15070076
> 
> 
> we just have to pick our poison.
> 
> 
> Gary



Agreed.


----------



## ilsiu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/15070076
> 
> 
> That doesn't necessarily follow does it Jeff.
> 
> 
> As for compromises, all home cinemas are compromised to some degree or another, we just have to pick our *poison*.
> 
> 
> Gary



Sure would be nice if everybody realized that there is poison with their preferred CIH method


----------



## Alan Gouger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/15070636
> 
> 
> Sure would be nice if everybody realized that there is poison with their preferred CIH method



I wondered why I felt Ill after watching my fav scope movie yesterday, darn that lens


----------



## Vern Dias




> Quote:
> what program are you using to play your BDs, is it still PowerDVD,



Arcsoft TMT for the player, because it plays both BD and HD DVD and supports non-downrezzed audio with the new Asus audio card (which is still a work in progress, however) and YXY for AR control.


I have presets for HD set at 1.33, 1.66, 1.85, 2.0, 2.20, 2.40, 2.55, and 2.76.


I have also experimented with encoding both 2.40 and 2.55 on BD using all 1080 pixels for the image height, so I also have presets for 2.40 and 2.55 Anamorphic full 1080 height BD encodes.


BTW, YXY allows 36 presets to be stored. I do need to manually choose the AR for HD, but it's a single button press.


Theatertek for DVD with it's complete AR control.


BTW, I extend an offer for anyone reasonably close to the DFW area who want's to visit and see my setup. PM me to set up a time.


Vern


----------



## stanger89

I assume you've got a remote setup, are you using girder?


----------



## R Harkness

Anyone got a working email for prismasonic? The email addresses on their site aren't working for me.


Thanks.


----------



## Alan Gouger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/15074012
> 
> 
> Anyone got a working email for prismasonic? The email addresses on their site aren't working for me.
> 
> 
> Thanks.



Give this a try: [email protected]


----------



## Vern Dias




> Quote:
> are you using girder?



Nope, I use IR keyboards and a Universal MX3000 remote with the appropriate IR codes programmed.


Vern


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffY* /forum/post/15070488
> 
> 
> You can't do constant height full uncropped 1.85:1 without using the anamorphic lens and severly compromising the source resolution or crop other aspect ratios. With a 1.5x lens you can do everthing, but you loose a bit of panel resolution.



You can do any AR including 1.85:1 with a regualr 1.33x lens up to 2.37:1 if you are prepared to leave the lens in place. But you also must have a scaler or use a HTPC...


Vern chose the 1.5x lens because needed wider than 2.37:1 AR to recreate his the "classic" error of cinema. If I am to understand this right, the standards had not been finalized back then and they seemed to release films in very different ARs looking for the best overall presentation. It seems that today, CinemaScope is 2.39:1 and any variances are small 2.35 to 2.40...


D-Cinema is going through the same things right now. They are jumping from 2K to 4K. Along the way, there have been a number of different stretch factors for the anamorphic lenses ranging from 1.25x out to 1.9x.


The two D-Cinema projectors I have seen (Barco and Christie) both use an ISCO 1.25x lens though I did some reaserch that showed a Christie without an anamorphic lens...


Mark


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/15074334
> 
> 
> Give this a try: [email protected]



Thanks Alan.


Strangely enough that's one of the emails that wouldn't work for me from the website, yet using your link worked.


Much obliged.


----------



## ilsiu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/15065065
> 
> 
> I prefer not to get into this fray but I respectfully disagree with the generalization. By "last advantage of the Anamorphic" you ar generalizing the Schneider Cinedigitar to all lenses. I would point out this is not a fair assessment as as it applies to _this lens_, not all of them. I won't publically critisize details of the CineDigitar, but I have discussed it with several familiar with it, and they agree it does not do as well as the Isco III in more than one area. *Your assesments were done with the smallest current-model A-lens made, and one that apparently did not fully fit your test conditions (with the lens).* If you were at the limits of vignetting, I equate that to being at the limits of a PJ's zoom range. You shouldn't be at either place, especially an A-lens IMO. But in any case, the Isco III would have no trouble operating at the shorter throw. Nor would the Panamorph I expect. It's the #1 reason I recommend the Isco III over the alternatives. It's big, it fits everything (except maybe a C3X, recessed lens and a 1.0 throw (per Healthnut), you are no where near vignetting, and it passes much more light than the alternative lens.
> 
> 
> Edit: But FWIW, no I do not see the Isco III as a "good" accessory for this PJ. They are from different markets. In my experience, those who buy the most expensive lens are not using LED projectors, no offense implied.



I think what you're saying is that due to limitations of the Schneider lens, the streched image was handicapped. Aside from the Isco III, do you believe other lenses would have fit the test conditions and done better than the Schneider?


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/15078868
> 
> 
> I think what you're saying is that due to limitations of the Schneider lens, the streched image was handicapped. Aside from the Isco III, do you believe other lenses would have fit the test conditions and done better than the Schneider?



I can't say. Too many variables.


----------



## John Kotches

Sorry for my very slow reply, it's been a hectic several days at work.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/15062050
> 
> 
> What do you call "practical" John? When I did my lens tests back in June, I used a 135" wide (150" dia) 2.37:1 screen because I wanted to push limits and the lumanence chart was perfectly on the line using HCFR software with an eye one sensor.



Practical is the 10' range in width.


Let's compare, assuming unity gain, and we'll use my 10' wide screen as a "reference". Assuming 400 calibrated ANSI lumens. Surface area is 33.2 ft^2 in 1.78:1 and 43.33 ft^2 in 2.35:1


Type 1.78:1 2.35:1

A-Lens 12.08 9.23

Zoom 12.08 6.92


You lose a lot of brightness with zoom and it's easily noticable. This is what I talk about when I'm referring to "practical screen size" -- the image getting too dim to watch.





> Quote:
> IMO that size screen is above practical in most homes with 120" diagonal being more common. Any brighter, and the image would have been uncomfortable to watch...



Some people like the arc welding the retinas experience.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Kotches* /forum/post/15085377
> 
> 
> Sorry for my very slow reply, it's been a hectic several days at work.



No probs and thanks for posting











> Quote:
> Practical is the 10' range in width.



And I have to agree, 10' wide is a good size...



> Quote:
> Let's compare, assuming unity gain, and we'll use my 10' wide screen as a "reference". Assuming 400 calibrated ANSI lumens. Surface area is 33.2 ft^2 in 1.78:1 and 43.33 ft^2 in 2.35:1
> 
> 
> Type 1.78:1 2.35:1
> 
> A-Lens 12.08 9.23
> 
> Zoom 12.08 6.92
> 
> 
> You lose a lot of brightness with zoom and it's easily noticable. This is what I talk about when I'm referring to "practical screen size" -- the image getting too dim to watch.



Interesting figures, thanks for sharing John











> Quote:
> Some people like the arc welding the retinas experience.



Yes so it seems










Mark


----------



## oraclation

Based on the title of the thread, I thought I would share my personal experience:


I own a Prismasonic H-1000 and AE3000. When I first installed my AE3000, I did exhaustive A/B comparisons between the A-lens and no-lens (zoom). My screen is a Carada BW 120".


I've been sold on anamorphic lenses and never even considered the zoom method as it was only a joke to me. To make a long story short, I came to the same conclusion as cine4home. I plan to sell my A-len if I can find a buyer at a reasonable price.


At my offset (100%), I still have to manually re-adjust the vertical offset after the projector zooms. I was willing to make this compromise.


Here are my opinions (in order of importance to me) that shaped my decision:

1. Brightness - Negligible, very slight advantage to A-lens

2. Sharpness - Negligible, small advantage to Zoom method

3. Contrast - Negligible, very slight advantage to Zoom method

4. Colors - Negligible, slight advantage to Zoom method

5. CA - Negligible, slight advantage to Zoom method

6. Black bars - Negligible, small advantage to A-lens

7. Geometric Distortion - Negligible, small advantage to Zoom method

8. Pincusion - Negligible, small advantage to Zoom method

9. Ease of use/maintenance - Negligible, slight advantage to Zoom method

10. Aesthetics - Negligible, small advantage to Zoom method


As you can see, there are no clear winners in any category, but overall, the zoom method wins for me this time. The brightness comparision was my biggest surprise. There is only one thing that the A-lens does better and that is black bars. However, it is rarely noticeable in my setup.


So who wants my H-1000?


Thanks


----------



## erkq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oraclation* /forum/post/15238981
> 
> 
> So who wants my H-1000?



And that begs the 11th question:


11. Cost - Not Negligible, great advantage to Zoom method


Thanks for this comparison. It's very interesting.


----------



## phisch




> Quote:
> As you can see, there are no clear winners in any category, but overall, the zoom method wins for me this time. The brightness comparision was my biggest surprise. There is only one thing that the A-lens does better and that is black bars. However, it is rarely noticeable in my setup.



I'm surprised as well that you didn't see a substational increase in brightness with the A lens, since you are using the entire panel with the lens. Did you notice any difference in pq with the lens method in regards to resolution, detail, clarity, etc. compared to the zoom method, since the entire panel is utilized when using the A lens?


----------



## ilsiu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oraclation* /forum/post/15238981
> 
> 
> Based on the title of the thread, I thought I would share my personal experience:
> 
> 
> I own a Prismasonic H-1000 and AE3000. When I first installed my AE3000, I did exhaustive A/B comparisons between the A-lens and no-lens (zoom). My screen is a Carada BW 120".
> 
> 
> I've been sold on anamorphic lenses and never even considered the zoom method as it was only a joke to me. To make a long story short, I came to the same conclusion as cine4home. I plan to sell my A-len if I can find a buyer at a reasonable price.
> 
> 
> At my offset (100%), I still have to manually re-adjust the vertical offset after the projector zooms. I was willing to make this compromise.
> 
> 
> Here are my opinions (in order of importance to me) that shaped my decision:
> 
> 1. Brightness - Negligible, very slight advantage to A-lens
> 
> 2. Sharpness - Negligible, small advantage to Zoom method
> 
> 3. Contrast - Negligible, very slight advantage to Zoom method
> 
> 4. Colors - Negligible, slight advantage to Zoom method
> 
> 5. CA - Negligible, slight advantage to Zoom method
> 
> 6. Black bars - Negligible, small advantage to A-lens
> 
> 7. Geometric Distortion - Negligible, small advantage to Zoom method
> 
> 8. Pincusion - Negligible, small advantage to Zoom method
> 
> 9. Ease of use/maintenance - Negligible, slight advantage to Zoom method
> 
> 10. Aesthetics - Negligible, small advantage to Zoom method
> 
> 
> As you can see, there are no clear winners in any category, but overall, the zoom method wins for me this time. The brightness comparision was my biggest surprise. There is only one thing that the A-lens does better and that is black bars. However, it is rarely noticeable in my setup.
> 
> 
> So who wants my H-1000?
> 
> 
> Thanks



Nice summary. Looks like an objective comparison to me.


One category I don't think was mentioned: how does pixelation/pixel structure compare (and what is your viewing distance relative to SH/SW)? With the A-lens you're using ~2 million pixels, the zoom method ~1.5 million. For your setup, is there a clear winner? Or is the difference negligable as well?



Edit: I see Phisch beat me to the question.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *phisch* /forum/post/15239229
> 
> 
> I'm surprised as well that you didn't see a substational increase in brightness with the A lens, since you are using the entire panel with the lens.



The lens aperture increases when you zoom, allowing more light through, thus partially mitigating the benefit of increased brightness from using the whole panel.


----------



## oraclation




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/15239246
> 
> 
> Nice summary. Looks like an objective comparison to me.
> 
> 
> One category I don't think was mentioned: how does pixelation/pixel structure compare (and what is your viewing distance relative to SH/SW)? With the A-lens you're using ~2 million pixels, the zoom method ~1.5 million. For your setup, is there a clear winner? Or is the difference negligable as well?
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: I see Phisch beat me to the question.



There is no clear winner. I agree with cine4home in this case. I can't vouch for any other projector, but assuming the black floor is equal or better to the AE3000 and it kicks out enough D65 lumens (800+), I would guess other projectors would apply.


The only thing I miss is no black bars. But in my set up it is rarely seen and acceptable in 98% of the scenes. Also, the subtitles can go off screen in some movies (but you can still read them on black velvet).


I sit at 1.2x. FYI - Smoothscreen is not an advantage at 1.2x, but at


----------



## Drexler

How is the brightness on your 120' BW screen and what mode are you running the ae3000 in?


Otherwise I'm not surprised the difference in brighness is minimal. As written above, you increase brightness when you zoom and add to that that our vision percieves light logarithmically. I would say a 15-30% increase in light is hardly detecable unless you do A/B comparisons (go out of the room and come back in again in 5 min and I bet you would have a very hard time to pick the brighter one).


----------



## oraclation




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Drexler* /forum/post/15243361
> 
> 
> How is the brightness on your 120' BW screen and what mode are you running the ae3000 in?
> 
> 
> Otherwise I'm not surprised the difference in brighness is minimal. As written above, you increase brightness when you zoom and add to that that our vision percieves light logarithmically. I would say a 15-30% increase in light is hardly detecable unless you do A/B comparisons (go out of the room and come back in again in 5 min and I bet you would have a very hard time to pick the brighter one).



Normal mode; sometimes Color1. I've put about 100 hrs on the bulb. I also have a Mitsubishi HD1000U 720p DLP projector and I must say the A-lens is a clear winner with that projector. There are quite a few things I miss about DLP, but you can't beat the price of these latest LCDs. I tried an Infocus X10 which was really good in all respects except for black floor and fan noise.


----------



## Aussie Bob

I found a benefit from the AE-3000 in watching 4:3 "classics".


To get rid of pillar bars you can expand the 4:3 image (H-fit), and then rotate the A-lens 90 degrees which will give you a full utilisation of all available pixels. However the picture is too large in screen height by 33%.


This is where the A-3000's auto zoom-offset-focus facility comes in.


You zoom back to a smaller picture, change the offset and focus and memorize the new position. This is painful to do manually (and to restore the original settings afterwards). But the AE-3000's lens position memory feature makes it easy.


You end up with full frame utilisation of pixels, 1/3rd finer pixelation, a much brighter picture and no pillar bars.


When you want to return to 'scope, just reverse the process. The only manual thing you need to do is twist the lens back to its normal rotation.


Lovely.


----------

