# Anyone else dump a lens for the zoom method?



## Tom Monahan

Last night I decided to play around with my Panamorph HE lens and the zoom method using my Pioneer projector. I have a very short throw and was just living with the negative effects this brings like geometry and focus issues thinking it's better than zooming. After last night, I'm going to sell the lens. Using the zoom method I had zero geometry issues and the edge to edge focus on my scope screen was so much better. Absolutely no pixels visible from my seating distance unlike the Sony projector I had when I first purchased the lens some years back. Sure I have to use a bit smaller screen but the improvement in pq is worth it. I love the fact that by using the zoom method I can display BD's like The Last Emperor in the aspect ratio stated on the BD 2.00:1. Even a film like Patton can be displayed in it's aspect ratio of 2.20:1. just with side masking.


Has anyone else gone from a lens to using the zoom method?


----------



## Vlubbers

I went from an ISCO II to zooming with the Vango. But I did not do it for geometric issues, merely pure simplicity. And I actually just use the zooming feature in the OPPO and I do not actually zoom the lens. I might not care for that. Yes, I am conversant with the mathematics of pixel density and I have no wish to be an apologist for my approach.


----------



## Josh Z

Tom, I might suggest that you give it more than one night to make a major decision like this. Watch a few movies without the lens and see if the picture quality really holds up.


----------



## Vern Dias




> Quote:
> I love the fact that by using the zoom method I can display BD's like The Last Emperor in the aspect ratio stated on the BD 2.00:1. Even a film like Patton can be displayed in it's aspect ratio of 2.20:1. just with side masking.



This can be done with an anamorphic lens setup as well. It's not unique to he zoom method. In my experience, the main decision factor for anamorphic lens vs zoom is the quality (cost) of the lens. The better the lens, the clearer the advantages of using it. For example, a quality anamorphic lens will not affect the focus of the image in any way.


Vern


----------



## Tom Monahan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vern Dias* /forum/post/20665751
> 
> 
> This can be done with an anamorphic lens setup as well. It's not unique to he zoom method. In my experience, the main decision factor for anamorphic lens vs zoom is the quality (cost) of the lens. The better the lens, the clearer the advantages of using it. For example, a quality anamorphic lens will not affect the focus of the image in any way.
> 
> 
> Vern



It may work well but I tried it with my lens and it did not work well. I used a Panamorph UH380 lens. I know it's not the best lens but wasn't a Walmart special. The focus was great in the middle but other parts of the screen verged on being fuzzy. Try a lens with a short throw with a 2.76 film and the bowing is laughable. The picture is far better without the lens. Live with bad bowing due to a very short throw and get back to me. With a super short throw I'm convinced that zoom is the best route. If there is a lens that would work GREAT with no pincushion, I'm sure it costs more than I would care to pay. Zoom baby zoom!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Tom Monahan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/20665426
> 
> 
> Tom, I might suggest that you give it more than one night to make a major decision like this. Watch a few movies without the lens and see if the picture quality really holds up.



Thanks for the advice Josh.










I'll put in more hours just to make sure.


Tom


----------



## taffman

I have been a happy zoomer for years. IMO the advantages of an A-lens are overstated. I can understand the convenience factor of the A-lens for some people, and I can see the necessity of an A-lens if you have a DLP projector with a very narrow zooming range. Other than that, I cannot believe that the addition of an A-lens would buy me significant PQ, my zoomed PQ is simply superb (using of course appropriate wide top and bottom masking). I have established long ago that the major limiting factor of my 2.35 PQ is the source material, not the factor of zooming. And when I read the downsides of an A-lens on some of the other threads, such as those described by the OP, I really have no desire at all to buy one.


----------



## HogPilot

Tom - given your short throw and type of projector, I can see why you would prefer zooming over using an anamorphic lens. As with any other thing in HT, there is more than one way to skin a cat. Every method has its benefits and drawbacks, which are minimized or amplified depending upon your particular setup constraints and personal preferences.


Good on you for trying both methods and picking the one that you prefer. Nothing irks me more than those who take every chance to bash a tech or method without ever having given it a proper shake down in an appropriate environment


----------



## taffman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/20666086
> 
> 
> Nothing irks me more than those who take every chance to bash a tech or method without ever having given it a proper shake down in an appropriate environment



Unfortunately, the only practical way of finding out if an A-lens will get you a worthwhile improvement in PQ for your particular situation is to actually buy one! There are no mainstream electronics stores that bother with them and there are no dealers out there who will lend you one for evaluation. So you are stuck with a leap-of-faith purchasing gamble of several thousand dollars, something that, if you are already getting great PQ with zooming, is pretty hard to justify.


----------



## Tom Monahan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/20666086
> 
> 
> Tom - given your short throw and type of projector, I can see why you would prefer zooming over using an anamorphic lens. As with any other thing in HT, there is more than one way to skin a cat. Every method has its benefits and drawbacks, which are minimized or amplified depending upon your particular setup constraints and personal preferences.
> 
> 
> Good on you for trying both methods and picking the one that you prefer. Nothing irks me more than those who take every chance to bash a tech or method without ever having given it a proper shake down in an appropriate environment



If I had a much longer throw I would definately use a lens. The picture is a bit more filmlike with it in place. I can only imagine how good a really high quality lens would look with a proper throw. It pains me to use a smaller screen though. Last night, the smaller screen size looked just fine but tonight it just doesn't have that cinematic feel that it had with the lens.









I can sit closer but you just feel like you're sitting really close to a smaller image.


----------



## Brad Horstkotte

What projector Tom? How many hours on the bulb? And what settings are you using (eco vs. normal, cinema vs. torch mode, etc.). What screen / gain? Just wondering what you could tweak to help things.


----------



## Vern Dias




> Quote:
> With a super short throw I'm convinced that zoom is the best route.



Does an 18' throw with a 12' wide curved screen qualify as (super) short? It's an Isco lens, btw....


Vern


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vern Dias* /forum/post/20667293
> 
> 
> Does an 18' throw with a 12' wide curved screen qualify as (super) short? It's an Isco lens, btw....
> 
> 
> Vern



That's a good point, Tom, you could DIY a curved screen that would significantly help with your focus and pincushion issues, and allow you to keep the same large screen. Might be worth a look.


Is there really no way you can move the projector back?


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

A friend of mine had a 720 DLP and used a basic non coated Prismasonic lens to improve the image quality he was getting from zooming. Even though he did have some CA due to lack of coatings, the improvement made the lens worth the cost. When he upgraded to 1080, zooming gave him a better overall image than the one he could get with the lens in place, so now he's a zoomer.


I still see improvement with 1080 and an ISCO over zooming due to my closer seating distance preference, so wouldn't go back to zooming, but each to his own.


Gary


----------



## taffman

Quote:

Originally Posted by *HogPilot* 
Understood that you are frustrated with the lack availability of properly set-up anamorphic lenses nearby to give a proper demo. Yet none of what you've said above explains how you can consistently speak ill of anamorphic lenses and their performance without ever having even seen one in person. On one hand you claim an inability to determine the usefulness of a lens without evaluating one in person; on the other you see no problem in declaring the uselessness of those same lenses without evaluating one in person. It's contradictory.


Oh, and there are people who live by major metropolitan areas and can readily evaluate anamorphic lenses in action. So the way you describe above is NOT the only way of deciding whether an anamorphic lens is suitable for your setup. Not by a long shot.
First, I DO posess a high quality ISCO anamorphic lens. Its a 2X lens that I use for film projection of scope films. I use it because you have to have it on the film projector to show scope films correctly. But when I use it I am always aware of the compromises it introduces, such as loss of sharpness and contrast. By every measure, film projection PQ looks better without a scope lens, but as I say for scope films you have no choice but to use it because the 2.35 source material is squeezed. Bare in mind that anamorphic lenses are no longer used in the film industry because they have found that they can get better image quality without them (super 35mm).

For dvd's and Blu rays, the situation is totally different from anamorphic film. The 2.35 source material for DVD and BR is letterboxed, not horizontally squeezed as is the case with film. So there is just no need at all to use an A-lens! In that sense the A-lens is useless until ,and if ,blu rays are authored with full frame compressed images. The idea of taking a letterboxed source material, artificially creating a compressed image, and then sticking a piece of glass in front of the projector to get it back to where it was originally, has to compromise the source material in some way. You just can't do all that without introducing electronic or optical aberations. Zooming does not change the image quality at all, except of course as an overall increase in image size. So just as the OP has observed, the zoomed image has no geometric distortions, and is razor sharp from edge to edge, unlike his A-lens. In that repect zooming is superior to an A-lens.


----------



## HogPilot

Quote:

Originally Posted by *taffman* 
First, I DO posess a high quality ISCO anamorphic lens.
No one here is talking about the use of 2x anamorphic lenses with film projectors in public venues. We're talking HD digital projectors using 1.33x anamorphic lenses that people personally own and use in their home theaters. Although the underlying principles of operation are the same, the execution is significantly different in terms of expansion ratio, throw, geometry, and native display resolution. Of course, you wouldn't be aware of how these can lead to significantly different results in a home theater because you've never seen an anamorphic lens in action in one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *taffman* 
Bare in mind that anamorphic lenses are no longer used in the film industry because they have found that they can get better image quality without them (super 35mm).
Where did you find this piece of information? Films are still shot anamorphically as of today. Flat 2.39:1 is available as a cheaper, lower-resolution method of achieving the ultra-wide effect/feel of scope without having to pay for all the extra added hardware. The choice of one over the other has nothing to do with quality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *taffman* 
The 2.35 source material for DVD and BR is letterboxed, not horizontally squeezed as is the case with film. So there is just no need at all to use an A-lens! In that sense the A-lens is useless until ,and if ,blu rays are authored with full frame compressed images.
No one here has said that the reason for using an anamorphic lens is related to the source. People do use them for a variety of reasons though - close seating distances, elimination of pixel structure, better light output, and convenience.


You still have yet to explain how you can decry the use of anamorphic lenses without ever having seen one in a digital projector-based home theater environment. You won't explain it, nor will you ever, because you can - instead you rely on apples to oranges comparisons, anecdotal evidence, and parroting things you've read from others.


Notice I have yet to say that one method is intrinsically better than the other. This is because that would be an untrue statement. As I previously posted, every person here has a unique set of constraints and personal tolerances that all factor in to the design of their theater. There are an equal number of good (and bad) reasons for preferring one CIH method over another. Yet you continue to argue for a black-and-white solution where none exists.


----------



## taffman

The OP has stated that he gets a better PQ by zooming than with his A-lens. That says it all.


----------



## Brad Horstkotte

Some people zoom and are very happy with it.


Some people use a lens and are very happy with it.


There are tradeoffs either way.


No need to turn the OP's post into an assault on use of lenses in general. Or to try to convince the OP that he's "wrong" for zooming.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/20669837
> 
> 
> Bare in mind that anamorphic lenses are no longer used in the film industry because they have found that they can get better image quality without them (super 35mm).



This is incorrect. Although Super 35 may dominate current (2.40:1) film production because it is cheaper and more convenient, anamorphic lenses are still regularly used by directors and cinematographers who prefer their optical characteristics.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/20669837
> 
> 
> First, I DO posess a high quality ISCO anamorphic lens.



Question: Have you ever used it on your HT projector with custom made test patterns (that are based on 960 x 1080) then actually measure the effects it has on the image?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/20670522
> 
> 
> The OP has stated that he gets a better PQ by zooming than with his A-lens. That says it all.



What lens is it and is it set up correctly.


I spend a bit of time re-aligning mine and I can once again see pixel structure from the back row seats (3.2x the image height).


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vern Dias* /forum/post/20667293
> 
> 
> Does an 18' throw with a 12' wide curved screen qualify as (super) short? It's an Isco lens, btw....
> 
> 
> Vern





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/20671657
> 
> 
> What lens is it and is it set up correctly.
> 
> 
> I spend a bit of time re-aligning mine and I can once again see pixel structure from the back row seats (3.2x the image height).



Exactly, I too see razor sharp, highly defined, perfect geometry from edge to edge. Of course we all know that HP, Josh Z, Stranger, CAVX and others are nothing but slugs when it comes to CIH/A Lens use in the HT environment. It's stupid to condemn a Porsche while driving a VW.


----------



## sharok




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/20668229
> 
> 
> In a word - AMAZING



Hello Mark,


My theater room is 21 feet wide and 18 feet long with no lights on. If I wanna use your most recent (best) lens with a Mitsubishi HC9000 or a Sim2 mico50, What size of a curved screen (dnp epic CS) would give me the best picture in that room?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sharok* /forum/post/20672544
> 
> 
> Hello Mark,
> 
> 
> My theater room is 21 feet wide and 18 feet long with no lights on. If I wanna use your most recent (best) lens with a Mitsubishi HC9000 or a Sim2 mico50, What size of a curved screen (dnp epic CS) would give me the best picture in that room?



In an 18 feet room, the largest screen you would want is 58" tall. You'd sit no closer than 116".


Are you planning on AT or solid fabric?


----------



## taffman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/20671657
> 
> 
> What lens is it and is it set up correctly.
> 
> 
> I spend a bit of time re-aligning mine and I can once again see pixel structure from the back row seats (3.2x the image height).



There is just no way that I could watch movies when the pixel structure is visible. That would totally ruin it for me. If you can see pixel structure in the back row it must be really noticeable in the front row. Some AV 'experts' like to deride the Panasonic smooth screen technology, but for me it is a winner because it produces a smooth, but sharp, film - like picture at ANY distance.

And please don't bring up the subject of high frequency rolloff, it means nothing to me when I have a great looking picture.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/20672896
> 
> 
> There is just no way that I could watch movies when the pixel structure is visible. That would totally ruin it for me. If you can see pixel structure in the back row it must be really noticeable in the front row.



For text and single display lines, yes. There is nothing that fine in most motion pictures, so this level of clarity just means the lens is not softening anything - contrary to popular belief about A-Lenses. I've also got new prescription eye wear, so yeah, I'm seeing EVERYTHING and enjoying it all


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/20672896
> 
> 
> There is just no way that I could watch movies when the pixel structure is visible. That would totally ruin it for me. If you can see pixel structure in the back row it must be really noticeable in the front row. Some AV 'experts' like to deride the Panasonic smooth screen technology, but for me it is a winner because it produces a smooth, but sharp, film - like picture at ANY distance.
> 
> And please don't bring up the subject of high frequency rolloff, it means nothing to me when I have a great looking picture.



I Think what you are failing to understand by Mark's comment is that the anamorphic lens isn't hurting his PQ as he is able to have an image just as sharp and crisp as without the lens (as in he is able to see his pixel structure with the lens in place, it isn't softening or harming the PQ in any way).


-Sean


----------



## 230-SEAN

Mark you beat me by a minute!


-Sean


----------



## sharok




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/20672563
> 
> 
> In an 18 feet room, the largest screen you would want is 58" tall. You'd sit no closer than 116".
> 
> 
> Are you planning on AT or solid fabric?



Hi Mark,

I'll be using solid fabric.


What width or what diagnol size would you suggest that works best with your lens?


Here is a list of my options. Would you please take a look at it and tell me what is the best size for my room with your best lens?


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/20672896
> 
> 
> There is just no way that I could watch movies when the pixel structure is visible. That would totally ruin it for me. If you can see pixel structure in the back row it must be really noticeable in the front row. Some AV 'experts' like to deride the Panasonic smooth screen technology, but for me it is a winner because it produces a smooth, but sharp, film - like picture at ANY distance.
> 
> And please don't bring up the subject of high frequency rolloff, it means nothing to me when I have a great looking picture.



Having seen a JVC RS40 next to several projector including a BENQ w5000 and panasonic ae4000, I can tell that when all were at max focus focus the panny looked blurry and lacked definition. On it's own it's a respectable unit but the rs40 crushes the Panny in each and every category. After living with the JVC, you can't go back to the panny and be satisfied. I can make that statement because ive spent time and watched movies on both. But for me to make a blanket statement that the panny sucks and inferior like you continually do here with regard to A-Lens owners, is irresponsible. Be subjective. In each case, when I put my lens in front of each projector I preferred the pic thru the lens compared to zooming. I do see the advantage of zooming over a cheap prism in over all PQ.


----------



## HogPilot

Quote:

Originally Posted by *taffman* 
There is just no way that I could watch movies when the pixel structure is visible. That would totally ruin it for me. If you can see pixel structure in the back row it must be really noticeable in the front row. Some AV 'experts' like to deride the Panasonic smooth screen technology, but for me it is a winner because it produces a smooth, but sharp, film - like picture at ANY distance.

And please don't bring up the subject of high frequency rolloff, it means nothing to me when I have a great looking picture.
You do realize that smoothscreen optically defocuses the image to get rid of the pixel gaps, right? It is an extra optical layer not present in other projectors. Yet you have a problem with adding a high-quality anamorphic lens which retains the image sharpness of whatever projector is behind it? How much more contradictory can you get?


----------



## taffman

Quote:

Originally Posted by *coolrda* 
. In each case, when I put my lens in front of each projector I preferred the pic thru the lens compared to zooming. I do see the advantage of zooming over a cheap prism in over all PQ.
Did you use WIDE top and bottom masking to totally absorb the visibility of the grey bars for the zoom method when you did this comparison? And did you switch to high setting on the lamp when zooming?

Both of these factors have a huge effect on the perceived PQ of the zoomed image.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sharok* /forum/post/20673452
> 
> 
> Hi Mark,
> 
> I'll be using solid fabric.
> 
> 
> What width or what diagnol size would you suggest that works best with your lens?
> 
> 
> Here is a list of my options. Would you please take a look at it and tell me what is the best size for my room with your best lens?



You will be good to go with the 144" or the 156" screen. The TR for the new lens is down to 1.3:1, yet I still recommend using the longest throw you can. I personally use a TR of 2.1:1 and if my next projector has more zoom, I will even extend that.


----------



## ilsiu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tom Monahan* /forum/post/20666668
> 
> 
> If I had a much longer throw I would definately use a lens. The picture is a bit more filmlike with it in place. I can only imagine how good a really high quality lens would look with a proper throw. It pains me *to use a smaller screen though*. Last night, the smaller screen size looked just fine but tonight it just doesn't have that cinematic feel that it had with the lens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can sit closer but you just feel like you're sitting really close to a smaller image.



I'll chime in and say that it sounds like conditions favored zooming.


It appears that you're already at the max zoom (image width), so you needed to use your lens to fill the width of your screen. So the zoomed scope image ends up being much smaller than the lens scope image. If that's the case, then the pixel density is actually higher for the zoom image (because it's smaller), so it should look better than the lens image in every way except for size.


If you equalize the size of the scope image for zoom and lens, does your conclusions change?


----------



## Tom Monahan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/20675303
> 
> 
> I'll chime in and say that it sounds like conditions favored zooming.
> 
> 
> It appears that you're already at the max zoom (image width), so you needed to use your lens to fill the width of your screen. So the zoomed scope image ends up being much smaller than the lens scope image. If that's the case, then the pixel density is actually higher for the zoom image (because it's smaller), so it should look better than the lens image in every way except for size.
> 
> 
> If you equalize the size of the scope image for zoom and lens, does your conclusions change?



Using the lens, I am not at my max zoom. The zoom method is still better when projecting the same size image. Even at the smaller screen size the geometry is bothersome.


I spent today viewing a ton of films and have put my UH380 up for sale. I went from a 108" 2.40 wide screen to 99" wide so I just moved my lounger closer and I couldn't be happier. Better detail plus perfect geometry has sold me on the zoom method in my room.


Tom


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/20674377
> 
> 
> Did you use WIDE top and bottom masking to totally absorb the visibility of the grey bars for the zoom method when you did this comparison? And did you switch to high setting on the lamp when zooming?
> 
> Both of these factors have a huge effect on the perceived PQ of the zoomed image.



Hang on. So now you have to run the projector in high lamp mode to make zooming better? I think your fighting a losing battle here


----------



## ilsiu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tom Monahan* /forum/post/20675361
> 
> 
> Using the lens, I am not at my max zoom. The zoom method is still better when projecting the same size image. Even at the smaller screen size the geometry is bothersome.
> 
> 
> I spent today viewing a ton of films and have put my UH380 up for sale. I went from a 108" 2.40 wide screen to 99" wide so I just moved my lounger closer and I couldn't be happier. Better detail plus perfect geometry has sold me on the zoom method in my room.
> 
> 
> Tom



Sounds like you covered all the bases. 108 -> 99 doesn't seem like that big of a step down, and it's fortunate that you can move your seating pretty easily. I'm pretty satisfied with my 96" 2.40 screen


----------



## Tom Monahan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/20675488
> 
> 
> Sounds like you covered all the bases. 108 -> 99 doesn't seem like that big of a step down, and it's fortunate that you can move your seating pretty easily. I'm pretty satisfied with my 96" 2.40 screen



My screen at max zoom is 41 1/4" x 99" so just to be safe I'll probably go 40x96 like yours. I may just mask my current Carada screen but their fixed frame screens are pretty inexpensive so I'll probably go that route. Hopefully, I will make enough off of the lens to cover a good part of the screen cost.










Tom


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/20675459
> 
> 
> Hang on. So now you have to run the projector in high lamp mode to make zooming better? I think your fighting a losing battle here



He often says that's the reason an A lens looks better than zooming - the lens removes the light overspill







, but in my case I have black masking and black carpeted wall behind the screen, so there was no real difference between zooming and using a lens in my case - the overspill wasn't visible when zooming. It was purely pixel size and visibility and therefore image quality that made me keep the lens.


Back in 2004/2005 I borrowed a basic prism lens to see if it would work for me (it did but being a basic lens had other issues), then bought a new fully coated Prismasonic lens with 14 day return policy to see if there was an improvement - if I didn't like it I could return it for a full refund. After doing comparisons between zooming (which I'd been doing up to that point) and using the lens, I found the lens method produced the better image overall - the point here is that I could have stuck with zooming and saved myself a lot of money, but the hit in image quality without the lens made the cost worth it for me.


I later bought an ISCO II just to see if that was any better than the Prismasonic, and I was surprised to find that it was, so I sold the Prismasonic for what I'd bought the ISCO for. I've since sold my projector and screen, but didn't sell the lens - I've tested it with 1080 pjs and seen plenty of them in action since, so know the benefits still exist even with a 1080 pj. If zooming was better I'd have sold the lens as well.


Taffman says that the OPs going back to zooming says it all, yet constantly ignores those who did the testing and stumped up the cash for a better image using a lens. If zooming was better why did they choose the lens after seeing both methods back to back?


Gary


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/20675912
> 
> 
> If zooming was better why did they choose the lens after seeing both methods back to back?



I am hoping (after SMPTE) that I might be able to do a direct A/B using two of the same type of projector, projecting onto the same screen and use a shutter to switch between the two (zoom and A-Lens).


The last time I attempted such a thing (thanks JVC), the two projectors were side by side and we were simply projecting onto a giant screen (white wall actually) with no hard boarder of masks. Also the lens I used (MK3) did not offer an astigmatism corrector at the time, so there were a few compromises on the day. Yet in the end, several engineers in the room passed their judgement to say " whilst we can see the pincushion from the A-Lens, the image is more watchable with the lens vs zooming".


It will be interesting to repeat the same process in a properly light controlled room, proper screen with extra black panels around the screen and an A-lens with fully corrected optics.


----------



## taffman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/20675459
> 
> 
> Hang on. So now you have to run the projector in high lamp mode to make zooming better? I think your fighting a losing battle here



No, just making sure that people do a really fair comparison. It is well known that use of the A-lens gives about a 15%-20% boost in screen illumination compared with just zooming to the same image size, so if your doing fair comparison tests you need to compensate by boosting the light output a little bit during the zooming operation, even though it may not be needed at all during normal viewing (when you are not doing tests).

And if your worried about increased lamp replacement costs because of running at higher brightness - you can buy a hell of a lot of lamps for the price of an A-lens!

Also, as you have just pointed out, any comparison of zooming versus lens without correct wide masking of the zoomed image is meaningless. I can really believe that when you ran your test on a blank wall with no masking that everyone preferred the A-lens method. I know I would have!

That result may well change if you repeat the tests properly, with correct masking of the zoomed image and a little brightness boost on the projector.


----------



## HogPilot

Switching between high and low brightness would require two separate calibrations since doing so significantly changes the spectral output of a lamp. This means every time you calibrate your projector, you have to do it twice.


Of course, if image fidelity isn't a major concern, you can forgo the double calibration (or any calibration), but if the whole argument for zooming or using an anamorphic lens is to maximize image fidelity, it becomes silly to argue vehemently for one aspect while ignoring another.


----------



## StevenC56

We zoom and are more than satisfied with the results. This is our first projector however, and we've never seen a lens in action. It's simply not in our budget to even afford one. We are perfectly pleased with the results of zooming with our Mitsubishi HC4000 using it's 2.35 mode. We use the Mitsubishi's vertical position adjustment to move the lower letterbox bar on top of the image area which along with the upper letterbox bar so they spill on the black top drop and Fidelio housing on our Seymour retractable making them virtually invisible. Even Imax footage frames out well and the overspill gets swallowed up. I realize we are only seeing 1920 X 815 resolution on Blu-Ray, however that still bests what we had with DVD just a few years ago.


----------



## Tom Monahan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/20675922
> 
> 
> I am hoping (after SMPTE) that I might be able to do a direct A/B using two of the same type of projector, projecting onto the same screen and use a shutter to switch between the two (zoom and A-Lens).
> 
> 
> The last time I attempted such a thing (thanks JVC), the two projectors were side by side and we were simply projecting onto a giant screen (white wall actually) with no hard boarder of masks. Also the lens I used (MK3) did not offer an astigmatism corrector at the time, so there were a few compromises on the day. Yet in the end, several engineers in the room passed their judgement to say " whilst we can see the pincushion from the A-Lens, the image is more watchable with the lens vs zooming".
> 
> 
> It will be interesting to repeat the same process in a properly light controlled room, proper screen with extra black panels around the screen and an A-lens with fully corrected optics.



Have those same engineers live with pinchshion and over time it will really start to distract them. Once you see square buildings with a bit of curve to them you can't let it go. I'm speaking of pretty noticeable pincushion here.


----------



## mrlittlejeans

I agree. I find the pincushion to be very annoying. I've been using a Panamorph 480 at over a 2:1 throw and the pincushion is still there. I don't think you can ever get rid of it without a curved screen. I also notice less sharpness at the edges. I've been seriously considering selling it and just zooming so its interesting to read this thread. I originally bought it because at my old house, I didn't have enough throw distance to zoom for 2.35:1. I've since moved and could go to a throw of over 2.5:1 but the pincushion is still there. There is a brightness advantage to using the lens but I don't think it is enough now to counteract the geometry and sharpness issues encountered with most lenses. I'm using an RS35 and sitting far enough back for SDE to be a non-issue. I also wonder what impact the extra scaling for stretching is doing to the image as you are no longer pixel perfect.


----------



## Tom Monahan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mrlittlejeans* /forum/post/20677448
> 
> 
> I agree. I find the pincushion to be very annoying. I've been using a Panamorph 480 at over a 2:1 throw and the pincushion is still there. I don't think you can ever get rid of it without a curved screen. I also notice less sharpness at the edges. I've been seriously considering selling it and just zooming so its interesting to read this thread. I originally bought it because at my old house, I didn't have enough throw distance to zoom for 2.35:1. I've since moved and could go to a throw of over 2.5:1 but the pincushion is still there. There is a brightness advantage to using the lens but I don't think it is enough now to counteract the geometry and sharpness issues encountered with most lenses. I'm using an RS35 and sitting far enough back for SDE to be a non-issue. I also wonder what impact the extra scaling for stretching is doing to the image as you are no longer pixel perfect.



I'm glad to see that I'm not alone.







Eliminating pincushion and the focus issues was a revelation especially on films shot greater than 2.40:1. Those bowed black bars were very annoying. The only negative for me is being unable to watch movies like A Dark Night or Tron Legacy in scope. I'm shocked that even with a long throw pincushion can be an issue.


Tom


----------



## stanger89

I've never noticed pincushion through my HD5000, other than on a grid test pattern.


----------



## taffman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tom Monahan* /forum/post/20677591
> 
> 
> I'm glad to see that I'm not alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .Tom



Not nearly as glad as I am!


Interestingly, I see no pinccushion at all with the 2X Isco cylindrical anamorphic lens that I use on my film projectors, so I guess A-lenses for HT projectors are a different kettle of fish.


----------



## Plewacka




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tom Monahan* /forum/post/20677591
> 
> 
> The only negative for me is being unable to watch movies like A Dark Night or Tron Legacy in scope. I'm shocked that even with a long throw pincushion can be an issue.
> 
> Tom



There is a way around the zooming issue when watching movies with changing AR, but only if you have a scaler that can define custom resolutions or if you have a HTPC

(My new way of CIH Projection). You simply create a 1920*824 resolution and the desktop on windows is finally in glourious CIH! Now when watching movies though you have to zoom the picture either by software or scaler, but you can actually watch The Dark Knight or Tron in scope without a lens!


I am recently one of the people who ditched a Anamorphic lens for zooming, but not because of picture quality, but because of the difficulty of trying to do a dual projection passive 3D system with dual Anamorphic lenses. If I did not want the 3d setup, then the lens would surely still be there.


----------



## Tom Monahan

I just thought of something that has me concerned. My current Pioneer FP-J1/ JVC RS2 clone, when max zoomed out, gives me a 2.40 size of 41 1/4" x 99". I'm planning on a 45x96 inch Carada fixed screen. I see that the new JVC 3D projectors are a couple of inches deeper than my Pioneer plus the inputs are not recessed like they are on the Pioneer. I'm going to wait a year or so before I upgrade and wonder if a deeper projector like the RS40 max zoomed would be able to fill the 40x96 screen I intent to buy.


Now, I'm really confused what to do.










Any opinions?


Thanks,

Tom


----------



## ilsiu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tom Monahan* /forum/post/20677928
> 
> 
> I just thought of something that has me concerned. My current Pioneer FP-J1/ JVC RS2 clone, when max zoomed out, gives me a 2.40 size of 41 1/4" x 99". I'm planning on a 45x96 inch Carada fixed screen. I see that the new JVC 3D projectors are a couple of inches deeper than my Pioneer plus the inputs are not recessed like they are on the Pioneer. I'm going to wait a year or so before I upgrade and wonder if a deeper projector like the RS40 max zoomed would be able to fill the 40x96 screen I intent to buy.
> 
> 
> Now, I'm really confused what to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any opinions?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Tom



I'd check to see if the lenses are different on the RS40 and the RS2; maybe the projectorcentral.com calculators are accurate for this? The owners manuals should also have throw tables as well.


Edit - out of curiosity, I checked out the RS2 and RS40 manuals; unfortunately they show the same throw distances, but the manuals says those numbers are approximate. I suspect you'll run into some problems.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tom Monahan* /forum/post/20677928
> 
> 
> I just thought of something that has me concerned. My current Pioneer FP-J1/ JVC RS2 clone, when max zoomed out, gives me a 2.40 size of 41 1/4" x 99". I'm planning on a 45x96 inch Carada fixed screen. I see that the new JVC 3D projectors are a couple of inches deeper than my Pioneer plus the inputs are not recessed like they are on the Pioneer. I'm going to wait a year or so before I upgrade and wonder if a deeper projector like the RS40 max zoomed would be able to fill the 40x96 screen I intent to buy.
> 
> 
> Now, I'm really confused what to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any opinions?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Tom



Step up to the ultimate in lenses. The Cylindrical A Lens and never look back. That and a curved screen will give you projection perfection when it comes to CIH. Huge difference between a prism vs cylindrical a lens.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/20676255
> 
> 
> No, just making sure that people do a really fair comparison. It is well known that use of the A-lens gives about a 15%-20% boost in screen illumination compared with just zooming to the same image size, so if your doing fair comparison tests you need to compensate by boosting the light output a little bit during the zooming operation, even though it may not be needed at all during normal viewing (when you are not doing tests).
> 
> And if your worried about increased lamp replacement costs because of running at higher brightness - you can buy a hell of a lot of lamps for the price of an A-lens!
> 
> Also, as you have just pointed out, any comparison of zooming versus lens without correct wide masking of the zoomed image is meaningless. I can really believe that when you ran your test on a blank wall with no masking that everyone preferred the A-lens method. I know I would have!
> 
> That result may well change if you repeat the tests properly, with correct masking of the zoomed image and a little brightness boost on the projector.



Well we shall see. Stay tuned











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tom Monahan* /forum/post/20677365
> 
> 
> Have those same engineers live with pinchshion and over time it will really start to distract them. Once you see square buildings with a bit of curve to them you can't let it go. I'm speaking of pretty noticeable pincushion here.



The answer is of course a curved screen. Pincushion occurs on all four sides of the image but it most noticeable on the two horizontal sides. buildings are generally vertical, so they generally look OK.


----------



## ilsiu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/20678698
> 
> 
> Step up to the ultimate in lenses. The Cylindrical A Lens and never look back. That and a curved screen will give you projection perfection when it comes to CIH. Huge difference between a prism vs cylindrical a lens.



Since I enjoy spending other people's money







, take another step up to DCI, cylindrical lens and curved screen optional?

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1346717


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Plewacka* /forum/post/20677917
> 
> 
> There is a way around the zooming issue when watching movies with changing AR, but only if you have a scaler that can define custom resolutions or if you have a HTPC
> 
> (My new way of CIH Projection). You simply create a 1920*824 resolution and the desktop on windows is finally in glourious CIH!



Video processors such as the Lumagens have adjustable electronic masking, so you can blank out the extra pixels at the top and bottom of the screen without needing a custom resolution.


I don't think that there are many 1080p digital projectors that will accept custom resolutions such as 1920x824 anyway.


----------



## Tom Monahan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/20680199
> 
> 
> Video processors such as the Lumagens have adjustable electronic masking, so you can blank out the extra pixels at the top and bottom of the screen without needing a custom resolution.
> 
> 
> I don't think that there are many 1080p digital projectors that will accept custom resolutions such as 1920x824 anyway.



I use the Lumagen HDP. How would I go about doing this?


Thanks,

Tom


----------



## Plewacka




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/20680199
> 
> 
> Video processors such as the Lumagens have adjustable electronic masking, so you can blank out the extra pixels at the top and bottom of the screen without needing a custom resolution.
> 
> 
> I don't think that there are many 1080p digital projectors that will accept custom resolutions such as 1920x824 anyway.



Thanks for the info about the Lumagen, but the reason for custom resolution for me was that Windows 7 OS is in CIH, without the need for a lens. Without a lens or custom resolutions, the desktop would not be in CIH with zooming. Also helps with the 3D Aspect.


----------



## Tom Monahan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/20678694
> 
> 
> I'd check to see if the lenses are different on the RS40 and the RS2; maybe the projectorcentral.com calculators are accurate for this? The owners manuals should also have throw tables as well.
> 
> 
> Edit - out of curiosity, I checked out the RS2 and RS40 manuals; unfortunately they show the same throw distances, but the manuals says those numbers are approximate. I suspect you'll run into some problems.



Thanks so much for taking the time out to help me.







My lens just sold this morning so I guess I'm screwed.










I guess I'm be stuck with my Pioneer as I am a JVC guy (love their contrast) and their newer projectors are significantly deeper. I'll need to stay off the forum projector forum or I'll get too depressed. Time to invest in a replacement bulb.


I guess I need to pick up an eye patch if I'm going to get any kind of 3D affect.



Tom


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tom Monahan* /forum/post/20680325
> 
> 
> I use the Lumagen HDP. How would I go about doing this?



I'm not at home right now, but I believe the feature is called "Masking" and it's buried somewhere in the "Style" menus. I love the Radiance for all it can do, but figuring out how to actually do anything is a real pain in the neck.


----------



## ilsiu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tom Monahan* /forum/post/20681755
> 
> 
> Thanks so much for taking the time out to help me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My lens just sold this morning so I guess I'm screwed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I'm be stuck with my Pioneer as I am a JVC guy (love their contrast) and their newer projectors are significantly deeper. I'll need to stay off the forum projector forum or I'll get too depressed. Time to invest in a replacement bulb.
> 
> 
> I guess I need to pick up an eye patch if I'm going to get any kind of 3D affect.
> 
> 
> 
> Tom



It's a longshot, but the new Epson implementation of LCOS has a shorter throw ratio than the JVC, 1.28 vs 1.40 (source: http://avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthrea...2#post20672492 ). It's only 2D now, but in a couple of years, the newer models could be 3D.


Oh, and it also has lens memory with motorized focus, zoom, and shift. Perfect for the CIH zoomer.


----------



## Tom Monahan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/20683023
> 
> 
> It's a longshot, but the new Epson implementation of LCOS has a shorter throw ratio than the JVC, 1.28 vs 1.40 (source: http://avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthrea...2#post20672492 ). It's only 2D now, but in a couple of years, the newer models could be 3D.
> 
> 
> Oh, and it also has lens memory with motorized focus, zoom, and shift. Perfect for the CIH zoomer.



Thanks for the idea.







I will keep that in mind.


The JVC's are about 2" deeper than my Pioneer so I am considering cutting out the drywall just behind the projector to make up that distance plus a spare 1 1/2". The projectors cables, in the back, take up about 2" of space so if I run them in the wall all should be good.


Tom


----------



## Trogdor2010




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Plewacka* /forum/post/20677917
> 
> 
> There is a way around the zooming issue when watching movies with changing AR, but only if you have a scaler that can define custom resolutions or if you have a HTPC
> 
> (My new way of CIH Projection). You simply create a 1920*824 resolution and the desktop on windows is finally in glourious CIH! Now when watching movies though you have to zoom the picture either by software or scaler, but you can actually watch The Dark Knight or Tron in scope without a lens!
> 
> 
> I am recently one of the people who ditched a Anamorphic lens for zooming, but not because of picture quality, but because of the difficulty of trying to do a dual projection passive 3D system with dual Anamorphic lenses. If I did not want the 3d setup, then the lens would surely still be there.



I actually tried this out with my Infocus x10 and DIY A-lens. I borrowed my friend's gaming rig and used the custom resolution feature, which it work like any 1080p signal. Either Use 16:9 for A-lens, or native for zooming or shrinking. I do not have a 3D projector, but this is a possible workaround for watching 3D content.


Believe it or not, the custom resolution actually works pretty well with many computer games, unlike console gaming, you can get the game to work based on the native resolution of the signal, such as 1920x810. I tried this out with Counter Strike: Source, Team Fortress 2, Duke Nukem Forever, Bad Company 2, and Crysis, all working like a charm, and actually give more picture information because the games mentioned are Hor+ (Horizontal expansion) which based on the width times height, meaning the wider the screen, the more you see.







It was made for the multi-monitor method for games, is easily applicable with 2.35:1. Not all are Hor+, but it has been used for years now. It's really cool if you are a gamer.


I would love to see someone use a HTPC with an A-lens and a 3D projector in action, maybe do some 3D scope gaming too!


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tom Monahan* /forum/post/20683359
> 
> 
> Thanks for the idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will keep that in mind.
> 
> 
> The JVC's are about 2" deeper than my Pioneer so I am considering cutting out the drywall just behind the projector to make up that distance plus a spare 1 1/2". The projectors cables, in the back, take up about 2" of space so if I run them in the wall all should be good.



Make sure you give the projector enough space to vent.


----------



## tbase1

Panasonic ae4000.....period!


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tom Monahan* /forum/post/20665048
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone else gone from a lens to using the zoom method?



Never used a lens in my set up so I zoom for both CIH and for just varying the image size. I've seen lots of lens based CIH systems and they were great so I've got nothing against lenses per se. I haven't felt the need for one.


I guess on the plus side I've never had to worry for a moment about fiddling with a lens to get it just right so it's not distorting the image visibly. I've got a pin sharp image no matter what size/AR I zoom to. I get all ARs perfectly masked.


One of the negatives was supposed to be the fact of having to zoom the image, but it has turned out not to be the case at least for me. Zooming is super fast, and I even still find it fun. Ironically, my RS20's lens pattern, which goes on for re-sizing the image, looks like a really cool green laser pattern on the screen. So even when guests watch the zooming process they ooh and ahh at seeing that lens pattern come on and expand to the new size...seemingly as impressed by the process as they are by the change in image size/AR. So I can't even see the zooming process itself as a negative. (Also, for most smaller ARs I'm in low bulb mode. When I zoom the images to their largest, I can just pop the lens into high bulb mode and I get a nice bright image).


YMMV of course.


----------



## Tom Monahan

I've been watching BD's using the zoom method on an 8ft wide CIH screen from 8' away this past week. I was using a 45"x108" scope screen at a distance of 108". All walls and ceiling are covered in black velvet so the screen just floats in air.


Even though I sit/sat at 1x screen with with both screens the 16x9 image on the 8' screen so small. I didn't think this would be much of an issue at first. With the bigger screen, I feel like I'm in a real movie theater but with the smaller one I feel like I'm just watching video. Does one adjust to a smaller screen over time or will it only get worse? I'm definately not interested in any screen ratio besides CIH.


Thanks,

Tom


----------



## taffman

Everything is relative, and the brain quickly adjusts to what it considers normal.

If you have been watching a 32 ins TV and you switch to a 55 ins flat panel tv, the 55 ins is going to seem huge. But if you go from a 55 ins flat panel to a 108 ins projected image, it will now seem huge and the 55 ins will appear small and insignificant. So it is with CIH. Inevitably in a CIH set up, the 16:9 and 4: 3 will seem progressively smaller and less impactive, but thats the way that Scope was always intended to be - much bigger and more immersive.


----------



## Vlubbers




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tom Monahan* /forum/post/20695606
> 
> 
> I've been watching BD's using the zoom method on an 8ft wide CIH screen from 8' away this past week. I was using a 45"x108" scope screen at a distance of 108". All walls and ceiling are covered in black velvet so the screen just floats in air.
> 
> 
> Even though I sit/sat at 1x screen with with both screens the 16x9 image on the 8' screen so small. I didn't think this would be much of an issue at first. With the bigger screen, I feel like I'm in a real movie theater but with the smaller one I feel like I'm just watching video. Does one adjust to a smaller screen over time or will it only get worse? I'm definately not interested in any screen ratio besides CIH.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Tom



My set up is similar with a scope screen. But, if you had a 16x9 screen that was as wide as your scope screen (108 I guess) then the 16x9 image could be equally as wide and it would actually be larger in area. This would entail upper and lower masks and the physical space to accommodate it. Personally, I think this arrangement bests the scope shaped screen. Ah, next time.


----------



## taffman

But then the 2.35 image would be smaller than the 16:9 image , and that defeats the whole purpose of CIH which is to show CinemaScope films WIDER than 16:9 and 4:3.


----------



## Brad Horstkotte




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vlubbers* /forum/post/20695983
> 
> 
> My set up is similar with a scope screen. But, if you had a 16x9 screen that was as wide as your scope screen (108 I guess) then the 16x9 image could be equally as wide and it would actually be larger in area. This would entail upper and lower masks and the physical space to accommodate it. Personally, I think this arrangement bests the scope shaped screen. Ah, next time.



Isn't that just a 16:9 screen then?


----------



## Vlubbers




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/20696219
> 
> 
> But then the 2.35 image would be smaller than the 16:9 image , and that defeats the whole purpose of CIH which is to show CinemaScope films WIDER than 16:9 and 4:3.



I guess I do not subscribe to your goal. I don't project scope and 16x9 simultaneously and I opt for max immersion in both instances. A difference in priorities I reckon. At present my system evokes your scenario.


Ciao


----------



## Vlubbers




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brad Horstkotte* /forum/post/20696267
> 
> 
> Isn't that just a 16:9 screen then?



Well yes, but with masking to manage the projection area. Think Carada Masquerade. There is no need to zoom, only manage the masking. This will not satisfy the anamorphic quest for pixel density, but it does make things very easy and very impressive. The default mind set is usually to manage the image at the projector. The source. I have concluded that there is merit for me to managing the framing of the image at the destination. The screen. I am not proselytizing, I am merely expressing a preference.


----------



## Brad Horstkotte

No worries, lots of folks prefer a 16:9 screen, esp if they do a lot of TV watching and gaming as well as movies. Just to wanted to see if I got your description.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vlubbers* /forum/post/20695983
> 
> 
> My set up is similar with a scope screen. But, if you had a 16x9 screen that was as wide as your scope screen (108 I guess) then the 16x9 image could be equally as wide and it would actually be larger in area. This would entail upper and lower masks and the physical space to accommodate it. Personally, I think this arrangement bests the scope shaped screen. Ah, next time.



In some of the smaller home theaters maybe. Not if your room is twice as wide as it is tall as in my case. I got the biggest 16x9 (110")that would fit, then sized the 2.35 (138")screen off of that. So i have a 54x96 16x9 and a 54x127 cinemascope. Even the 54x72 4x3 works fine for 1939 classics.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tom Monahan* /forum/post/20695606
> 
> 
> I've been watching BD's using the zoom method on an 8ft wide CIH screen from 8' away this past week. I was using a 45"x108" scope screen at a distance of 108". All walls and ceiling are covered in black velvet so the screen just floats in air.
> 
> 
> Even though I sit/sat at 1x screen with with both screens the 16x9 image on the 8' screen so small. I didn't think this would be much of an issue at first. With the bigger screen, I feel like I'm in a real movie theater but with the smaller one I feel like I'm just watching video. Does one adjust to a smaller screen over time or will it only get worse? I'm definately not interested in any screen ratio besides CIH.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Tom



Can you sit closer? I found that lowering the screen also gives the illusion of the screen being larger.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vlubbers* /forum/post/20696662
> 
> 
> I guess I do not subscribe to your goal. I don't project scope and 16x9 simultaneously and I opt for max immersion in both instances. A difference in priorities I reckon. At present my system evokes your scenario.
> 
> 
> Ciao



For some that doesn't allow 'max immersion' for scope though, just the opposite. With the correct seating distance for 16:9, you then have the max immersion for 16:9 and a more immersive experience for scope which is the same height, only wider - it's how it was designed to be. Of course, if you prefer 16:9 to be more immersive, then CIW is the way to go.


In effect you are projecting scope and 16:9 simultaneously because you're doing CIW, where nothing changes except the top and bottom of a scope movie have visible black bars and you mask those.


Gary


----------



## Vlubbers




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/20697668
> 
> 
> For some that doesn't allow 'max immersion' for scope though, just the opposite. With the correct seating distance for 16:9, you then have the max immersion for 16:9 and a more immersive experience for scope which is the same height, only wider - it's how it was designed to be. Of course, if you prefer 16:9 to be more immersive, then CIW is the way to go.
> 
> 
> In effect you are projecting scope and 16:9 simultaneously because you're doing CIW, where nothing changes except the top and bottom of a scope movie have visible black bars and you mask those.
> 
> 
> Gary



In deference to a previous poster--I did lose touch with the name of this section. It is CIH, so my comments should subscribe to those parameters. My apologies.


You are also correct in that technically I would actually only be projecting 16x9. I suppose I would sacrifice my allegiance to CIH in deference to maximum size for each format. As far as seating distance I would be sitting just over one screen width. This is what I use now on my true CIH arrangement. Were I designing a new arrangement I would experiment with CIW.


My first post was to say that I did abandon an ISCO for zoom. Then I wandered a bit off the course.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vlubbers* /forum/post/20697893
> 
> 
> You are also correct in that technically I would actually only be projecting 16x9. I suppose I would sacrifice my allegiance to CIH in deference to maximum size for each format.



I've used this analogy before in this forum, but it still holds true. With a 16:9 screen and Constant Image Width, your average episode of Two and a Half Men will be projected larger and more immersive than all of the Star Wars, Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, or Indiana Jones movies. Not to mention countless other films such as Lawrence of Arabia, 2001, Ben-Hur, etc. that were photographed with the specific intention of being displayed as large and wide as you can make them.


If you're fine with that (and honestly, most people are), stick with a 16:9 screen. Those of us who subscribe to Constant Image Height are trying to correct the imbalance of the current HDTV paradigm, which reverses that original artistic intent.


----------



## Tom Monahan

Amen Josh!


16x9 FP is just a big screen tv in my opinion.


----------



## Highjinx

I started with a dedicated 16:9 screen, but I too found 2.35:1 had less impact than the 16:9 and the visible vari black bars distracting, so I added masking:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUSq-CKLeJA 


Sure an improvement, but the impact issue was still present, so I added a second wider screen mounted closer so the vertical viewing angle was the same as the unmasked smaller screen behind it. CIH by constant vertical viewing angle. The second screen can be unmasked to full 16:9 for those Avatar/TDK type movies for full impact.


Screens in action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58Ncvn_Qtdg 


Screens with film clips:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71GUtwl4xRk 


Now here's a major benefit, brightness. When measuring brightness with the meter facing the projector from screen surface, the larger screen(in 2.35:1 mode - using 75% of the panel) is only approx 7% less bright than the smaller screen using 100% of the panel, as it is mounted closer to the projector, zoom lens aperture size larger.


But when measured with the meter facing the screens from the viewing position both screens have identical light intensity(small screen in 16:9 mode using full panel and larger screen in 2.35:1 mode using 75% of the panel, even brighter using larger screen in 16:9 mode for the Imax type material)as the bigger screen is closer to both the projector and the viewer, less light diffusion/narrower light cone.


Both screen mounted within the viewing distance 'bracket' for resolving HD. I choose to sit no closer than 39 degree as I find IQ decreases to my eyes.


No electronic scaling, no pincushion, no reduced depth of field, no A-Lens, no ANSI compromise, minor on/off CR drop to the eye (cannot detect with my light meter - ACME CA813) User iris at -15 in all cases....JVC HD750/RS20.


Needs lens memory to be totally pain free......no free lunch.


If the desired image size and viewing image quality is attainable without the use of an A-Lens, I would and have taken that route. However if one is pushing the boundaries of consumer HD and has a dersire to sit at a closer ratio than consumer HD is designed for, where panel characterists become visible an A-lens setup would be valuable.


FWIW I know of two who have given up their A-Lens setups for zooming and masking. Good to have choices


----------



## CAVX

Not that detached from the topic: So what does everyone think of D-Cinema's choice to use the "shrink method" for CIH rather than use an Anamorphic Lens (ISCO 1.25x) with their 2K/4K projectors?


----------



## Highjinx

Doesn't Dci use more horizontal pixels for 2.35:1 than 16:9?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/20704379
> 
> 
> Doesn't Dci use more horizontal pixels for 2.35:1 than 16:9?



I am not 100%. The last D-Cinema experience was in a V-Max cinema where the pre-show was 1.78:1/1.85:1 with side pillars on visible screen on each side (no side masking system) and scope trailers were window boxed.


Then I saw what looked like a digital pixel by pixel line that the DVDO EDGE does when changing from 4 x 3 to Letterbox mode (Scaling for CIH with an A-Lens in place and the feature film (TRANSFORMERS 3 - DARK OF THE MOON in 3D) now filled the screen. Apart from the mentioned window boxing did the image or screen height change.


Later I got to have a quick chat to the projectionist and he said the projector was a Christie 2K (2048 x 1080) display. So it looks like they ran it as 2048 x 856 for Scope and 1536 x 856 for pre-show. The only thing that was mounted to a slide was the REAL D 3D shutter.


I've not seen a "35 flat" (1.85:1) film in that cinema yet, so maybe they do re-align the projector for each film AR prior to the screening allowing more pixels to be used for the smaller ARs.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tom Monahan* /forum/post/20695606
> 
> 
> Even though I sit/sat at 1x screen with with both screens the 16x9 image on the 8' screen so small. I didn't think this would be much of an issue at first. With the bigger screen, I feel like I'm in a real movie theater but with the smaller one I feel like I'm just watching video. Does one adjust to a smaller screen over time or will it only get worse? I'm definately not interested in any screen ratio besides CIH.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Tom



This has been discussed many times here. Comparative experience has a big impact on how our brain perceives the size of an object, in this case projected images.


When flat panels first came out I replaced my 27" tube set with a 42" diagonal plasma. Compared to the 27" size, the 42" felt HUGE. "Wow, this is really cinematic!"


But you get used to the size over time and the impact isn't as great. That's just how our brains work. More important is the comparison effect.


Now that I use a big front projection set up for watching movies, when I look at my plasma image it feels almost laughably small. An image that seemed quite generous and cinematic not long ago now feels like a postage stamp because it's now being compared to the images on my Big Screen.


Same thing happens when you start adding screen size comparisons in your theater. You may start with, say, a 100" diagonal 16:9 image and when watching 16:9 content think "This is quite big and cinematic!"


Then add a 2:35:1 screen, of the same height. Now when you watch widescreen movies they are waaaay bigger than your 16:9 image. It is therefore entirely natural, and to be expected, that your 16:9 image will feel like it has less impact, now that you are comparing it often to a much larger image (scope movies) on the same wall.


This has been noted by many CIH owners over the years, and your sentiment that your set up now compels you toward scope movies over 16:9 is a sentiment often repeated on this forum. It generally comes with the territory. (Though some members say they do not experience this issue).


To me CIH is worth it over CIW 16:9 screens because either way you are favoring the size of one aspect ratio or another. And if one aspect ratio has to have more impact, I'd prefer it be scope over non-scope movies, just as CIH owners prefer.


'Course I went another way that for me "solves" this issue, but that's another story.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tom Monahan* /forum/post/20695606
> 
> 
> Does one adjust to a smaller screen over time or will it only get worse? I'm definately not interested in any screen ratio besides CIH.



Then perhaps you need to sit closer. I love my front row at just 2x the image height off the screen. It is totally immersive for all ARs down to 1.33:1. The only thing I notice when watching a smaller AR is that the image suddenly stops where if the program had been Scope, it would extend all the way to the edge of the screen.


----------



## sharok




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/20707578
> 
> 
> Then perhaps you need to sit closer. I love my front row at just 2x the image height off the screen. It is totally immersive for all ARs down to 1.33:1. The only thing I notice when watching a smaller AR is that the image suddenly stops where if the program had been Scope, it would extend all the way to the edge of the screen.



Hi Mark,


Are you going to attend the CES 2012?


----------



## Tom Monahan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/20707578
> 
> 
> Then perhaps you need to sit closer. I love my front row at just 2x the image height off the screen. It is totally immersive for all ARs down to 1.33:1. The only thing I notice when watching a smaller AR is that the image suddenly stops where if the program had been Scope, it would extend all the way to the edge of the screen.



Unfortunately, I would see pixels any closer than 8' when viewing scope. I can, at times, see pixels at my 8' viewing distance. I'm considering defocusing a touch to eliminate them.







Even doing so, detail is much sharper than using the lens. Especially corner to corner focus. Moving my chair forward for non scope films is not an option.


Tom


----------



## 5mark

Tom, you could try zooming your 16:9 image a little larger and then use your Lumagen to mask the overspill (say an inch or two on the top and bottom). It would fill your screen a little more without losing anything important.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sharok* /forum/post/20711439
> 
> 
> Hi Mark,
> 
> 
> Are you going to attend the CES 2012?



Would love too but sorry, just bought myself a 16 panel Solar system











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tom Monahan* /forum/post/20711554
> 
> 
> Even doing so, detail is much sharper than using the lens. Especially corner to corner focus.



Sorry, which lens was it again?


----------



## Highjinx

If pixel structure is visible from the chosen viewing distance.....dare I say the limits consumer HD is being pushed......and 4k projectors will be the salvation even if it is upscaled 2k to 4k.


I'm quite happy to view no closer the 1.5x screen widths with1920x1080/815


----------



## nebrunner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/20687177
> 
> 
> Panasonic ae4000.....period!



Until you try to watch the new Tron or Dark Knight, or any upcoming movie using some Imax footage...



"PROCESSING...PROCESSING..."


----------



## Tom Monahan

Quote:

Originally Posted by *5mark* 
Tom, you could try zooming your 16:9 image a little larger and then use your Lumagen to mask the overspill (say an inch or two on the top and bottom). It would fill your screen a little more without losing anything important.
I'll give that a try. Thanks for the suggestion.







With family in town I have had little time playing with the Lumagen.


The more I watch non scope material and the longer I'm away from my biger screen the more I enjoy the size. Hopefully this trend will continue.


Tom


----------



## Tom Monahan

Quote:

Originally Posted by *nebrunner* 
Until you try to watch the new Tron or Dark Knight, or any upcoming movie using some Imax footage...



"PROCESSING...PROCESSING..."
If you have a Lumagen at least it's a non issue.


Tom


----------



## Tom Monahan

Mark,


It was UH380.


By the way, do you have any pictures of your 8' scope based HT room?


Thanks,

Tom


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tom Monahan* /forum/post/20714719
> 
> 
> Mark,
> 
> 
> It was UH380.
> 
> 
> By the way, do you have any pictures of your 8' scope based HT room?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Tom



Thanks Tom.


2nd question - what was the distance from projector from projector to screen? There is more to this than just TR.


I have images on my BLOG under A ROOM IN A ROOM.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tom Monahan* /forum/post/20714699
> 
> 
> If you have a Lumagen at least it's a non issue.
> 
> 
> Tom



Or if you are using the zoom method with remote controlled masking.

In mine, the scope portions of Tron (Dark Knight, etc) are masked. When it switches ARs I hit a button and the IMAX image opens up to be masked.


----------



## Brad Horstkotte

I watched Tron: Legacy on my CIA (2.125:1) screen as if it was 2.35:1, and just let the 16:9 parts overshoot the top and bottom. It actually worked pretty well, I didn't feel like I was losing anything significant, and I definitely didn't want to be bothered to keep switching aspects. A "purist" would undoubtedly disapprove.


----------



## Highjinx




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/20716649
> 
> 
> Or if you are using the zoom method with remote controlled masking.
> 
> In mine, the scope portions of Tron (Dark Knight, etc) are masked. When it switches ARs I hit a button and the IMAX image opens up to be masked.



Now that is cool!


I have to hit two buttons and the masking action is slow, so I keep the screen at 16:9 for such films.


Would be nice to have the rigid masking actioned by linear motors, the masking can flip in and out automatically based on light intensity hitting sensors located on the masking.............perhaps a future project.


----------



## Brad Horstkotte




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/20716721
> 
> 
> Would be nice to have the rigid masking actioned by linear motors, the masking can flip in and out automatically based on light intensity hitting sensors located on the masking.............perhaps a future project.



I thought of that too - but then wondered how you deal with light other than from the projector (like room lights) - I'm sure there's a solution, but that was enough to make me not want to pursue it.


----------



## Highjinx




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brad Horstkotte* /forum/post/20716734
> 
> 
> I thought of that too - but then wondered how you deal with light other than from the projector (like room lights) - I'm sure there's a solution, but that was enough to make me not want to pursue it.



Locate the light sensors in black tubes, two lots required in two planes. One for when the masking is open, one for when it's closed.


...or if the incoming signal to the projector can be sensed (be it 16:9 or 2.35:1 or whatever) and a pulse sent to the linear motors to switch AR's......perhaps a potential product in the making?


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/20716721
> 
> 
> Now that is cool!
> 
> 
> I have to hit two buttons and the masking action is slow, so I keep the screen at 16:9 for such films.



My Carada masquerade top/bottom automated masking moves quite quickly.

It's actually quite impressive during the movie watching the screen image expand to uncover more image area, when switching to the IMAX AR.

A real "whoa" moment.


----------



## Highjinx




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/20717864
> 
> 
> My Carada masquerade top/bottom automated masking moves quite quickly.
> 
> It's actually quite impressive during the movie watching the screen image expand to uncover more image area, when switching to the IMAX AR.
> 
> A real "whoa" moment.



Yeah..the masking speed is a must for those dual AR presentations.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brad Horstkotte* /forum/post/20716671
> 
> 
> I watched Tron: Legacy on my CIA (2.125:1) screen as if it was 2.35:1, and just let the 16:9 parts overshoot the top and bottom. It actually worked pretty well, I didn't feel like I was losing anything significant, and I definitely didn't want to be bothered to keep switching aspects. A "purist" would undoubtedly disapprove.



Same here. I can't see going to all the trouble for 5-10 mins of film in 3 movies. Never did get the point of it, I guess. When I've gone to Imax for the dual aspect viewings I've hardly noticed. Even Avatar plays nicely in 2.35. Then again I get the biggest grin playing with my iRule iPhone.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/20726056
> 
> 
> Yeah..the masking speed is a must for those dual AR presentations.



There is no automated masking speed that will be able to keep up with the rapid-fire cutting between ratios in Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. The Devastator scene switches ratios every 1-2 seconds. Even in The Dark Knight, some of the full-screen IMAX establishing shots that open scenes only last a few seconds.


Automated masking movement is really not practical for movies that alternate aspect ratios. The masks will be jumping up and down all through the movie.


----------



## 230-SEAN

Also, wouldn't the viewer have to have the movie memorized to know when the 16:9 parts are coming in order to change the ratio? I understand going from 16:9 to 2.35:1 as the black bars are a give away, but unless you have the movie memorized, how would you know when it goes back to 16:9?


-Sean


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/20726869
> 
> 
> 
> Automated masking movement is really not practical for movies that alternate aspect ratios. The masks will be jumping up and down all through the movie.



Absolutely if the goal would be an utterly invisible process.


But sometimes the process can add somewhat to the impact.


It's like when I do CIH demos. I start with a 4:3 image masked, then a 16:9 then a 2:35:1. I can either first adjust the screen shape, then project the new image. Or I can project the new image first, then open up the masking.


Often it seems the latter presentation comes off as more "wow." Because you get the "reveal" factor, the masking opening to reveal more and more image.


I have found a similar effect with the mixed AR movies. It gets a real "oooh" from viewers as the masking opens (quickly) to reveal the larger IMAX image, and it moves quickly enough back to 2:35:1 so as not to be intrusive either.


As usual, trade offs everywhere, and it would be even more awseome to have the masking automatically triggered (I'm sure it could be done).


----------



## Highjinx




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/20726869
> 
> 
> There is no automated masking speed that will be able to keep up with the rapid-fire cutting between ratios in Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. The Devastator scene switches ratios every 1-2 seconds. Even in The Dark Knight, some of the full-screen IMAX establishing shots that open scenes only last a few seconds.
> 
> 
> Automated masking movement is really not practical for movies that alternate aspect ratios. The masks will be jumping up and down all through the movie.



That would depend on the masking design.


Light weight rigid masking flaps activated by linear motors initiated by an AR sensing circuit in the video signal path could be made to work very effectively, seamlessly and automatically, with no user/viewer input required.


----------



## Highjinx




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/20728530
> 
> 
> Absolutely if the goal would be an utterly invisible process.
> 
> 
> But sometimes the process can add somewhat to the impact.
> 
> 
> It's like when I do CIH demos. I start with a 4:3 image masked, then a 16:9 then a 2:35:1. I can either first adjust the screen shape, then project the new image. Or I can project the new image first, then open up the masking.
> 
> 
> Often it seems the latter presentation comes off as more "wow." Because you get the "reveal" factor, the masking opening to reveal more and more image.
> 
> 
> I have found a similar effect with the mixed AR movies. It gets a real "oooh" from viewers as the masking opens (quickly) to reveal the larger IMAX image, and it moves quickly enough back to 2:35:1 so as not to be intrusive either.
> 
> 
> As usual, trade offs everywhere, and it would be even more awseome to have the masking automatically triggered (*I'm sure it could be done*).



I'm sure too!!


----------



## Josh Z

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Highjinx* 
That would depend on the masking design.


Light weight rigid masking flaps activated by linear motors initiated by an AR sensing circuit in the video signal path could be made to work very effectively, seamlessly and automatically, with no user/viewer input required.
Seems like an awful lot of expense and effort for three movies.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/20731238
> 
> 
> Seems like an awful lot of expense and effort for three movies.



As I've always said: I agree with that. Which is why the IMAX issue per se has never been my full motivation for the flexibility of my approach.


----------



## Highjinx




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/20731238
> 
> 
> Seems like an awful lot of expense and effort for three movies.



Perhaps, but then we are enthusiasts......trying to get the most out of our of the viewing experiences.


----------



## neo991lb

(I'm on a lowish budget, FWIW) I've subscribed to the notion that the Scope screen should be wider, and not shorter, than its 16:9 counterpart. I plan on having a 49" tall screen in 2.35/37/40 (haven't decided yet), then applying manual masking to make a 100" diagonal 16:9 screen. Unfortunately, TDK is one of my favorite movies, so the "spillover" from using the zoom method (lens/processing+automation is just not in the budget right now) on the top and bottom might be a problem.. I've considered just putting some black plush felt above and below the screen to absorb the spillover because I feel it would be a pretty big distraction, although I'm not sure how much light a dark wall would reflect and whether it would be distracting or not. And again, there's only a small small number of movies with AR that switches like that.


----------



## Highjinx




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *neo991lb* /forum/post/20733118
> 
> 
> (I'm on a lowish budget, FWIW) I've subscribed to the notion that the Scope screen should be wider, and not shorter, than its 16:9 counterpart. I plan on having a 49" tall screen in 2.35/37/40 (haven't decided yet), then applying manual masking to make a 100" diagonal 16:9 screen. Unfortunately, TDK is one of my favorite movies, so the "spillover" from using the zoom method (lens/processing+automation is just not in the budget right now) on the top and bottom might be a problem.. I've considered just putting some black plush felt above and below the screen to absorb the spillover because I feel it would be a pretty big distraction, although I'm not sure how much light a dark wall would reflect and whether it would be distracting or not. And again, there's only a small small number of movies with AR that switches like that.



There are only a handful of 3D movies....but we still jump aboard the 3D ship......










Agree with the CIH thinking.....but it can be improved upon.


Here's my solution: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post20704336


----------



## Tom Monahan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *neo991lb* /forum/post/20733118
> 
> 
> (I'm on a lowish budget, FWIW) I've subscribed to the notion that the Scope screen should be wider, and not shorter, than its 16:9 counterpart. I plan on having a 49" tall screen in 2.35/37/40 (haven't decided yet), then applying manual masking to make a 100" diagonal 16:9 screen. Unfortunately, TDK is one of my favorite movies, so the "spillover" from using the zoom method (lens/processing+automation is just not in the budget right now) on the top and bottom might be a problem.. I've considered just putting some black plush felt above and below the screen to absorb the spillover because I feel it would be a pretty big distraction, although I'm not sure how much light a dark wall would reflect and whether it would be distracting or not. And again, there's only a small small number of movies with AR that switches like that.



DON'T use felt. Black velvet absorbs light better than any material I have tried by far and I have tested a ton.


Tom


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tom Monahan* /forum/post/20734890
> 
> 
> DON'T use felt. Black velvet absorbs light better than any material I have tried by far and I have tested a ton.



And if real velvet is too expensive, velveteen will do in a pinch.


----------



## neo991lb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tom Monahan* /forum/post/20734890
> 
> 
> DON'T use felt. Black velvet absorbs light better than any material I have tried by far and I have tested a ton.
> 
> 
> Tom



Ah, my mistake. I had this site bookmarked (referred to from somewhere on AVSForum): Black Plush Triple Velvet 


How much light would be reflected from a dark red or brown painted wall?


----------



## nebrunner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/20726163
> 
> 
> Same here. I can't see going to all the trouble for 5-10 mins of film in 3 movies. Never did get the point of it, I guess. When I've gone to Imax for the dual aspect viewings I've hardly noticed. Even Avatar plays nicely in 2.35. Then again I get the biggest grin playing with my iRule iPhone.




How are you watching Avatar in 2.35:1? Are you cropping out and missing out on the top and bottom of the movie?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nebrunner* /forum/post/20739524
> 
> 
> How are you watching Avatar in 2.35:1? Are you cropping out and missing out on the top and bottom of the movie?



There is noting in the top and bottom portion to be missed in that film because Cameron originally framed it for Scope.


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/20739873
> 
> 
> There is noting in the top and bottom portion to be missed in that film because Cameron originally framed it for Scope.



But wouldn't that mean that the 1.78:1 version released on brdvd and dvd has the left and right sides of the original film cropped? You wouldn't want to crop the movie twice, right?


-Sean


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *230-SEAN* /forum/post/20740630
> 
> 
> But wouldn't that mean that the 1.78:1 version released on brdvd and dvd has the left and right sides of the original film cropped? You wouldn't want to crop the movie twice, right?
> 
> 
> -Sean



There is an undocumented phenomenon where a 3D image tends to look smaller then the same sized 2D image. It pops its head up from time to time and I certainly noticed it when I was testing the Mitsubishi HC9000 where I moved from the back row to the front row (2x image height) to max out my viewing experience.


When Cameron shot this film, the image chip that captured the image was 1.78:1 and during post for 3D, he decided to open the top and bottom mats for IMAX. I would say he experienced the same thing.


Because he then wanted this film to be seen as large as possible, it made sense for him to release the film as a full frame 1.78:1 version on DVD and BD because so many HT systems have a 1.78:1.


When you Scale this film for Scope, you ONLY clip a small portion off the top and bottom, nothing gets cut from the sides.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/20739873
> 
> 
> There is noting in the top and bottom portion to be missed in that film because Cameron originally framed it for Scope.



Yes, Cameron framed it so that it could be cropped to scope, but as has been illustrated in other threads the crop is almost never a straight center crop, so watching the film in artificially cropped scope often results in things like the tops of character's heads getting cut off. I won't dredge up his quotes regarding his preferred AR for the film, but I will say that Avatar is a perfect example of using a 1.78:1 screen in a CIA setup where you'd actually use the entire screen (rather than 1.78:1 masked to constant area proportions) to deliver the grand presentation of the 70mm IMAX release. Ultimately I'd just as soon view any movie in its OAR, but in a CIH setup I can understand artificially cropping it to fill the whole screen as that is the largest/most grand presentation available to you.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/20741128
> 
> 
> Yes, Cameron framed it so that it could be cropped to scope, but as has been illustrated in other threads the crop is almost never a straight center crop, so watching the film in artificially cropped scope often results in things like the tops of character's heads getting cut off.



He would have had frame lines when he shot, would he not? If that is the case, then might I suggest that he raised of lowered the frame for some scenes whilst keeping the majority centre cropped and why it works.



> Quote:
> Ultimately I'd just as soon view any movie in its OAR, but in a CIH setup I can understand artificially cropping it to fill the whole screen as that is the largest/most grand presentation available to you.



Yep


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/20741433
> 
> 
> He would have had frame lines when he shot, would he not?



I'm really not sure how he displayed the frame boundaries when shooting, but it ultimately doesn't matter. We know for a fact that most of the scope edition of the film deviated significantly from a center crop, which means that artificially center cropping the film will not yield his 'scope version. I haven't watched the entire film cropped this way, however the comparative screen shots I have seen sometimes lead to some irregular cropping as I described before - parts of character's heads being cut off and the like.


----------



## Josh Z

The frame lines for Avatar were slightly above center. There's more extraneous picture below the frame than above. This is actually pretty common in movie production. Many Super 35 productions use frame lines above center as well.


Doing a straight zoom-up on the 16:9 Blu-ray will give you a picture that's little cramped on top. It's not bad enough that characters get decapitated, but foreheads do get clipped in many close-up shots.


If you have a video processor that can shift the image down, you can attempt to compensate for this. However, the Blu-ray has another problem in that Cameron re-positioned some of the on-screen graphics (such as those during Jake's video diaries) to extend beyond the 2.35:1 frame lines. Those will get clipped on a scope screen.


The best compromise for Avatar is to display it at the 70mm projection ratio of 2.2:1. I have screen shot examples in the Blu-ray review I wrote when the disc was released.


----------



## Brad Horstkotte




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/20742597
> 
> 
> The best compromise for Avatar is to display it at the 70mm projection ratio of 2.2:1.



My ~CIA screen is 2.25:1. I set up Dark Knight, Tron: Legacy and Avatar like a 2.35:1 movie (which in my case yields smallish black bars on top and bottom), and then when the 16:9 scenes show up, they fill the screen (and a bit is chopped off top and bottom). It works out well. I actually sort of discovered this by accident, as initially I was thinking that for those three movies I'd need to set up like 16:9, and have (ick) bars all around when it switched aspects to 2.35:1. But I forgot to change from 2.35:1 to 16:9 setup before watching Tron:Legacy, and when it switched aspect ratios, I decided to leave it that way, and enjoyed it.


----------



## alan_ct

I just got my 138" CIH screen up last night...It is really awesome not having any somewhat black bars anymore!...And the scope effect is amazing...I have already learned how to do the zoom dance...Not a big deal...My new 16X9 image is just a bit smaller than my old 120" 16X9...Its worth it for sure! Al


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brad Horstkotte* /forum/post/20742759
> 
> 
> I actually sort of discovered this by accident, as initially I was thinking that for those three movies I'd need to set up like 16:9, and have (ick) bars all around when it switched aspects to 2.35:1.



The black bars (TDK, TF2 and TL) are meant to be seen the same width as Scope and when they have their IMAX footage, are supposed to be taller. I think AR changing in the middle of a film is a complete wank, but that is just my $0.02 worth.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *alan_ct* /forum/post/20766193
> 
> 
> I just got my 138" CIH screen up last night...It is really awesome not having any somewhat black bars anymore!...



Isn't the effect of removing the black bars terrific?


To so many people who just live with and accept those bars when watching scope, I'm sure they shrug thinking how much difference could it make if they were gone?


But there's a distinct "aha" moment when you see them removed - when you realise that even visual information (black bars) you thought you'd ignored was always infecting the visual presentation in a way you don't realise until they are gone.


The image just takes on a more finished, professional, cleaner, more professional presentation without the black bars (not to mention subjective gains in image quality).


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/20768297
> 
> 
> 
> But there's a distinct "aha" moment when you see them removed



Yes exactly. And what I thought back 2004 when I accidentally pressed the letter box mode (zoom 1 on my SONY back then) and saw the Scaled image for the first time.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/20768297
> 
> 
> Isn't the effect of removing the black bars terrific?
> 
> 
> To so many people who just live with and accept those bars when watching scope, I'm sure they shrug thinking how much difference could it make if they were gone?
> 
> 
> But there's a distinct "aha" moment when you see them removed - when you realise that even visual information (black bars) you thought you'd ignored was always infecting the visual presentation in a way you don't realise until they are gone.
> 
> 
> The image just takes on a more finished, professional, cleaner, more professional presentation without the black bars (not to mention subjective gains in image quality).



Agreed. One of the best HT moves I have made.


----------



## taffman

+1. IMO, good masking is 90% of the key to great CIH, be it using the zoom method or an A-lens. Which is why IMO, it is much better to put your money first into a masking system before deciding if you really need an A-lens.

As Rich says, the effect of good masking has to be seen to be believed, and I think masking is by far the best PQ bang for the buck ianywhere in a CIH setup.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/20770254
> 
> 
> +1. IMO, good masking is 90% of the key to great CIH, be it using the zoom method or an A-lens. Which is why IMO, it is much better to put your money first into a masking system before deciding if you really need an A-lens.



In my experience actually coming from zooming to an A lens, getting an A lens gave by far the biggest improvement in image quality than masking did since the lens with scaling is actually affecting the image, whereas masking is just adding a border to the sides. It's a nice touch but doesn't go anywhere near adding a to 90% improvement to the image. Adding a lens might though.


Gary


----------



## alan_ct

Plus easy to make masking panels that will stay in place compared CIW! I still have a 110" 16x9 image...Slightly smaller than my old 120"...Cant afford a fancy masking screen yet!!! Al


----------



## R Harkness

I'm with taffman on this issue in terms of personal experience.


I've seen lots of A-lens set ups, including my own projector (at someone else's house) with/without an A-lens. I haven't noticed any particular difference in quality vs zooming.


But an unmasked image just jumps out at me, screaming to be masked and made "better" that way. It's a difference I can't miss. It also affects the whole image presentation for me, which is part of "picture quality" for me.


YMMV of course, and it does....


----------



## alan_ct




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/20768297
> 
> 
> Isn't the effect of removing the black bars terrific?
> 
> 
> To so many people who just live with and accept those bars when watching scope, I'm sure they shrug thinking how much difference could it make if they were gone?
> 
> 
> But there's a distinct "aha" moment when you see them removed - when you realise that even visual information (black bars) you thought you'd ignored was always infecting the visual presentation in a way you don't realise until they are gone.
> 
> 
> The image just takes on a more finished, professional, cleaner, more professional presentation without the black bars (not to mention subjective gains in image quality).



I totally agree







The bars arent even black if ya' know what I mean...I'd rather watch my old Panny 720P PJ with 2000 hours on it without any bars than a RS50 with em'!!!







Al


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/20772519
> 
> 
> I'm with taffman on this issue in terms of personal experience.
> 
> 
> I've seen lots of A-lens set ups, including my own projector (at someone else's house) with/without an A-lens. I haven't noticed any particular difference in quality vs zooming.
> 
> 
> But an unmasked image just jumps out at me, screaming to be masked and made "better" that way. It's a difference I can't miss. It also affects the whole image presentation for me, which is part of "picture quality" for me.
> 
> 
> YMMV of course, and it does....



Well, I'll use Art as an example - he sits at around 2 x IH in his theatre with an ISCO lens, but if he uses the zoom method, he has to move to his beck row before pixels stop being visible again - the lens and scaling improve image quality directly, allowing him to sit closer, whereas masking doesn't - no amount of masking will have a direct affect on pixel size and allow Art to sit closer.


Gary


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/20790685
> 
> 
> Well, I'll use Art as an example - he sits at around 2 x IH in his theatre with an ISCO lens



I too sit at 2x the image height and can do so because I use an A-Lens which allows me to use the full 1080 pixels of the projector. At this distance, I can see jaggies on text and even some edges of objects on screen. There is no way I could sit this close if I was zooming and the W6000 at my throw (2.1:1) will allow that.


----------



## Highjinx

........or one could say the reduction in MTF by adding an A-lens softens the pixel boundaries so one can sit closer?........


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/20790861
> 
> 
> ........or one could say the reduction in MTF by adding an A-lens softens the pixel boundaries so one can sit closer?........



The reason one can sit closer when using an A-Lens is because for any given screen height, the image is made up of 1080 vertical pixels and not 810.


Besides, I already said I can see jaggies in text, so there is nothing "soft" with my image.


----------



## taffman

I sit at 2X screen height all the time with a zoomed 2.35 screen image and zero pixel visibility. That's thanks to the Panasonic smooth screen which eliminates all pixel visibility while maintaining a very sharp picture. A lot cheaper way to go than an A-lens!


----------



## rboster

I had the Panny 4000 in my home and compared it to my Benq 5000 (currently have the Planar 8150) and there was a distinct difference in sharpness with the Benq (being DLP) the winner. I found the Panny to to project a soft image. IMHO, the smoothscreen technology is equal to a slight defocusing of the image.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rboster* /forum/post/20792507
> 
> 
> I found the Panny to to project a soft image. IMHO, the smoothscreen technology is equal to a slight defocusing of the image.



I can understand why they did it for 720P, but not 1080P.

Besides, having owned 3 LCDs prior to DLP, there is no way I'd go back.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

The glass in a good A lens like an ISCO would be better than the glass in most pjs I would think, and have a far less detrimental affect on the image compared to the double refraction crystal Panasonic place in the light path.


You have to defocus the pj primary lens quite a bit to smooth the image to remove screendoor and that has a noticeable affect on the entire image, whereas adding a good A lens doesn't have the same affect at all, as the image sharpness remains much the same, as does the pixel height (1080). So adding an A lens isn't removing pixel visibility due to reduced MTF or defocusing.


Hasn't someone measured the MTF of an ISCO - didn't Coldmachine do some testing on one once and find that the lens had very little impact on an image with respect to things like ANSI contrast etc?


Gary


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/20793878
> 
> 
> 
> Hasn't someone measured the MTF of an ISCO - didn't Coldmachine do some testing on one once and find that the lens had very little impact on an image with respect to things like ANSI contrast etc?
> 
> 
> Gary



I think your right. Not sure where he posted it, in the $20K+ because if memory serves correct, Cineramax was arguing agaist the use of an A-Lens. CM's posts were solid in support for their use.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rboster* /forum/post/20792507
> 
> 
> I had the Panny 4000 in my home and compared it to my Benq 5000 (currently have the Planar 8150) and there was a distinct difference in sharpness with the Benq (being DLP) the winner. I found the Panny to to project a soft image. IMHO, the smoothscreen technology is equal to a slight defocusing of the image.



That's what smoothscren does - it defocuses the pixel boundaries so as to make them less apparent. I've seen Pannys before, and on their own I found the image to be a bit soft; next to a DLP or even a good LCoS, they look out of focus to me. It certainly does far more damage to an image than any anamorphic lens that I've used (Panamorph UH380, UH440, and Isco 3).



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/20792846
> 
> 
> I can understand why they did it for 720P, but not 1080P.
> 
> Besides, having owned 3 LCDs prior to DLP, there is no way I'd go back.



I believe smoothscreen's primary purpose is to eliminate the gaps between pixels (rather than to eliminate pixel structure), which has always been a weakness of LCD. On an LCD chip, the wires that allow control over each pixel are laid down in between the pixels, rather than behind the chip as in DLP and LCoS. This is why the latter two techs have always had a greater fill factor than LCD, and why Panny continues to use smoothscreen on their projectors.


----------



## taffman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/20794008
> 
> 
> That's what smoothscren does - it defocuses the pixel boundaries so as to make them less apparent. I've seen Pannys before, and on their own I found the image to be a bit soft; next to a DLP or even a good LCoS, they look out of focus to me. It certainly does far more damage to an image than any anamorphic lens that I've used (Panamorph UH380, UH440, and Isco 3).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe smoothscreen's primary purpose is to eliminate the gaps between pixels (rather than to eliminate pixel structure), which has always been a weakness of LCD. On an LCD chip, the wires that allow control over each pixel are laid down in between the pixels, rather than behind the chip as in DLP and LCoS. This is why the latter two techs have always had a greater fill factor than LCD, and why Panny continues to use smoothscreen on their projectors.



Well, having projected real film for over 50 years I think I know an out of focus picture when I see it. There is no way the picture from my Panny is soft or out of focus. Projector Central reported that their testing showed no loss of focus with the Panasonic smoothscreen. What they did find was that the default sharpness level on the Panny was a little lower than some other projectors, but when this was adjusted slightly then there was no difference - just no screendoor with the Panny's!


----------



## Toe

I have never been a smoothscreen fan, but could understand why it might be useful in some setups for 720p. For 1080p though it is pointless IMO and can only cause harm. I would not consider another Panny (owned the 900) unless this could be turned off which it cant. I cant even see the pixels on my RS40 until I get within a few feet of the screen.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/20794471
> 
> 
> Well, having projected real film for over 50 years I think I know an out of focus picture when I see it. There is no way the picture from my Panny is soft or out of focus. Projector Central reported that their testing showed no loss of focus with the Panasonic smoothscreen. What they did find was that the default sharpness level on the Panny was a little lower than some other projectors, but when this was adjusted slightly then there was no difference - just no screendoor with the Panny's!



The vast majority of commercial theaters that I've attended were, at best, mildly out of focus, so perhaps your benchmark for "sharpness" explains your proclivity for the soft image projected by Panasonics.


Regardless, film has nothing to do with a comparison of sharpness between digital projectors. It is widely known that smoothscreen technology trades screen door artifacts for picture softness. This is not subjective, this is a fact. Side-by-side, Panasonics are visibly softer than other LCDs, let alone LCoS or DLP (the king of image sharpness). After having owned both DLP and LCoS, I cannot watch an image on a Panasonic projector without getting the urge to try to adjust the lens focus, which would of course do nothing. A myriad of reviewers and members here have echoed those same sentiments.


As I've stated before, your whole position is self-defeating. You've never owned an anamorphic lens - or even viewed one in any home theater - yet you never pass up the chance to decry their use because of the supposed myriad of optical distortions that they impose upon an image (again, something you've yet to see in person). Yet in the same thread, you'll try to defend something like smoothscreen which degrades image sharpness and MTF far more than all but the cheapest anamorphic lenses ever could.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/20790685
> 
> 
> Well, I'll use Art as an example - he sits at around 2 x IH in his theatre with an ISCO lens, but if he uses the zoom method, he has to move to his beck row before pixels stop being visible again - the lens and scaling improve image quality directly, allowing him to sit closer, whereas masking doesn't
> 
> Gary



Sure, though how many people have images as large as Art?


That said, I zoom my image quite big sometimes, which puts me effectively even closer than 2xIH, and I never notice pixels, ever (and pixels do bug me when I see them). I have the JVC RS20.


Obviously things will vary depending on viewer acuity, sensitivity, type of projector etc. But I have to say this emphasis on removing visible pixelation is almost a head-scratcher for me, since it is virtually never an issue that I've seen since the advent of 1080p projectors. But...again..a minority seem to have to deal with that issue.


I also think that generally in terms of zoom vs A-lens, the type of differences are generally more subtle, into "videophile" territory, than what masking can often do. As Kris Deering wrote in his Home Theater Magazine review of the Carada Masquerade system:

_"Even my wife, who was extremely skeptical about the system, was floored by how much the masking changed the image perception. "_


And that is pretty typical of people who've reviewed and owned the Masquerade (and I'm sure, similar masking systems). I think it's a difference, with most projectors, that is obvious to the point even people who don't care about AV can easily notice and appreciate.

(My wife and friends sure notice with a big WOW when the masking takes away the black bars. I can almost guarantee she would be scratching her head seeing the worth of an A-lens in terms of seeing obvious picture quality enhancement, at least in my set up and many others).


Having seen many A-lens set ups (including ISCO3) I'm very skeptical that the difference between most zoomed vs A-Lens images would be as easily discerned, obvious, and appreciated by as many people as is masked vs unmasked images.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/20790685
> 
> 
> - no amount of masking will have a direct affect on pixel size and allow Art to sit closer.



Ok, but one can also say that no amount of A-lenses or video processors will

remove the black bars on the screen either, hence no matter what an A-lens is doing, no matter what the seating distance, the side pillar black bars on a 16:9 image would be shouting out at me as needing removal.


And personally if I actually noticed any pixels and it was a choice between moving slightly back (or slightly smaller image) for a smoother image vs having to watch an unmasked image, I would definitely choose the masked/smaller image. But, that's were personal criteria comes in.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/20795341
> 
> 
> The vast majority of commercial theaters that I've attended were, at best, mildly out of focus, so perhaps your benchmark for "sharpness" explains your proclivity for the soft image projected by Panasonics.



The last 'film' based cinema presentation I went to was PREDATORS and it had blurred edges. Watching this film on BD and it is quite sharp on the edges. I'm going to go with Astigmatism adjustment of the 2x lens was not set correctly at the cinema. Which also raises another quite valid point. At home with a 1080 DLP, I run single display lines for set up of my A-Lens and dial it in to be be as sharp in the V and it is in the H (by default, they pass H lines and you adjust the vertical lines). How fine can the detail be on a loop of 35mm film? I've seen the SMPTE test film and it looks way courser than what I can project at home with some of the lines on that print looking to be equivalent to at least 3 pixel lines, not single lines. A big difference there. The limit with my set up is the lens on the projector, not the anamorphic lens.



> Quote:
> Regardless, film has nothing to do with a comparison of sharpness between digital projectors. It is widely known that smoothscreen technology trades screen door artifacts for picture softness. This is not subjective, this is a fact. Side-by-side, Panasonics are visibly softer than other LCDs, let alone LCoS or DLP (the king of image sharpness). After having owned both DLP and LCoS, I cannot watch an image on a Panasonic projector without getting the urge to try to adjust the lens focus, which would of course do nothing. A myriad of reviewers and members here have echoed those same sentiments.



Pushing the sharpness up would only introduce noise into the picture. This is not extra detail.



> Quote:
> As I've stated before, your whole position is self-defeating. You've never owned an anamorphic lens - or even viewed one in any home theater - yet you never pass up the chance to decry their use because of the supposed myriad of optical distortions that they impose upon an image (again, something you've yet to see in person). Yet in the same thread, you'll try to defend something like smoothscreen which degrades image sharpness and MTF far more than all but the cheapest anamorphic lenses ever could.



Apparently he owns a 2x lens for a 16mm projector. I too own such a lens and I also a small 1.33x along with my large 1.33x and the quality of the smaller 1.33x is better than the 2x. Both are no where as good as the large 1.33x lens.


Yes I think Taffman needs to see what a good anamorphic lens can do before passing judgement.


----------



## Highjinx




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/20793878
> 
> 
> 
> Hasn't someone measured the MTF of an ISCO - didn't Coldmachine do some testing on one once and find that the lens had very little impact on an image with respect to things like ANSI contrast etc?
> 
> 
> Gary



Coldmachine was going to publish some photos etc...but he never got around to it.


Wolfgang Mayer did some work and detected around a 30% loss in ANSI with an ISCO3

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=913449# 

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post15665004


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/20797099
> 
> 
> Coldmachine was going to publish some photos etc...but he never got around to it.
> 
> 
> Wolfgang Mayer did some work and detected around a 30% loss in ANSI with an ISCO3
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=913449#
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post15665004



In all fairness, neither of those threads are conclusive at all - I think the only thing that people agreed upon in the end was the need for more conclusive measurements/data. Coldmachine said Sim2 measured almost no loss of ANSI contrast through an Isco3; Shawn Kelly (owner of Panamorph) said there's a 5%-10% loss; Wolfgang measured a 30% loss.


ANSI contrast is probably the single most difficult spec to measure on any projector because it's very difficult to obtain spot readings from a white or black region without any contamination from the surrounding regions. Even independent reviewers can attain significantly different ANSI contrast figures for the same projector, let alone a projector with and without an anamorphic lens.


I would be surprised if the maximum real-world loss of ANSI contrast with a good anamorphic lens was much above the 5% value quoted by Shawn based on my experience and viewing.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/20797099
> 
> 
> Coldmachine was going to publish some photos etc...but he never got around to it.
> 
> 
> Wolfgang Mayer did some work and detected around a 30% loss in ANSI with an ISCO3



Photos that actually show the true clarity of an anamorphic lens are hard to capture. I thought I had it nailed the other night. As it turns out, I had the focus set for centre and I think I needed to have it set to a broader area as it has resolved the centre beautifully, but does not show the edges as such even though they are when looking at the on screen images.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Highjinx* 
Coldmachine was going to publish some photos etc...but he never got around to it.


Wolfgang Mayer did some work and detected around a 30% loss in ANSI with an ISCO3

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=913449# 

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post15665004
I took some of my own ANSI readings in my room with an ISCO II attached and the screen blanked off, and although I didn't take any readings without the lens in place, the results were similar to the pjs measured ANSI results as taken by Greg Rogers, so the ANSI loss was negligible.


What's important is not so much the theoretical issues with either method of CIH, but the visible artefacts that you can actually see. Those who choose the lens method actually see less issues when using an A lens compared to zooming, and that's why they spend the money.


Gary


----------



## ilsiu

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* 
Well, I'll use Art as an example - he sits at around 2 x IH in his theatre with an ISCO lens, but if he uses the zoom method, he has to move to his beck row before pixels stop being visible again - the lens and scaling improve image quality directly, allowing him to sit closer, whereas masking doesn't - no amount of masking will have a direct affect on pixel size and allow Art to sit closer.


Gary
Art has done the homework and assembled such a reference theater, he should publish a home theater blog: WWAD? (What Would Art Do?)










Seriously, Art's system also includes a very expensive masking system, so I would infer that masking is also very important. Is it more important than the lens? How much is the Stewart Vistascope + BRIC vs ISCO3 + Cineslide?


----------



## CAVX

Quote:

Originally Posted by *ilsiu* 
How much is the Stewart Vistascope + BRIC vs ISCO3 + Cineslide?
Lots


----------



## NJ Jackals

CAVX-


Do you still leave the A-lens in place for 16:9 sources? I am going through the debate right now whether to zoom with a Panny PT-AE7000 and a flat screen or go with the new Epson/lens/curved screen which would require me to leave the lens in place for 16:9.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

I've also followed Arts theatre since I joined here, and it's certainly one to aspire to, that's for sure.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/20800660
> 
> 
> Seriously, Art's system also includes a very expensive masking system, so I would infer that masking is also very important. Is it more important than the lens?



I'd say that although it's a part of the experience (I added side masking to my system too), it won't improve the image to allow him to sit as close as he does - if you want an immersive CIH experience and not want to see pixels, only a lens will allow you to do that - I can say that from experience. Some people will say otherwise, but they're usually non lens owners.


Gary


----------



## alan_ct




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/20799823
> 
> 
> I took some of my own ANSI readings in my room with an ISCO II attached and the screen blanked off, and although I didn't take any readings without the lens in place, the results were similar to the pjs measured ANSI results as taken by Greg Rogers, so the ANSI loss was negligible.
> 
> 
> What's important is not so much the theoretical issues with either method of CIH, but the visible artefacts that you can actually see. Those who choose the lens method actually see less issues when using an A lens compared to zooming, and that's why they spend the money.
> 
> 
> Gary



Come on Techies...Sit back and enjoy your theater







I'm sure all of the setups here look great...Zoom, A~Lens, Zoomy Goomy, D~Lens














Al


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *alan_ct* /forum/post/20802666
> 
> 
> Come on Techies...Sit back and enjoy your theater
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure all of the setups here look great...Zoom, A~Lens, Zoomy Goomy, D~Lens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al



That's true, but some people have issues with those that use anamorphic lenses. Use the search










Gary


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/20802462
> 
> 
> - if you want an immersive CIH experience and not want to see pixels, only a lens will allow you to do that - I can say that from experience. Some people will say otherwise, but they're usually non lens owners.
> 
> 
> Gary



Such comments seem to unfairly undermine the experience of non-lens owners, which are pertinent as well.


As I've already mentioned I get an immersive experience in my HT, sometimes sitting at even under 2xIH, as well. I don't have issues seeing pixels. Nor has any guest, many of whom have been into home theater, mentioned seeing any as well. If I had a different projector perhaps I'd see pixels, but not in my case.


Even if I'd never even seen an A-lens set up to compare (which I have), it would still be the case that I don't need an A-lens to get "sit close" and "get an immersive experience," which includes viewing similar to Art's viewing ratios. That I don't own an A-lens has nothing to do with the relevance of my experience on that matter.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/20802762
> 
> 
> Such comments seem to unfairly undermine the experience of non-lens owners, which are pertinent as well.



But the detrimental comments that we see about A lens users unfairly undermine the experience of lens owners, but I guess you're OK with that?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/20802762
> 
> 
> As I've already mentioned I get an immersive experience in my HT, sometimes sitting at even under 2xIH, as well. I don't have issues seeing pixels. Nor has any guest, many of whom have been into home theater, mentioned seeing any as well. If I had a different projector perhaps I'd see pixels, but not in my case.
> 
> 
> Even if I'd never even seen an A-lens set up to compare (which I have), it would still be the case that I don't need an A-lens to get "sit close" and "get an immersive experience," which includes viewing similar to Art's viewing ratios. That I don't own an A-lens has nothing to do with the relevance of my experience on that matter.



Each to his own of course, and I've often suggested people should try zooming before they think of looking at getting an A lens, but my main point is that there are those that constantly post detrimental comments about A lenses which aren't true, and those posters are usually those who don't use a lens or haven't even seen one to do a comparison with.


One member here tried an ISCO II with his JVC just to see (with his own pj in his own home), with the intention of selling it on afterwards, but preferred the image it gave due to the smaller pixels/improved pixel density and ended up keeping it. I'm sure he didn't do that because it reduced the image quality.


Gary


----------



## Tom Monahan

A lens is not always the best way to go. With my very short throw, the Panamorph UH380 lens I used for two years created too many problems. Zooming has eliminated those problems and I can't see pixels from my 1x screen seating distance. Focus from edge to edge is far better and zero geometry issues. I will NEVER use a lens again with such a short throw.


At first, going from a 9' wide scope screen to 8' was rough for 1.85 and acadamy standard films. After installing my new screen + homemade black velvet side masking I couldn't be happier. I realized that projecting the smaller size image on my bigger screen is what made it feel so much smaller to me. With the new 8' Carada screen and masking it feels just as big to me as sitting 9' from my old 9' screen. In my black velet room with black carpet all I see is the image on that screen and nothing else. I'm in home theater heaven.










Tom


Tom


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NJ Jackals* /forum/post/20802283
> 
> 
> CAVX-
> 
> 
> Do you still leave the A-lens in place for 16:9 sources? I am going through the debate right now whether to zoom with a Panny PT-AE7000 and a flat screen or go with the new Epson/lens/curved screen which would require me to leave the lens in place for 16:9.



Yes. The A-Lens is left in the light path all the time and I love it.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/20803710
> 
> 
> But the detrimental comments that we see about A lens users unfairly undermine the experience of lens owners, but I guess you're OK with that?



No. 2 wrongs don't make a right. But that's a red herring anyway.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/20803710
> 
> 
> Each to his own of course, and I've often suggested people should try zooming before they think of looking at getting an A lens, but my main point is that there are those that constantly post detrimental comments about A lenses which aren't true, and those posters are usually those who don't use a lens or haven't even seen one to do a comparison with.



The issue wasn't detrimental comments made by zoomers; it was a specific claim that you made: *"if you want an immersive CIH experience and not want to see pixels, only a lens will allow you to do that."*


That's the claim I contest, including your implication that not having an A-lens (and hence little A-lens experience) is why one would likely contest your claim.


It's not big deal either way. But people reading benefit from seeing a range of experiences offered on a topic.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/20803710
> 
> 
> One member here tried an ISCO II with his JVC just to see (with his own pj in his own home), with the intention of selling it on afterwards, but preferred the image it gave due to the smaller pixels/improved pixel density and ended up keeping it. I'm sure he didn't do that because it reduced the image quality.
> 
> Gary



Ok, but that some prefer an image with an A-lens (while some have preferred non-A-lens) in no way means an A-lens is necessary to achieve an immersive CIH home theater experience.


----------



## rboster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/20805002
> 
> 
> 
> The issue wasn't detrimental comments made by zoomers
> 
> 
> .



Not to put words in Gary's mouth...but I think what he's saying is there are a couple of folks that limit their contribution to slamming the use of the a-lens. I have an issue when one's singular focus is their one issue agenda. IMHO, that does not add to the value of everyone's experience at AVS. I've seen examples, that without regard to the focus of the topic, an off handed or snide comment is made about A-lens users. When this happens, it creates division between members vs a healthy discussion. And frankly, it gets old.


I personally would like to see all of us enjoy the fact that we are enjoying the CIH experience and want to share that with others. Whether we accomplish it through zooming or a-lens. If the snide comments would stop, we all feel less of a need to "take sides".


----------



## Highjinx

I feel that at some of the close sitting distances, compression artifacts will be more of an issue than seeing individual pixels, specially with Lcos and DLP projectors.


For me 1920 x1080 Consumer/Bluray is at it's best from around 3 screen heights.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/20805002
> 
> 
> 
> The issue wasn't detrimental comments made by zoomers; it was a specific claim that you made: *"if you want an immersive CIH experience and not want to see pixels, only a lens will allow you to do that."*



It was, rboster hit the nail on the head. The comment that masking improves the image more than an A lens seems ludicrous to me from my experience (made by one of the regular anti lens brigade), and yet you backed it up and prolonged the argument - you're not a lens user either but having seen them rather having long term experience of them doesn't really qualify you to have that balanced view that you mention IMHO.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/20805002
> 
> 
> That's the claim I contest, including your implication that not having an A-lens (and hence little A-lens experience) is why one would likely contest your claim.



You often refer to my comments as 'claims' as if I'm making things up.










The point is pixel size, and some of us prefer the smaller pixels because larger ones can be a distraction from closer seating distances, and that may preclude them from the closer seating distances they prefer - such as Art for example.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/20805002
> 
> 
> It's not big deal either way. But people reading benefit from seeing a range of experiences offered on a topic.



Unfortunately, a lot of the anti lens comments are from people who have little or no experience of lenses, so the no lens experiences are one sided and unbalanced. Seeing a lens can be a bit different from long term use/experience/comparisons etc.


I do tell people to try zooming first to see if they're happy with that, and if they are they don't necessarily need to look into using an A lens. Ignorance can be bliss.







However, some who have done the comparison then prefer the lens route.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/20805002
> 
> 
> Ok, but that some prefer an image with an A-lens (while some have preferred non-A-lens) in no way means an A-lens is necessary to achieve an immersive CIH home theater experience.



True, but for some, one method produces a more pleasing image due to smaller less obvious pixels. Like the example I gave above, it's not until you try it that you realise what's missing without using a lens. Zooming can produce excellent results, I'm not saying it doesn't (and it doesn't always, but that depends on various things such as source quality, reflectance levels and well as calibration, in the same way not all A lenses produce excellent results), but many comments against lenses and pro zooming are usually from the inexperienced or those with an agenda, and they haven't had any real comparison experience.


Not all lenses are created equal of course, and some can have a negative effect on the image, but don't let that be used as an argument against all lenses.


Gary


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rboster* /forum/post/20805098
> 
> 
> Not to put words in Gary's mouth...but I think what he's saying is there are a couple of folks that limit their contribution to slamming the use of the a-lens. I have an issue when one's singular focus is their one issue agenda. IMHO, that does not add to the value of everyone's experience at AVS. I've seen examples, that without regard to the focus of the topic, an off handed or snide comment is made about A-lens users. When this happens, it creates division between members vs a healthy discussion. And frankly, it gets old.
> 
> 
> I personally would like to see all of us enjoy the fact that we are enjoying the CIH experience and want to share that with others. Whether we accomplish it through zooming or a-lens. If the snide comments would stop, we all feel less of a need to "take sides".



Thanks, that's pretty much the case.


Gary


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/20805269
> 
> 
> I feel that at some of the close sitting distances, compression artifacts will be more of an issue than seeing individual pixels, specially with Lcos and DLP projectors.
> 
> 
> For me 1920 x1080 Consumer/Bluray is at it's best from around 3 screen heights.



That can be the case with SD and perhaps poor BD transfers, but a lot of that can be down to set up, calibration and quite often reflectance levels. If you try to keep the image brightness at 12fL or less even DVD can look pretty good, albeit soft. Those levels aren't for everyone of course, as some prefer a much brighter image, and it can also depend on how susceptible you are to seeing artefacts.


2 x IH with a good lens and a correctly set up system can produce great results in the most part.


Gary


----------



## R Harkness

Gary,


You keep missing the issue I addressed. In this response you end up saying (emphasis mine):



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/20816452
> 
> 
> True, *but for some*, one method produces a more pleasing image due to smaller less obvious pixels.



Sure. Fine. No argument whatsoever with that. If that is the claim you had made, I'd never have bothered with my reply. But that's not what you originally said, which was instead:

*"if you want an immersive CIH experience and not want to see pixels, only a lens will allow you to do that."*


Which is a much broader claim that simply isn't true. If you want to adjust your claim to the fact that an A-lens has allowed SOME people to sit closer without seeing pixels, then we have no disagreement. But it's not like I'm arguing against a strawman or something, given what you'd actually written.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/20816452
> 
> 
> It was, rboster hit the nail on the head. The comment that masking improves the image more than an A lens seems ludicrous to me from my experience (made by one of the regular anti lens brigade), and yet you backed it up and prolonged the argument



Argument that you haven't shown to be unjustified. I don't assert that some people value what an A-lens brings to their system over masking. But I do argue that the impact of masking vs the actual PQ contributions of an A-lens does not automatically go the A-lens, and that there someone can prefer to put money into masking first vs an A-lens for some good reasons on the grounds of their subjective impact.


That it seems "ludicrous to you" that someone may feel masking improves an image more than an A-lens for them is no argument whatsoever. Having seen many A-lens set ups, it is ludicrous to my experience that I would prefer the improvements brought by the A-lens to having masking. That also goes for the idea that I would need an A-lens in order to have an immersive image free of pixel distractions, which is not true for me in my set up.


But, that's my experience and criteria. The point is, mine counts too. You seem to want to just dismiss experience like mine, but without offering actual good arguments for doing so.


One salesman here had said "Look, I have lots of experience in selling and setting up systems, and I find adding an A-lens makes for a better looking image."


I pointed out to him that I would hear exactly the same thing from high end audio salesmen. "Look, I have years of experience in this business and I can tell you that X speaker cables/X amplifer/X tweak simply results in a better sounding system."


I pointed out that, unfortunately, we know very well just how unreliable human perception can be and that the bias effect continually infects our perceptions. Under more rigorous, careful methodological study many of these "obvious I can't believe you disagree with me" differences actually don't show up. So if it's reasonable for me to have skepticism of high end salesmen claims, or audiophile claims of "trust me I have experience" it's reasonable this applies to this dealer, and others as well, as bias applies in the video field as well.

If you think adding an A-lens will increase image quality (and even, the science of perception tells us, if you don't), you can still perceive differences in the image that may not be "really there" objectively.

(I once did blind testing, and even presented a test to AVS members, which showed just how dubious is the bias effect in assuming certain cables produced better image results, despite that you'll find "people with subjective experience" swearing up and down the opposite).


Which is another way of explaining why your appeal to your experience does not necessarily mean much, or trump my own necessarily.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/20816452
> 
> 
> - you're not a lens user either but having seen them rather having long term experience of them doesn't really qualify you to have that balanced view that you mention IMHO.



I've seen MY projector model with and without an A-lens, numerous times. Along with many other projectors, both with and without A-lenses. Sorry, but that _does_ give me basis for my view.


I originally planned on using an A-lens (and still might get one for other reasons) so I investigated them, to see them in action. I also looked at masking. It was clear that, to me, the masking made the much more obvious contribution to the viewing experience of the image. Whenever I saw a projector without an A-lens (including my own) I never ONCE thought "Darn, this image needs an A-lens." But I ALWAYS noticed the extraneous "gray" bars on a projected image, whether it was an A-lens set up or not, and hence always was aware of that the image would obviously benefit from masking (which was always true and always obvious whenever I've seen masking employed).


In fact, the type of phenomena involved in how masking impacts picture presentation is pretty robust in it's justification. "Gray bars" are often quite visible and the difference between a projected black and an area absorbed by black velvet (masking) is obviously and objectively measurable. And both the science of vision and of display technology support these as real, perceptual differences. (That also includes research on human vision, contrast and the contrast effect etc).


Whereas some of the claims made by A-lensers seem to rest on more dubious grounds. Certainly if we can be talking about a point were pixels can become visible to the average person's site. And an A-lens making those pixels less visible certainly makes sense. If we are talking about obvious differences between seeing discrete pixels, and making discrete pixels invisible with an A-lens, then there is little to disagree with.


Except that the claims of how an A-lens makes an image "look better" often doesn't seem to quite stop at such situations.


But for a lot of us the pixels in our set up are already indiscernible, even at CIH-type viewing ratios. Yet there have been claims on these forums that adding an A-lens nevertheless can increase picture quality or image density. (Beyond the subject of image brightness). And these seem more dubious at least on objective grounds. I haven't seen a good, scientifically sustained explanation of why this would be the case, once you already can't see the pixels. And some display manufacturers have done tests that would dispute it. Not to mention that when people have carefully investigated the difference between image with more pixels vs fewer pixels, at distances in which pixels are not seen discretely, people have trouble telling them apart.

I myself looked into this when flat panels increased from 720p to 1080p resolution and found similar results.


You don't have to feel the same way of course. But mere dismissal of the relevance of my experience is, again, no argument against it. And there IS some good reasoning and scientific basis for why masking would have an obvious impact on the perception of image quality, while I don't see as much support for some of the claims made for A-lenses.


Keep in mind nowhere have I argued against the use of A-lenses and I still may get one myself at some point. What I do argue against are unsupported generalisations of the type you originally made, and also dismissing viewpoints on these subjects (masking, necessity of A-lenses) like mine without good justification.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/20817854
> 
> 
> I originally planned on using an A-lens (and still might get one for other reasons) so I investigated them, to see them in action. I also looked at masking. It was clear that, to me, the masking made the much more obvious contribution to the viewing experience of the image. Whenever I saw a projector without an A-lens (including my own) I never ONCE thought "Darn, this image needs an A-lens." But I ALWAYS noticed the extraneous "gray" bars on a projected image, whether it was an A-lens set up or not, and hence always was aware of that the image would obviously benefit from masking (which was always true and always obvious whenever I've seen masking employed).
> 
> 
> In fact, the type of phenomena involved in how masking impacts picture presentation is pretty robust in it's justification. "Gray bars" are often quite visible and the difference between a projected black and an area absorbed by black velvet (masking) is obviously and objectively measurable. And both the science of vision and of display technology support these as real, perceptual differences. (That also includes research on human vision, contrast and the contrast effect etc).



I think though, that what your actual setup is plays a large role in the importance of masking. What I mean is you've got an "oversized" screen, and you resize your image to arbitrary sizes at a whim. If I had a setup like that, I can't imagine not having masking, for the reason that you image would almost never be properly bordered on _any_ side. It would always look like a poorly formatted/configured system with extra screen all around.


Likewise if you've got a CIW system for any scope content you'd have very large unmatted borders on the top and the bottom. I'm pretty sure I'd want masking there too.


But in my experience a CIH setup is that since the unmatted borders are on the sides, somewhat at the periphery of the image, and accounting for less than 1/3 of the total border, it's very easy to not notice it.



> Quote:
> Whereas some of the claims made by A-lensers seem to rest on more dubious grounds. Certainly if we can be talking about a point were pixels can become visible to the average person's site. And an A-lens making those pixels less visible certainly makes sense. If we are talking about obvious differences between seeing discrete pixels, and making discrete pixels invisible with an A-lens, then there is little to disagree with.



I don't think that's fair, the "claims" are fact, the impacts of those facts you have to weigh yourself, as with everything.


Lenses make the pixel density 33% higher, this is a fact.

Lenses allow the use of more of the projectors light (how much, exactly, depends on the projector and setup).


There's no debate about that, those are both mathematical facts of using a lens. It's also been measured (as far as I recall) that they have negligible impacts on CA, focus, and contrast, though yes, you do have to pay to get that level of performance.



> Quote:
> Except that the claims of how an A-lens makes an image "look better" often doesn't seem to quite stop at such situations.
> 
> 
> But for a lot of us the pixels in our set up are already indiscernible, even at CIH-type viewing ratios. Yet there have been claims on these forums that adding an A-lens nevertheless can increase picture quality or image density. (Beyond the subject of image brightness). And these seem more dubious at least on objective grounds. I haven't seen a good, scientifically sustained explanation of why this would be the case, once you already can't see the pixels. And some display manufacturers have done tests that would dispute it. Not to mention that when people have carefully investigated the difference between image with more pixels vs fewer pixels, at distances in which pixels are not seen discretely, people have trouble telling them apart.
> 
> I myself looked into this when flat panels increased from 720p to 1080p resolution and found similar results.



You should look into some of the discussions around Apple's "Retina" display, it's very informative. Or heck, let's just look at the famous Carlton Bale chart:










If you look at a 120" image from 10' (yes I know it's diagonal vs width, but for scope they're very close to the same), we're easily into the area where resolutions greater than 1440p become visible. That's basically twice the vertical resolution of a zoomed BD (810p). Even if we back up to 1.5x width, we're still in the area of 1440p becoming beneficial.


One conclusion I've come to from my reading about display resolution, and from my own observations, is that the point at which pixels are no longer "apparent", and the point at which more resolution is not beneficial is most definitely not the same point. There is an area, or in this case a range of seating distances, where pixels are not going to be apparent, but yet we can still see/appreciate the benefits of more resolution.


This is I think where A-lenses live today. It's relatively easy for today's 1080p, high fill-factor machines to allow close viewing ratios without out pixels becoming "apparent", but even full 1080p is not to the point it can fully satisfy our ability to view detail. Take a look at this:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/19840...y_updated.html 


If I did my math right, for a 3x picture height viewing distance, we can see up to about 1800p. At 2.35 screen heights (1x screen width), it's about 2300p.


Also notice that at 1x screen width, even with a 4k (~4096x2048) display, an A-lens would still be beneficial because the difference between zoomed (1536p) and "lensed" 2048p would be visible, even though by most accounts we're past the point of pixel "visibility" with even 810p of a zoomed 1080p image.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/20797099
> 
> 
> Coldmachine was going to publish some photos etc...but he never got around to it.
> 
> 
> Wolfgang Mayer did some work and detected around a 30% loss in ANSI with an ISCO3
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=913449#
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post15665004



With my Eyeone I measured less than 1% with multiple runs(10+). I couldn't verify any loss as from test to test you'll have this much variance. I think Mayer's numbers got away from him. It happens. Believe me I've put my 3L through the wringer and it has past all tests with flying colors. Color temp, lite output, on/off and ANSI remain constant whether lens is in or out of light path.


----------



## coolrda

Pixel density and brightness are two definite advantages of having an A Lens. That's undisputable. And 33% more pixel allows for a larger FOV. I actually sit inside 1x width(2x height), which is the whole point of home theater, having the largest screen possible.


----------



## Highjinx

It's about more pixels _with_ more detail.


Very little point having more pixels with the same details unless from the viewing distance pixel structure is visually evident. If the pixel structure is evident then so will compression artifacts and panel noise, by introducing more pixels one is also introducing proportionally more panel noise.


Additional glass _has_ an effect.....it's just not possible for 100% transparency and zero reflectivity(as yet)...ANSI _will_ be affected.


I realise many here are pushing the boundries of viewing distance of what 1920 x 1080/810(or more accuratly the detail addressed to such panels) was mean't to provide as a visual experience.


I choose a less aggressive viewing ratio, settle for a smaller image but with a better image quality...others may wish a larger image and are quite happy to trade off to a less(mildly?) quality image.


No perfect universal solution(perhaps with 4k!). But it appears all parties are happy with their results and the path that they have choosen.....and that's what it's all about....yeah?


----------



## R Harkness

Excellent contribution stanger89!


Of course it's a given that ultimately it's "whatever floats your boat" in terms of HT happiness. But these picky, detailed subjects are of interest to lots of us. That's what makes for enthusiast forums.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/20817950
> 
> 
> 
> But in my experience a CIH setup is that since the unmatted borders are on the sides, somewhat at the periphery of the image, and accounting for less than 1/3 of the total border, it's very easy to not notice it.



This is where some subjectivity comes into play. I sometimes do CIH as well (I often start with a CIH demo on my system to visitors). I have a totally light controlled room, with controlled room reflections and a projector known for among the deepest black levels you can get (JVC RS20). Yet when the image is in 16:9/1:85:1 mode and the side masks are open, the black side screen is still quite visible. In fact I can easily tell when there is even 1" of unmasked space to the sides. (I think the subjective part is how much the unmasked area is noticed by someone; but in more objective terms I'm sure measurements would put the differences well into the visible contrast spectrum, so it's not a case of imagination).


There are of course variables here. I have a white screen. If a really dark specialty screen like a Black Diamond .8 gain screen were inserted instead, black bars in non-projected areas could be very dark (I've seen the BD in action - it does get very dark in the unprojected area, although not as pitch black as the masking area).


But the point is, I can do CIH and check some of this with my experience as well.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/20817950
> 
> 
> I don't think that's fair, the "claims" are fact, the impacts of those facts you have to weigh yourself, as with everything.



In case it wasn't clear: The point I was making is that at a certain point claims about pixels being visible _are not_ controversial. That's why I said there would be nothing to dispute.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/20817950
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should look into some of the discussions around Apple's "Retina" display, it's very informative. Or heck, let's just look at the famous Carlton Bale chart:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you look at a 120" image from 10' (yes I know it's diagonal vs width, but for scope they're very close to the same), we're easily into the area where resolutions greater than 1440p become visible.



Hmmm...that chart is ambiguous in terms of this discussion because it actually uses phrases like "benefit of 1440p starts to become noticeable" and "resolutions higher than 1440p would start to become noticeable." But what are these "benefits?"


It doesn't mention pixel visibility. Pixel visibility as we know is different from _resolution_ or the amount of image information.


The thing is that in the AV world, and especially as HD formats came to for, the "benefits" and acuity charts and investigations tended to be concerned with the benefits and visibility of added image detail - resolution - not pixel visibility per se. This is why you would be told at certain distances the "benefits" of a 1080p worth of detail would be lost against a 720p image, because your eye couldn't make out the additional detail at certain points.


Note this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum...ewing_distance 

_With printed graphics, resolution refers the number of pixels that occupy some fixed linear measurement.[12] *With HDTV, resolution refers to image resolution and is not tied to a linear measurement.* Instead, it is measured in terms of the physical display, (the total count of pixels available (or used) to compose the displayed image).[10] Generally, with printed graphics when the resolution of an image is increased, the image is cleaner, crisper and more detailed.[12] The caveat is, the image will not appear cleaner, crisper and more detailed, if the increase in resolution and the accompanying detail exceeds the visual system of the observer. If you exceed the viewer’s visual system, there will be no perceived gain in image quality. *For an HDTV image to gain a qualitative increase, what is important is that the resolution per degree of arc (or angular resolution) increases, not just the total pixel count of the display.*[10]_



Whereas pixel visibility is a moving target in that respects, because different displays will show different pixel visibility at the same viewing distance, given variations in how displays are made. It's well known that some LCD and even DLP displays had much more visible pixels from the same distance vs other displays - e.g. LCOS was known for having a less discrete pixel structure, allowing closer viewing at the same pixel resolution. Same goes for Panasonic's smooth-screen technology in it's LCD projectors, in which you'd have to sit closer to see the pixels discreetly than with another LCD projector.


So there is an inherent problem in saying "at this distance pixels become visible/invisible" whereas actual image information, resolution, is more of a known quantity in terms of the study of human perception.


The issue is therefore that an A-lens isn't adding any more image resolution, and variations in display devices therefore make the benefits simply in terms of pixel invisibility a moving target. But less so with the area of resolution where we know an A-lens isn't adding anything to the mix.


Also, Highjinx adds a very pertinent point: that some people are pushing the limits of even 1080p image _detail resolution_ with their seating, being closer than generally recommended. Again, this is why THX etc make recommendations based on a combination of immersion, visible image detail, and maintaining image quality - reducing visible artifacts.


Perhaps you'll remember (if you heard it) the British AVforum interview with THX in which all these things were discussed. Somewhat to the shock of the CIH-loving interviewers, THX actually recommended against CIH for most people, due to possible artifacting in additional processing/adding an A-lens etc. But also in the respect of preserving a viewing distance that minimized visible artifacting, which is still an issue even when you have 1080p resolution (and varies source to source). They recommended a CIW system at a further distance than many people are sitting here from the CIH system (including me sometimes in my system).


As it happens, this is one reason I went Variable Image Height: If I went with a fixed width, especially a really close viewing angle for scope, then I'm at the mercy of the source material in terms of it's actual resolution (instead of mere pixel count), and in terms of visible artifacting (ringing, image noise digital or otherwise).


Having been able to zoom an image very large as well as small, this issue has really been brought home to me: not all HD sources "hold up" to close viewing distances, by a long shot. And I'm talking source, not pixel count, hence nothing an A-lens helps. There's no question that in terms of sheer image quality (apparent sharpness, smoothness of image, reduction if visible artifacts), some portion of 1080p source material looks better at further viewing angles than others.


Now, those using an A-lens set up with super close viewing angles may feel this trade off is ultimately worth it for the "immersion" aspect. But let's not kid ourselves that there aren't other trade offs going on. (I sure as hell would gag at most DVDs shown at the viewing angles many are using here, which speaks to the issue of variable source resolution being independent of pixel count).


Rich


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/20818560
> 
> 
> It's about more pixels _with_ more detail.
> 
> 
> Very little point having more pixels with the same details unless from the viewing distance pixel structure is visually evident. If the pixel structure is evident then so will compression artifacts and panel noise, by introducing more pixels one is also introducing proportionally more panel noise.
> 
> 
> Additional glass _has_ an effect.....it's just not possible for 100% transparency and zero reflectivity(as yet)...ANSI _will_ be affected.
> 
> 
> I realise many here are pushing the boundries of viewing distance of what 1920 x 1080/810(or more accuratly the detail addressed to such panels) was mean't to provide as a visual experience.
> 
> 
> I choose a less aggressive viewing ratio, settle for a smaller image but with a better image quality...others may wish a larger image and are quite happy to trade off to a less(mildly?) quality image.
> 
> 
> No perfect universal solution(perhaps with 4k!). But it appears all parties are happy with their results and the path that they have choosen.....and that's what it's all about....yeah?



I've viewed several 4K demo's. At one viewing 2 1080 panels were pitted against 2 2160 panels. As a baseline of 1080>1080, the 2160 source into 1080 panel was a 20% improvement, the 1080 source into 2160 panel a 100% improvement and the 2160 source into the 2160 panel another 100%. The consensus was everyone overwhelmingly preferred the 1080 into 2160 panel over the 2160 source into the 1080 panel. Having seen this with my own two eyes, your is dead wrong in your theory/assumption. Real world analyses at CES proved this. Having viewed 2160x3840 and 2160 x 4096 panels I believe this to finally give me the performance I desire. And I will probably still prefer my lens with a 4K projector. We shall see. As far as image purity with my Isco 3L its been already proven through extensive data from multitude of manufacturers. Plus if its good enough for cinematographers and the world's finest cinema's its good enough for me.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/20818727
> 
> 
> Excellent contribution stanger89!
> 
> 
> Of course it's a given that ultimately it's "whatever floats your boat" in terms of HT happiness. But these picky, detailed subjects are of interest to lots of us. That's what makes for enthusiast forums.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where some subjectivity comes into play. I sometimes do CIH as well (I often start with a CIH demo on my system to visitors). I have a totally light controlled room, with controlled room reflections and a projector known for among the deepest black levels you can get (JVC RS20). Yet when the image is in 16:9/1:85:1 mode and the side masks are open, the black side screen is still quite visible. In fact I can easily tell when there is even 1" of unmasked space to the sides. (I think the subjective part is how much the unmasked area is noticed by someone; but in more objective terms I'm sure measurements would put the differences well into the visible contrast spectrum, so it's not a case of imagination).
> 
> 
> There are of course variables here. I have a white screen. If a really dark specialty screen like a Black Diamond .8 gain screen were inserted instead, black bars in non-projected areas could be very dark (I've seen the BD in action - it does get very dark in the unprojected area, although not as pitch black as the masking area).
> 
> 
> But the point is, I can do CIH and check some of this with my experience as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In case it wasn't clear: The point I was making is that at a certain point claims about pixels being visible _are not_ controversial. That's why I said there would be nothing to dispute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm...that chart is ambiguous in terms of this discussion because it actually uses phrases like "benefit of 1440p starts to become noticeable" and "resolutions higher than 1440p would start to become noticeable." But what are these "benefits?"
> 
> 
> It doesn't mention pixel visibility. Pixel visibility as we know is different from _resolution_ or the amount of image information.
> 
> 
> The thing is that in the AV world, and especially as HD formats came to for, the "benefits" and acuity charts and investigations tended to be concerned with the benefits and visibility of added image detail - resolution - not pixel visibility per se. This is why you would be told at certain distances the "benefits" of a 1080p worth of detail would be lost against a 720p image, because your eye couldn't make out the additional detail at certain points.
> 
> 
> Note this article:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum...ewing_distance
> 
> _With printed graphics, resolution refers the number of pixels that occupy some fixed linear measurement.[12] *With HDTV, resolution refers to image resolution and is not tied to a linear measurement.* Instead, it is measured in terms of the physical display, (the total count of pixels available (or used) to compose the displayed image).[10] Generally, with printed graphics when the resolution of an image is increased, the image is cleaner, crisper and more detailed.[12] The caveat is, the image will not appear cleaner, crisper and more detailed, if the increase in resolution and the accompanying detail exceeds the visual system of the observer. If you exceed the viewer's visual system, there will be no perceived gain in image quality. *For an HDTV image to gain a qualitative increase, what is important is that the resolution per degree of arc (or angular resolution) increases, not just the total pixel count of the display.*[10]_
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas pixel visibility is a moving target in that respects, because different displays will show different pixel visibility at the same viewing distance, given variations in how displays are made. It's well known that some LCD and even DLP displays had much more visible pixels from the same distance vs other displays - e.g. LCOS was known for having a less discrete pixel structure, allowing closer viewing at the same pixel resolution. Same goes for Panasonic's smooth-screen technology in it's LCD projectors, in which you'd have to sit closer to see the pixels discreetly than with another LCD projector.
> 
> 
> So there is an inherent problem in saying "at this distance pixels become visible/invisible" whereas actual image information, resolution, is more of a known quantity in terms of the study of human perception.
> 
> 
> The issue is therefore that an A-lens isn't adding any more image resolution, and variations in display devices therefore make the benefits simply in terms of pixel invisibility a moving target. But less so with the area of resolution where we know an A-lens isn't adding anything to the mix.
> 
> 
> Also, Highjinx adds a very pertinent point: that some people are pushing the limits of even 1080p image _detail resolution_ with their seating, being closer than generally recommended. Again, this is why THX etc make recommendations based on a combination of immersion, visible image detail, and maintaining image quality - reducing visible artifacts.
> 
> 
> Perhaps you'll remember (if you heard it) the British AVforum interview with THX in which all these things were discussed. Somewhat to the shock of the CIH-loving interviewers, THX actually recommended against CIH for most people, due to possible artifacting in additional processing/adding an A-lens etc. But also in the respect of preserving a viewing distance that minimized visible artifacting, which is still an issue even when you have 1080p resolution (and varies source to source). They recommended a CIW system at a further distance than many people are sitting here from the CIH system (including me sometimes in my system).
> 
> 
> As it happens, this is one reason I went Variable Image Height: If I went with a fixed width, especially a really close viewing angle for scope, then I'm at the mercy of the source material in terms of it's actual resolution (instead of mere pixel count), and in terms of visible artifacting (ringing, image noise digital or otherwise).
> 
> 
> Having been able to zoom an image very large as well as small, this issue has really been brought home to me: not all HD sources "hold up" to close viewing distances, by a long shot. And I'm talking source, not pixel count, hence nothing an A-lens helps. There's no question that in terms of sheer image quality (apparent sharpness, smoothness of image, reduction if visible artifacts), some portion of 1080p source material looks better at further viewing angles than others.
> 
> 
> Now, those using an A-lens set up with super close viewing angles may feel this trade off is ultimately worth it for the "immersion" aspect. But let's not kid ourselves that there aren't other trade offs going on. (I sure as hell would gag at most DVDs shown at the viewing angles many are using here, which speaks to the issue of variable source resolution being independent of pixel count).
> 
> 
> Rich



I don't know what year that THX seminar suggested that, but, I think that scaling has been perfected to the point of no longer being an issue. I didn't understand your setup previously but now I see the benefit if I'm correct in assuming your adjust screen area to the quality of the pic. I don't allow anything but top shelf Blurays and Vudu HDX in my theater for that very reason. My system deserves the best or its not used. If it doesn't get a 3.5 or higher from HD Digest and the like, playback is on the living room 58" Samsung 3D Plasma. I don't watch dvd's in my theater, not worth the bulb life. Likewise, I didn't buy my Aerial/Parasound sound system for cassette/inferior CD playback, if you will. Garbage in, Garbage out.


----------



## Highjinx




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/20818902
> 
> 
> I've viewed several 4K demo's. At one viewing 2 1080 panels were pitted against 2 2160 panels. As a baseline of 1080>1080, the 2160 source into 1080 panel was a 20% improvement, the 1080 source into 2160 panel a 100% improvement and the 2160 source into the 2160 panel another 100%. The consensus was everyone overwhelmingly preferred the 1080 into 2160 panel over the 2160 source into the 1080 panel. Having seen this with my own two eyes, your is dead wrong in your theory/assumption. Real world analyses at CES proved this. Having viewed 2160x3840 and 2160 x 4096 panels I believe this to finally give me the performance I desire. And I will probably still prefer my lens with a 4K projector. We shall see. As far as image purity with my Isco 3L its been already proven through extensive data from multitude of manufacturers. Plus if its good enough for cinematographers and the world's finest cinema's its good enough for me.



Hmmmmm........are you talking about pixel visibility or image quality......would this make [email protected] upscaled to 4k as good or better than 1080p @35mpbs on a 1080p panel.


I'm forever stumped how IQ improvements and detail magically appear by the addition of empty pixels


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/20819015
> 
> 
> I'm forever stumped how IQ improvements and detail magically appear by the addition of empty pixels



In the case of vertical stretch, the 1920 x 1080 pixel array is re-mapped as if the panel was 1920 x 1440. There are no 'empty' pixels and the image is solid. Because the actual panel is 1920 x 1080 pixels and not 1920 x 1440, only the top and bottom portion (AKA the black bars) are lost.


----------



## Highjinx




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/20819068
> 
> 
> In the case of vertical stretch, the 1920 x 1080 pixel array is re-mapped as if the panel was 1920 x 1440. There are no 'empty' pixels and the image is solid. Because the actual panel is 1920 x 1080 pixels and not 1920 x 1440, only the top and bottom portion (AKA the black bars) are lost.



What I mean't was existing detail from 1920 x 810 is remapped to 1920 x 1080....no addition of 'new detail'


Interesting read here 2k/4k:
http://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/static/f...K_WP_Final.pdf


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/20819015
> 
> 
> Hmmmmm........are you talking about pixel visibility or image quality......would this make [email protected] upscaled to 4k as good or better than 1080p @35mpbs on a 1080p panel.
> 
> 
> I'm forever stumped how IQ improvements and detail magically appear by the addition of empty pixels



480p? Huh? I said 1080 source into 2160 display looks much better than 2160 source into 1080 display. Thats all, nothing more, nothing less. BTW, I could clearly pick the 4k panel over the 2k panel even at MORE THAN 4x picture height, without even trying. There was that much difference with the same source and picture side by side. Granted I was looking at 72" LCD panels and not front projectors. These panels were identical in every way but panel resolution, the same manufacturer, calibration, brightness, etc. Do some research into interpolation. The same pixel info spread among four pixels looks better, smoother. In fact, Panasonic does this with whole frames. Then go check it out for yourself. Let your eyes make the determination instead of someone else's white paper.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/20819117
> 
> 
> What I mean't was existing detail from 1920 x 810 is remapped to 1920 x 1080....no addition of 'new detail'
> 
> 
> Interesting read here 2k/4k:
> http://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/static/f...K_WP_Final.pdf



Again, pixel density is more important than 1:1 mapping, scalers are pretty much perfect today. So then 1080 is preferred over 810, and 1440 over 1080, etc. Pixel density will always give a more pleasing picture at a given screen height given the same 1080 source for both. Five years ago the scalers couldn't cope with the 1.33 expansion that they handle today with great ease. Defocusing isn't the answer. Pixel density is needed as stated by your above mentioned paper. Of course further raising image detail is important. Go watch a state of the art 4K front projector with a 2K source and you'll be amazed how much better it looks. And I've seen a JVC RS4000 and its absolutely ridiculous how good a 1080p source looks through it. And this was a FP.


----------



## Brad Horstkotte




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/20818727
> 
> 
> I have a totally light controlled room, with controlled room reflections and a projector known for among the deepest black levels you can get (JVC RS20). Yet when the image is in 16:9/1:85:1 mode and the side masks are open, the black side screen is still quite visible.



A nit perhaps - but hey that's what we do right: just thought I'd point out that the projector's black level wouldn't come into play at all in the case of 16:9 projected onto a 2.35:1 screen - since the projector isn't shooting any light onto those side bars. It would however come into play when projecting 2.35:1 onto a 16:9 screen, as the projector is projecting black onto those top / bottom bars (same applies for "black" bars on top and bottom of a CIA screen).


The side bars could still get lit up though (indirect lighting) and benefit from masking.


----------



## R Harkness

coolrda,


Interesting stuff.


I wonder why your experience is so different than many other people on this issue.

On the plasma forum one of the most consistent findings was that a higher source quality downscaled tended to look better than a lower source quality upscaled. That was always the case whenever I investigated the issue with my own eyes, testing displays as well, and it's one reason I actually ended up with a lower resolution plasma - before Blu-Ray became ubiquitous. I have an ED resolution plasma and to this day 720p or 1080p sources downscaled to my plasma's lower pixel count look FAR better (sharper, more artifact-free) than, for instance, 480p upscaled to any current 1080p display I've seen. Standard TV resolution also tends to look much better on my set than on any of the higher res displays I've seen on which it has to be upscaled to a higher pixel count.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brad Horstkotte* /forum/post/20819347
> 
> 
> A nit perhaps - but hey that's what we do right: just thought I'd point out that the projector's black level wouldn't come into play at all in the case of 16:9 projected onto a 2.35:1 screen - since the projector isn't shooting any light onto those side bars. It would however come into play when projecting 2.35:1 onto a 16:9 screen, as the projector is projecting black onto those top / bottom bars (same applies for "black" bars on top and bottom of a CIA screen).
> 
> 
> The side bars could still get lit up though (indirect lighting) and benefit from masking.



Good to clear that up as I wrote that a bit confusingly. I was just trying to give a general idea of my set up. (Yes I know there is no projected image on the sides of my 16:9 image).


Though presumably a projector's black level could influence even the un-projected portion of the screen if it's putting out more light (higher black level) than another projector, in very dark scenes.


Last night I experimented again with my system in CIH mode, leaving the masking open on the sides for 1:85:1 content and there's no way I could live with that personally. The sides of the screen were always visible as unmasked. This varied in visibility with the brightness of the movie image.

Despite that I have gone to great lengths to kill reflections, most surfaces covered in dark velvet etc, the sides of the screen still light up more in brighter scenes.


And as I've said, I've seen my own projector unit with and without an A-lens (Panamorph UH480). Both at another forum member's house, and at a couple AV stores - I'd estimate I've seen my projector/A-lens combo up to around 20 times. Not once did I notice anything grabbing me as "Wow, that looks better than my zoomed image at home!" And I looked for it.


Whereas I was ALWAYS aware that an unmasked image suffered compared to what I have at home with masking.


I certainly leave open the possibility that if I get an A-lens and can scrutinize the image over an even longer period that I'd possibly notice some benefits to the A-lens image (or...not). But it's obvious to me at this point that I find masking to be a much more obvious and immediately discernible benefit to the image presentation than a zoomed vs A-lens image.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/20818727
> 
> 
> This is where some subjectivity comes into play. I sometimes do CIH as well (I often start with a CIH demo on my system to visitors). I have a totally light controlled room, with controlled room reflections and a projector known for among the deepest black levels you can get (JVC RS20). Yet when the image is in 16:9/1:85:1 mode and the side masks are open, the black side screen is still quite visible. In fact I can easily tell when there is even 1" of unmasked space to the sides. (I think the subjective part is how much the unmasked area is noticed by someone; but in more objective terms I'm sure measurements would put the differences well into the visible contrast spectrum, so it's not a case of imagination).



I wonder if there's really two things here we're talking about. What I mean is if I take a rhetorical step back and look at the screen when I project 16:9 onto my scope screen, of course, it's very obvious there's unmasked areas on the sides.


But for me, within moments of actually "sitting down" and actually watching the movie, those unmasked areas "disappear" just as much as everything else in the field of view that's not part of the movie.


I have been meaning to build some masking panels, just to test out what all the fuss is about, but I'm out of velvet and just haven't gotten the motivation up to do it yet. I'd really like some masking, but frankly I think 90% of that is for the presentation, the "theater" of having the screen expand.



> Quote:
> There are of course variables here. I have a white screen. If a really dark specialty screen like a Black Diamond .8 gain screen were inserted instead, black bars in non-projected areas could be very dark (I've seen the BD in action - it does get very dark in the unprojected area, although not as pitch black as the masking area).
> 
> 
> But the point is, I can do CIH and check some of this with my experience as well.



My only thought was that since you're not tied to a CIH configuration, masking is much more important in your setup, and I can easily see where that would "predispose" you toward preferring masking much more than other things.



> Quote:
> Hmmm...that chart is ambiguous in terms of this discussion because it actually uses phrases like "benefit of 1440p starts to become noticeable" and "resolutions higher than 1440p would start to become noticeable." But what are these "benefits?"
> 
> 
> It doesn't mention pixel visibility. Pixel visibility as we know is different from _resolution_ or the amount of image information.
> 
> 
> The thing is that in the AV world, and especially as HD formats came to for, the "benefits" and acuity charts and investigations tended to be concerned with the benefits and visibility of added image detail - resolution - not pixel visibility per se. This is why you would be told at certain distances the "benefits" of a 1080p worth of detail would be lost against a 720p image, because your eye couldn't make out the additional detail at certain points.
> 
> 
> Note this article:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum...ewing_distance
> 
> _With printed graphics, resolution refers the number of pixels that occupy some fixed linear measurement.[12] *With HDTV, resolution refers to image resolution and is not tied to a linear measurement.* Instead, it is measured in terms of the physical display, (the total count of pixels available (or used) to compose the displayed image).[10] Generally, with printed graphics when the resolution of an image is increased, the image is cleaner, crisper and more detailed.[12] The caveat is, the image will not appear cleaner, crisper and more detailed, if the increase in resolution and the accompanying detail exceeds the visual system of the observer. If you exceed the viewer's visual system, there will be no perceived gain in image quality. *For an HDTV image to gain a qualitative increase, what is important is that the resolution per degree of arc (or angular resolution) increases, not just the total pixel count of the display.*[10]_



Right, but take a look at the other article I linked, "we" have a visual acuity of about 0.6 arc minutes per pixel. Doing the math from that, at 1x screen width that's about 5400x2300 pixels for a scope image. 1080p is nowhere near that, let alone 810p of a zoomed scope image.


My contention is that pixel "visibility" as it is most often referred to here, is not actually pixel visibility, but pixel gap visibility, ie SDE. I don't feel like doing the math now this morning, but I'd guess that somewhere between 480p and 1080p is the point at which for close viewing distances, the interpixel gap falls below 0.6 arc minutes. Scratch that I guess I do feel like it...


At about 1x screen width viewing distance, the screen height is about 18 degrees, for a 1080p image that comes out to be essentially exactly 1 arc minute per pixel. If we assume 90% fil factor, then the gap is about 0.05 arc minutes.


If we go back to 480p days, a pixel there is about 2.25 arc minutes, so the gap there is about 0.11 arc minutes. Well, that's sort of interesting, that would indicate we can see things even smaller than 0.6 arc minutes (we all know that we can see the gaps between pixels on a 480p machine at 1x screen width). That would push the resolution even higher.



> Quote:
> Whereas pixel visibility is a moving target in that respects, because different displays will show different pixel visibility at the same viewing distance, given variations in how displays are made. It's well known that some LCD and even DLP displays had much more visible pixels from the same distance vs other displays - e.g. LCOS was known for having a less discrete pixel structure, allowing closer viewing at the same pixel resolution. Same goes for Panasonic's smooth-screen technology in it's LCD projectors, in which you'd have to sit closer to see the pixels discreetly than with another LCD projector.



But this is all largely due to the interpixel gaps (plus probably interpixel contrast as well). LCD has the largest gaps, LCOS the smallest. We're still back to a very understandable metric of the size of a physical property of the display.



> Quote:
> So there is an inherent problem in saying "at this distance pixels become visible/invisible" whereas actual image information, resolution, is more of a known quantity in terms of the study of human perception.



While "pixel visibility" may not be well studied scientifically, I have no reason to think it's not based on the same fundamental principals as that which is studied thoroughly, that being the size of the structure and the contrast of the differences.



> Quote:
> The issue is therefore that an A-lens isn't adding any more image resolution, and variations in display devices therefore make the benefits simply in terms of pixel invisibility a moving target. But less so with the area of resolution where we know an A-lens isn't adding anything to the mix.



I'm not really sure why we keep having this particular discussion, if adding more pixels were not beneficial, why would so many people have bothered upgrading to HD displays purely for DVD upscaling, before HD content was available?


This is, IMO, a double-standard, people know well and approve of the benefits of upscaling low resolution sources on high resolution displays, but cry foul when A-lens users/proponents do the same thing with high resolution sources on high resolution displays with the addition of a lens.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/20819015
> 
> 
> I'm forever stumped how IQ improvements and detail magically appear by the addition of empty pixels



You should look into reconstruction theory a bit. There are a number of ways to accurately reconstruct a digital signal, but one of the easiest is to resample it to very high output frequencies, much higher than the sampling rate or Nyquist frequency. Upscaling results in a smoother, less aliased reconstruction that is more accurate. And don't forget that aliasing is noise and noise obscures detail.


----------



## Toe

I have not had any need/desire to create masking panels for 1.78/85 material on my 2.35 screen up to this point. The black bars in this situation I find are MUCH less obvious vs the black bars on a 1.78 screen when viewing 2.35 material and I never even notice them when watching a movie normally. If I look over in that area, I can see them, but barely. This is another great thing about CIH since the bars are not projected light (unless you are doing the shrink method) but simply empty screen space which makes them considerably more black. My room is a black hole with excellent light control though which I am sure helps. Having said that, If I do the shrink method to watch 1.78/85, the bars are not as black since they are now projected light but I still dont notice them when watching a film. Masks might help a little, but the need for them is not anywhere close to a 1.78 screen when watching 2.35/40 material. When I had my 1.78 screen, the top/bottom bars were slightly distracting and there were quite a few times I pondered making some masking panels, but I simply dont feel that need with the 2.35 screen. I think having the black bars out to the side of your vision versus top and bottom really helps in not noticing them as well.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/20819927
> 
> 
> coolrda,
> 
> 
> Interesting stuff.
> 
> 
> I wonder why your experience is so different than many other people on this issue.
> 
> On the plasma forum one of the most consistent findings was that a higher source quality downscaled tended to look better than a lower source quality upscaled. That was always the case whenever I investigated the issue with my own eyes, testing displays as well, and it's one reason I actually ended up with a lower resolution plasma - before Blu-Ray became ubiquitous. I have an ED resolution plasma and to this day 720p or 1080p sources downscaled to my plasma's lower pixel count look FAR better (sharper, more artifact-free) than, for instance, 480p upscaled to any current 1080p display I've seen. Standard TV resolution also tends to look much better on my set than on any of the higher res displays I've seen on which it has to be upscaled to a higher pixel count.



Again, Huh? 480, 720? Forgive me if I sound demeaning, Rich, as that isn't my intent at all. First of all I agree with all the above! I remember my first projector in 2004, a Infocus 4805 16x9 projector. It was incredible watching Dvd's on a 92 incher. Then in April of 06 I bought my Toshiba Hddvd and the improvement was incredible. Of course that upgrade followed first to 720p then 1080p projectors. I no longer watch dvd's. IMO, they're unwatchable. DVD looks horrific compared to my Bluray versions. I would rather stream Netflix than watch my dvd's. Why is dvd so inferior to BR's or HDdvd's? The Tech. Inferior compression tech leads to disappointing picture quality due to artifacts, jaggies, unbearable picture noise, etc., on and on. I've seen broadcast 480p feeds in Time Warners head end and a hard drive based lossless non compressed 480p feed down res'd from 1080 and what you get on dvd ISN'T IT. It's eye opening how much difference there was between the two 480p pictures. Huge difference. Look at Netflix's 720P garbage at times that is so compressed and macro-blocked its unwatchable. Same with bad 1080p. So my experience isn't different then the plasma group you mentioned above. It's the same, The Incredibles on Dvd pales in comparison to the Bluray, not because of the resolution alone, but because of the above mentioned compression compromises.


But then again, none of this matters because that's not what I said, is it? My conclusion of the comparison, as I mentioned, was in agreement with all that viewed the 1080/2160 demo's. I said 1080 source into 2160 panel was superior to the 2160 source into 1080 panel. Just to clarify, both sources were from the same 4K master, with lossless hard drive playback. Let me tell you the RED 4K source raw video at 120mps send a shiver up my spine. Talk about POP. The point was of course that we need 4K panels with HD1080 Bluray. There was no denying it. Dave.


----------



## Tom Monahan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/20820295
> 
> 
> I have not had any need/desire to create masking panels for 1.78/85 material on my 2.35 screen up to this point. The black bars in this situation I find are MUCH less obvious vs the black bars on a 1.78 screen when viewing 2.35 material and I never even notice them when watching a movie normally. If I look over in that area, I can see them, but barely. This is another great thing about CIH since the bars are not projected light (unless you are doing the shrink method) but simply empty screen space which makes them considerably more black. My room is a black hole with excellent light control though which I am sure helps. Having said that, If I do the shrink method to watch 1.78/85, the bars are not as black since they are now projected light but I still dont notice them when watching a film. Masks might help a little, but the need for them is not anywhere close to a 1.78 screen when watching 2.35/40 material. When I had my 1.78 screen, the top/bottom bars were slightly distracting and there were quite a few times I pondered making some masking panels, but I simply dont feel that need with the 2.35 screen. I think having the black bars out to the side of your vision versus top and bottom really helps in not noticing them as well.



Side masking makes a big difference in my experience. Once you try it you will never go back IMHO.


Tom


----------



## Tom Monahan

Has anyone made top and bottom masking for their scope screens? With Ben Hur coming out soon and other super wide movies like How the West Was Won on BD I'm considering doing so for my 2.40 scope screen. I just find the bars too annoying after using masking for every tv/projector I have used since 1988. Unfortunately, I just didn't have enough zoom to go with a wider than 2.40 screen.







I know that were talking very few films over 2.40 but this is BEN HUR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Tom


----------



## R Harkness

I'm getting the sense we are talking past each other a bit here.


But FWIW...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/20821196
> 
> 
> I no longer watch dvd's. IMO, they're unwatchable.



My experience differs. Of course I'll always prefer an HD version of a movie, but DVDs can still look surprisingly good - at least I feel that way on my system (and some others I've seen). But this is where varying the image size can really pay off. I can use a smaller image size for DVDs when necessary (e.g. 100" diagonal 16:9 and smaller) to get the images looking really quite impressive (to both guests and myself). Whereas if I played those same DVDs at the huge sizes I can on my system, or at the size many here are using for everything they watch, then I surely would be suffering when it comes to lower quality content.


But I like movies first, technology second, and I prefer not to limit what I watch "because it's not on Blu-Ray." When a movie I want to watch is only available on DVD I don't have to wince - either refusing to watch or suffer terrible pq - I can actually enjoy it. (Of course I could always throw a DVD on to my even smaller plasma, but I find I can still get a good DVD image at much more cinematic sizes in my projection room).




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/20821196
> 
> 
> 
> It's the same, The Incredibles on Dvd pales in comparison to the Bluray, not because of the resolution alone, but because of the above mentioned compression compromises.



I don't see how that addresses what I wrote.


If there happens to be compression problems in a DVD, spreading it among more pixels isn't going to help, which is the point. I always found if you take the same DVD and played it on an ED plasma vs a 1080p display, the picture tended to suffer MORE when scaled to the higher pixel count, for whatever reasons.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/20821196
> 
> 
> 
> But then again, none of this matters because that's not what I said, is it? My conclusion of the comparison, as I mentioned, was in agreement with all that viewed the 1080/2160 demo's. I said 1080 source into 2160 panel was superior to the 2160 source into 1080 panel. Just to clarify, both sources were from the same 4K master, with lossless hard drive playback. Let me tell you the RED 4K source raw video at 120mps send a shiver up my spine. Talk about POP. The point was of course that we need 4K panels with HD1080 Bluray. There was no denying it. Dave.



Yes, that's what I was saying was odd. Many of us have found that downscaling a higher res source to a lower res screen looks better (less artifacty) then scaling a lower res source to a higher res display.


Wheres you report seeing exactly the reverse. That's what I say is curious.

I'm certainly not doubting your report...just noting that it is at odds with the experience of lots of other folk, like me.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tom Monahan* /forum/post/20821437
> 
> 
> Side masking makes a big difference in my experience. Once you try it you will never go back IMHO.
> 
> 
> Tom



I dont doubt that it would be even better Tom, but considering that the non masked 1.78 image NEVER bothers me right now, I doubt I will go to the trouble to make masks anytime soon since I am happy. I find the side bars (I simply dont notice them when watching a movie) are MUCH less intrusive vs top/bottom bars (which I always found annoying to some degree and is one of the big reasons why I ultimately went to a 2.35 screen).


----------



## doctormyeyes

I put aside my ISCO II several years ago, to zoom, with my Panasonic AE3000 and 104" wide 2.35 ratio Dalite HiPower screen, which I watch constant height, with no side masking. I still have the lens, but have no temptation to futz with it again. To my eye, it looks great without the lens (and I'm an eye doctor), and it's just a lot simpler. I haven't read all the posts in this thread, as I'm not interested in revisiting this discussion, which has been recurrent for years. It's fun to try a lens, the picture looks great, and the lens makes a great conversation piece sitting in my living room, but ultimately, it's easier without it, and the picture still looks great. Maybe it's my old eyes.


Anyone want to buy an excellent condition ISCO II? What's a good price? I've threatened to sell it several times over the past few years, but truly willing now.


----------



## coolrda

I don't believe I can make it any clearer. Your example Rich is invalid. Your sources have to match in every way except resolution. As I explained they don't. Your taking an inferior 480 source and displaying it at 1080, then you take a pristine 1080 source and display it at 480 and everyone including myself will pick the better pic over a jaggy noisy artifact filled picture any day. Your comparison is invalid. All that proves is a hi noise highly compressed source is worse, picture-wise, than a lossless hi res clean source like bluray. That plasma forum didn't use identical lossless copies of the same source material.

That's were your getting confused. Think of it this way. Take a 480p DVD and upscale it to 1080p via a Oppo bdp83/93. Now compare it to the same movie in bluray. They're both 1080p but I don't think you or I would have any trouble picking which was which, would we. If you look back at my original post, you'll see I was comparing and commenting on a same sourced (except for down res'd) into 2-1080p and 2-2160p displays. And I rated the picture from best to worst. 2160>2160, 1080>2160, 2160>1080, 1080>1080. I stood there for an hour comparing an overheard many a comment agreeing with me. You need to view this for yourself before making this comment. A crappy source is crap whether displayed with 500 or 50000 pixels. Your reference to said prior postings in the plasma forum is a gimme. In conclusion 1080p pristine source material is fine. Give me a 4K projector.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/20822393
> 
> 
> Take a 480p DVD and upscale it to 1080p via a Oppo bdp83/93. Now compare it to the same movie in bluray. They're both 1080p but I don't think you or I would have any trouble picking which was which, would we.



When I first got my first BD player, I did a demo for a friend. The BD player was connected to the projector via HDMI and I used a DVD player connected with component (because that was the best it had) and loaded the same title (JPK DVE) in each and played the shuttle launch.


My friends conclusion was that the ONLY reason we thought DVD looked good was because we had nothing better to compare it too. Neither myself or my friend could believe how bad DVD really was. The interetsing part was watching both at "REAL" or 1:1 and the DVD image was this tiny thing in the middle of the screen. Then and only then did it look good, but is was 1/6th the size.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/20822543
> 
> 
> When I first got my first BD player, I did a demo for a friend. The BD player was connected to the projector via HDMI and I used a DVD player connected with component (because that was the best it had) and loaded the same title (JPK DVE) in each and played the shuttle launch.
> 
> 
> My friends conclusion was that the ONLY reason we thought DVD looked good was because we had nothing better to compare it too. Neither myself or my friend could believe how bad DVD really was. The interetsing part was watching both at "REAL" or 1:1 and the DVD image was this tiny thing in the middle of the screen. Then and only then did it look good, but is was 1/6th the size.



Exactly the point I was making. Thanks, Mark. I too, had a preconception that higher source with lower res was superior. But your eyes don't lie. I saw what I saw. After thinking about it and asking lots of questions, I realized why. Another interesting demo was right next to this one. It had the identical 2160 source feeding a 480, 720, 1080, 2160 panels of the same size. From a far they looked identical. As I walked closer, the pixel density made a big difference. 1080 looked fantastic next to 480 and 720, but only 2160 gave me the true "looking thru a window" look. Thats one big reason HD was such a big step up, we got a clean hi-res source boost and at the relatively same time 1080 displays became plentiful.


----------



## R Harkness

Quote:

Originally Posted by *coolrda* 
Another interesting demo was right next to this one. It had the identical 2160 source feeding a 480, 720, 1080, 2160 panels of the same size. From a far they looked identical. As I walked closer, the pixel density made a big difference. 1080 looked fantastic next to 480 and 720, but only 2160 gave me the true "looking thru a window" look.
It's certainly not surprising that a 2160 source is going to be most impressive on a 2160 resolution display, especially as you move closer and closer to the displays. That's what one would expect. (I'd love to have seen that!).



Back to the other conversation:

Quote:

Originally Posted by *coolrda* 
I don't believe I can make it any clearer. Your example Rich is invalid. Your sources have to match in every way except resolution. As I explained they don't. Your taking an inferior 480 source and displaying it at 1080, then you take a pristine 1080 source and display it at 480 and everyone including myself will pick the better pic over a jaggy noisy artifact filled picture any day. Your comparison is invalid. All that proves is a hi noise highly compressed source is worse, picture-wise, than a lossless hi res clean source like bluray.
I think you are missing half of the equation here.


When I (and others) compared good DVD transfers (not all are as horrible as you depict) on ED, 720p and 1080p displays, the *source* _was_ constant. But mapping to the displays with the higher pixel counts typically made the image worse than on the ED displays (which already had enough pixels do display full DVD resolution).


So keeping a constant source, introducing more pixels didn't help picture quality, didn't even stay neutral, it made it worse. I'm not saying this always has to be the case in principle; I'm just pointing out that was the experience of myself and many others when panel resolution was creeping upward and everyone was really placing a microscope on issues of resolution and picture quality.


Further, among those really, really into scaling images at the time, the holy grail seemed to be "perfect 1 to 1 pixel mapping" as the best solution, likely to invite the most pristine, artifact-free image. And it was a happy day for many when 1080p res displays combined with 1080p sources started appearing and this became possible. I remember some earlier 1080p displays like the Panasonic plasmas had modes that remapped the signal just barely, for instance so possible TV signal fringing was off the screen, or you could choose the 1:1 pixel mapping setting. The 1:1 pixel mapping always snapped the picture into the best focus with the least artifacts, vs re-scaling the image in any way.


All those real-world examples left me quite suspicious about the benefits of scaling up a signal to a higher pixel count than is contained in the source. Without the scaling required for an A-lens, you can have 1:1 pixel mapping on a 1080p display. Most of the examples I've seen of re-scaled/A-lens systems tend to talk about damage to the image being minimised as best as possible, by the scaling and A-lens, to enjoy the wider picture immersion.


As for better "pristine" 1080p sources, again I and a number of others did a number of apples-to-apples comparisons. I saw the most pristine content I've ever seen - demo discs and some right off hard drives - of 1080p content from Sony, Panasonic, LG etc. These were played at the same time on a variety of screens beside each other, from ED 42" plasma to 720p 42" plasma to 1080p 42" plasma (of the same brand). I was obsessed with evaluating the contributions of the higher res screens. What I found was that at a distance at which I couldn't see the pixels on the 720p display (which was not at all very far from the screen), the image looked essentially identical to the 1080p models. I could see no benefit to added pixels when I could not discern pixels.


When I moved closer the benefit of added pixels on the 1080p models came into play. I could be closer to the screen before seeing the pixels. But even then, I saw no more details per se, it was more how the details remained smooth looking at a closer distance. So certainly it looked better when closer, than the 720p models.


Now, there may be some small, discrete exact distance where I may find I can not actually see pixel outlines discreetly on the 720p displays beside the 1080p displays, yet the added pixel density of the 1080p screen would nonetheless make details slightly cleaner, or make the image look better. Although I did not personally find that phenomenon when I did those tests.


But all that makes me take the idea that simply by virtue of adding more pixels (using an A-lens) you increase picture quality.


Please don't take this as my implying your experience was "wrong." You saw what you saw. I'm just giving my experiential reasons for being at least initially skeptical to some of the claims made for adding an A-lens (e.g. that even if I can't see the pixels now in my set up, re-mapping to even more pixels would increase the perception of image quality). You seem to have some experience that backs up your current view; I have some that seems to back up mine (though I am not holding on that firmly to mine).


Cheers,


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/20825599
> 
> 
> It's certainly not surprising that a 2160 source is going to be most impressive on a 2160 resolution display, especially as you move closer and closer to the displays. That's what one would expect. (I'd love to have seen that!).
> 
> 
> 
> Back to the other conversation:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are missing half of the equation here.
> 
> 
> When I (and others) compared good DVD transfers (not all are as horrible as you depict) on ED, 720p and 1080p displays, the *source* _was_ constant. But mapping to the displays with the higher pixel counts typically made the image worse than on the ED displays (which already had enough pixels do display full DVD resolution).
> 
> 
> So keeping a constant source, introducing more pixels didn't help picture quality, didn't even stay neutral, it made it worse. I'm not saying this always has to be the case in principle; I'm just pointing out that was the experience of myself and many others when panel resolution was creeping upward and everyone was really placing a microscope on issues of resolution and picture quality.
> 
> 
> Further, among those really, really into scaling images at the time, the holy grail seemed to be "perfect 1 to 1 pixel mapping" as the best solution, likely to invite the most pristine, artifact-free image. And it was a happy day for many when 1080p res displays combined with 1080p sources started appearing and this became possible. I remember some earlier 1080p displays like the Panasonic plasmas had modes that remapped the signal just barely, for instance so possible TV signal fringing was off the screen, or you could choose the 1:1 pixel mapping setting. The 1:1 pixel mapping always snapped the picture into the best focus with the least artifacts, vs re-scaling the image in any way.
> 
> 
> All those real-world examples left me quite suspicious about the benefits of scaling up a signal to a higher pixel count than is contained in the source. Without the scaling required for an A-lens, you can have 1:1 pixel mapping on a 1080p display. Most of the examples I've seen of re-scaled/A-lens systems tend to talk about damage to the image being minimised as best as possible, by the scaling and A-lens, to enjoy the wider picture immersion.
> 
> 
> As for better "pristine" 1080p sources, again I and a number of others did a number of apples-to-apples comparisons. I saw the most pristine content I've ever seen - demo discs and some right off hard drives - of 1080p content from Sony, Panasonic, LG etc. These were played at the same time on a variety of screens beside each other, from ED 42" plasma to 720p 42" plasma to 1080p 42" plasma (of the same brand). I was obsessed with evaluating the contributions of the higher res screens. What I found was that at a distance at which I couldn't see the pixels on the 720p display (which was not at all very far from the screen), the image looked essentially identical to the 1080p models. I could see no benefit to added pixels when I could not discern pixels.
> 
> 
> When I moved closer the benefit of added pixels on the 1080p models came into play. I could be closer to the screen before seeing the pixels. But even then, I saw no more details per se, it was more how the details remained smooth looking at a closer distance. So certainly it looked better when closer, than the 720p models.
> 
> 
> Now, there may be some small, discrete exact distance where I may find I can not actually see pixel outlines discreetly on the 720p displays beside the 1080p displays, yet the added pixel density of the 1080p screen would nonetheless make details slightly cleaner, or make the image look better. Although I did not personally find that phenomenon when I did those tests.
> 
> 
> But all that makes me take the idea that simply by virtue of adding more pixels (using an A-lens) you increase picture quality.
> 
> 
> Please don't take this as my implying your experience was "wrong." You saw what you saw. I'm just giving my experiential reasons for being at least initially skeptical to some of the claims made for adding an A-lens (e.g. that even if I can't see the pixels now in my set up, re-mapping to even more pixels would increase the perception of image quality). You seem to have some experience that backs up your current view; I have some that seems to back up mine (though I am not holding on that firmly to mine).
> 
> 
> Cheers,



1:1 pixel mapping had relevance at one time. That doesn't appear to be the case any longer. Perhaps the ED looked better, because it didn't resolve all the cramp. Pixel grids overshadow bad dvd feeds on ED displays, in typical demo or living room view distances. Or it could be as simple as view distances. The displays I view were all 72" panels, view at 1-2x pic heights to one foot from screen. Even with a constant source, albeit a poor one, I would prefer the 1080P panel for the smoother film like pic, despite the added noise and artifacts due to severe compression. Upconversion was garbage in its infancy. You obviously preferred the 480p panel. Some people perceive pixel grid as sharpness. Just idle thoughts as I don't know, as there is a lot of variables. Again two different demo's. But, I digress. I'll drop it.


Subject 2. View distance is the reason to increase resolution. I don't go to the show to sit at 10X screen height. I prefer 2x or closer. Screens edges at the peripheral edges for immersion purposes. I want the illusion of being there, not home watching tv.


Subject 3. What is the reasoning behind using Cylindrical's, such as the Isco3L in the finest CIH HT's(Esoteric FP & DCI Projection, Art's, Alan's, tons of other's)? Throw money away, craving for inferior picture quality. I don't get why JVC used a Isco3L on their 4k projectors when clearly the pixel density wasn't an issue. In fact that was a constant on all CIH demo's at Vegas the last few years. Optoma, Mitsubishi, Runco, everyone manufacturer and screen company displaying CIH products. I guess were all wrong, right. Conspiracy maybe?


Subject 4. What makes better picture quality? Throwout for a moment pixel density arguments. Does a brighter picture equal better picture. Of course it does. Thats the holy grail of FP's. How about instant scaling. My RS40 is rs232 controlled with iRule and 1.78/2.35(no wrap) mode changes are instant. I can even keep up with those freaky multiple aspect IMAX movies, though the effect is opposite. Two more huge advantages for an A-Lens without even talking pixels and screen height/immersion. Lets talk cons. Pincushion, ouch. Not really. 0.5% of picture info lost on flat screens, 0% on curved. I use slightly more to kill the 2.40 sliver.


Subject 5. The real reason people zoom. MONEY. STICKER SHOCK. Spending $3K-9K for a piece of the finest glass around. Make no mistake. I was amazed at my 3L in front of my Benq W5000, and al the more so with my RS40 as it has an incredible Lens of its own. My lens does an incredible job of staying out of the way. After laser aligning everything and focusing both perfectly it was even better. Its one of those things you need to view for hundreds of hours in your own home to fully appreciate all the subtle aspects.


Subject 6. Its a fact some A-lens are inferior and have a negative impact to the picture that makes zooming preferable. In that case, with budget restraints, I may go zooming. Zooming is still preferable to CIW by far, IMNHBAHO, except in cases where the room is severely horizontally challenged. Even then (previous room was 8.5ft wide) I would take a CIH, as I did. In conclusion, this argument will continue to go on and on. There's nothing wrong with zooming. I would say its a wash with my old Panamorph VC lens. Saying its a better choice than cylindrical's is false. PERIOD. Money out of the equation, #1 Cyn A-Lens,#2 High end prism A-Lens,#3 Zooming DIY or lower grade prisms. In any case CIH rules.


----------



## coolrda

Just to add I'm fine with unmasked side bars. It really doesn't bother me like zooming did. However the picture is better masked.


----------



## Highjinx

Pixel Mapping:

http://pixelmapping.wikispaces.com/P...ping+explained


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/20827402
> 
> 
> Pixel Mapping:
> 
> http://pixelmapping.wikispaces.com/P...ping+explained



That argument is so old









Besides, we (those of us with A-Lenses anyway







) watch movies not test patterns


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/20827402
> 
> 
> Pixel Mapping:
> 
> http://pixelmapping.wikispaces.com/P...ping+explained



Everything goes out the window when you're talking about artificially generated signals (test patterns) with information beyond the Nyquist frequency. It's impossible to scale such signals without aliasing.


Such is not the case with content captured with a camera, in other words real world content.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/20827508
> 
> 
> Everything goes out the window when you're talking about artificially generated signals (test patterns) with information beyond the Nyquist frequency. It's impossible to scale such signals without aliasing.
> 
> 
> Such is not the case with content captured with a camera, in other words real world content.



Great point! Even video games, as far as they've come, still suffer from this.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/20827415
> 
> 
> That argument is so old
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Besides, we (those of us with A-Lenses anyway
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) watch movies not test patterns



Exactly.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/20827402
> 
> 
> Pixel Mapping:
> 
> http://pixelmapping.wikispaces.com/P...ping+explained



This is old news. I had a 1366x768 37 incher and the scaler was so poor I used my dvd players scaler to up res 480 to 768. The scaler in the set was terrible compared to the dvd player. At that time I also used a HTPC that look best with 1:1 mapping, because, *the panel had poor scaling*. If you look near the end of the article the author says " HD-DVD and Blu-Ray player could very well be affected by this." He didn't use either as sources. So the article isn't relevant. Today's scalers are in a completely different league.


But set that aside. Forget pixels completely. You still have the lumens advantage. The brighter the picture, the better it's resolved.


----------



## R Harkness

Quote:

Originally Posted by *coolrda* 
Subject 2. View distance is the reason to increase resolution. I don't go to the show to sit at 10X screen height. I prefer 2x or closer. Screens edges at the peripheral edges for immersion purposes. I want the illusion of being there, not home watching tv.
Cool.


But I get all that without an A-lens or adding pixels or remapping....

Quote:

Originally Posted by *coolrda* 
Subject 3. What is the reasoning behind using Cylindrical's, such as the Isco3L in the finest CIH HT's(Esoteric FP & DCI Projection, Art's, Alan's, tons of other's)? Throw money away, craving for inferior picture quality. I don't get why JVC used a Isco3L on their 4k projectors when clearly the pixel density wasn't an issue. In fact that was a constant on all CIH demo's at Vegas the last few years. Optoma, Mitsubishi, Runco, everyone manufacturer and screen company displaying CIH products. I guess were all wrong, right. Conspiracy maybe?
Or an A-lens made for somehow easier CIH demos, all things considered (?).


Quote:

Originally Posted by *coolrda* 
Subject 4. What makes better picture quality? Throwout for a moment pixel density arguments. Does a brighter picture equal better picture. Of course it does.
No it doesn't.


Depends what you are trying to achieve, your projector's capabilities etc.

I had a 2.3 gain screen and a 1.1 gain screen with my previous Panasonic projector. The brighter picture on the 2.3 gain screen came with higher black levels - unacceptably so. Which is why I preferred the dimmer picture on the lower gain screen. Lots of people on AVS have used neutral density filters to knock DOWN brightness of their projected in their desire for deeper black levels.


In an ideal world we could get both higher brightness and while maintaining the same or better black levels. But in most cases something has to give when you go one way over the other.


Which is why I also now use a 1.3 gain screen with my JVC projector vs a 1.0 gain or 2.3 gain screen. There are trade-offs to both the brighter and the dimmer image and what I get at 1.3 gain is for me the best trade off I've found.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *coolrda* 
Thats the holy grail of FP's. How about instant scaling. My RS40 is rs232 controlled with iRule and 1.78/2.35(no wrap) mode changes are instant. I can even keep up with those freaky multiple aspect IMAX movies, though the effect is opposite.
That's cool. But are those images fully masked? I doubt it...and that's what I'd like happening in a set up.


Otherwise, I could just open my masking, play Tron and see all the ARs changing "automatically" as well, without touching a button.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *coolrda* 
Two more huge advantages for an A-Lens without even talking pixels and screen height/immersion. Lets talk cons. Pincushion, ouch. Not really. 0.5% of picture info lost on flat screens, 0% on curved. I use slightly more to kill the 2.40 sliver.
Maybe I've gotten confused, but I don't see the two more huge advantages in there.









Quote:

Originally Posted by *coolrda* 
Subject 5. The real reason people zoom. MONEY. STICKER SHOCK.
I could have afforded a good A-lens. Was ready to buy one. My reason for not doing so wasn't therefore that I couldn't afford one; it was that I didn't need one. Now, if an A-lens would impact my viewing experience, in terms of apparent picture quality, as much as my masking system, then I'd be much more compelled to pick one up.


Except, I have yet to see that an A-lens provide such benefits, having seen quite a number of A-lens CIH systems in action.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *coolrda* 
Spending $3K-9K for a piece of the finest glass around. Make no mistake. I was amazed at my 3L in front of my Benq W5000, and al the more so with my RS40 as it has an incredible Lens of its own. My lens does an incredible job of staying out of the way. After laser aligning everything and focusing both perfectly it was even better. *Its one of those things you need to view for hundreds of hours in your own home to fully appreciate all the subtle aspects.*
Bingo!


That is exactly what I have said my experience implies: That if there are strict PQ benefits (beyond making pixels invisible, which I already have) to adding an A-lens, they appear to be significantly more subtle than the impact I get from a masking system, which has immediate, obvious impact without needing many hours (let alone hundreds) to appreciate.


That's the point I was making to Gary who dismissed the idea that someone would find masking makes a "bigger difference" to them than an A-lens.


Quote:

Originally Posted by *coolrda* 
Subject 6. ....There's nothing wrong with zooming. I would say its a wash with my old Panamorph VC lens. Saying its a better choice than cylindrical's is false. PERIOD.
Sorry, but the term "better" is far too open a word, given that to make sense of "better" you have to be satisfying some criteria, and the criteria you satisfy with a lens may not be my own.


With my zooming method/masking I ensure every AR is perfectly masked. And I can vary the image size in respects to the quality of the source material, minimizing the impact of artifacts (which of course are not remotely limited to DVD sources - Blu-Ray and HD-TV sources are all over the map as well). I can vary the image height so as to make IMAX-source movies more immersive than even scope movies, as is "intended."

All, again, properly masked.


When my room was finished I had a couple visits by installers for the city's two largest custom-install AV stores. This included the head of the department, the most experienced installer. They also sell and set up CIH systems using A-lenses and were very familiar with my projector, since they used it in various CIH set ups.


When they saw my "zooming" Variable Image Size system in action their jaws hung open. They couldn't stop saying "wow" and kept commenting that it was the best visual HT experience they'd had, raising the bar for what they had thought was possible. They thanked me for opening their minds.


The point isn't to brag: there are many truly great HTs out there with more spectacular equipment. But to say that a system with an A-lens, Cylindrical or otherwise, is automatically better than a system that uses zooming, is a tad narrow-minded.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/20830240
> 
> 
> Cool.
> 
> 
> But I get all that without an A-lens or adding pixels or remapping....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or an A-lens made for somehow easier CIH demos, all things considered (?).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.
> 
> 
> Depends what you are trying to achieve, your projector's capabilities etc.
> 
> I had a 2.3 gain screen and a 1.1 gain screen with my previous Panasonic projector. The brighter picture on the 2.3 gain screen came with higher black levels - unacceptably so. Which is why I preferred the dimmer picture on the lower gain screen. Lots of people on AVS have used neutral density filters to knock DOWN brightness of their projected in their desire for deeper black levels.
> 
> 
> In an ideal world we could get both higher brightness and while maintaining the same or better black levels. But in most cases something has to give when you go one way over the other.
> 
> 
> Which is why I also now use a 1.3 gain screen with my JVC projector vs a 1.0 gain or 2.3 gain screen. There are trade-offs to both the brighter and the dimmer image and what I get at 1.3 gain is for me the best trade off I've found.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's cool. But are those images fully masked? I doubt it...and that's what I'd like happening in a set up.
> 
> 
> Otherwise, I could just open my masking, play Tron and see all the ARs changing "automatically" as well, without touching a button.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I've gotten confused, but I don't see the two more huge advantages in there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could have afforded a good A-lens. Was ready to buy one. My reason for not doing so wasn't therefore that I couldn't afford one; it was that I didn't need one. Now, if an A-lens would impact my viewing experience, in terms of apparent picture quality, as much as my masking system, then I'd be much more compelled to pick one up.
> 
> 
> Except, I have yet to see that an A-lens provide such benefits, having seen quite a number of A-lens CIH systems in action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo!
> 
> 
> That is exactly what I have said my experience implies: That if there are strict PQ benefits (beyond making pixels invisible, which I already have) to adding an A-lens, they appear to be significantly more subtle than the impact I get from a masking system, which has immediate, obvious impact without needing many hours (let alone hundreds) to appreciate.
> 
> 
> That's the point I was making to Gary who dismissed the idea that someone would find masking makes a "bigger difference" to them than an A-lens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but the term "better" is far too open a word, given that to make sense of "better" you have to be satisfying some criteria, and the criteria you satisfy with a lens may not be my own.
> 
> 
> With my zooming method/masking I ensure every AR is perfectly masked. And I can vary the image size in respects to the quality of the source material, minimizing the impact of artifacts (which of course are not remotely limited to DVD sources - Blu-Ray and HD-TV sources are all over the map as well). I can vary the image height so as to make IMAX-source movies more immersive than even scope movies, as is "intended."
> 
> All, again, properly masked.
> 
> 
> When my room was finished I had a couple visits by installers for the city's two largest custom-install AV stores. This included the head of the department, the most experienced installer. They also sell and set up CIH systems using A-lenses and were very familiar with my projector, since they used it in various CIH set ups.
> 
> 
> When they saw my "zooming" Variable Image Size system in action their jaws hung open. They couldn't stop saying "wow" and kept commenting that it was the best visual HT experience they'd had, raising the bar for what they had thought was possible. They thanked me for opening their minds.
> 
> 
> The point isn't to brag: there are many truly great HTs out there with more spectacular equipment. But to say that a system with an A-lens, Cylindrical or otherwise, is automatically better than a system that uses zooming, is a tad narrow-minded.



Your views are very Unique, to say the least. I'll pass on a dimmer, lower resolution and smaller viewing angles. Clearly you take a you against the world approach too this.


A projector being too bright (what does screen gains have to do with this conversation)? Yeah I hear that complaint all the time (sarcasm, its just the opposite), I wish I had less lumens.


Everyone using an A-Lens it because it makes for an easier demo? Now your grasping....


You need to get to a trade show that has both setup's side by side (two identical projectors, one using zoom, one using and a lens). Then you will see the difference. Its not small.


I believe you did get confused. The huge advantages mentioned are brightness and instant scaling. That part was cut off. On the other hand maybe i should try 20 second aspect ratio changes and a 6 ftls image. Or maybe not.


Wish I had a dime for everyone that said I could afford a Cyn A-Lens. I'm not implying you couldn't. Just saying.


Does a brighter picture equal better picture? Of course it does.

Your reply: No it doesn't.(followed by twisting about screens gains and elevated black levels)


Really. WOW. At this point I will bow out of this. It doesn't accomplish anything.


It cracks me up how guys set their HT's up for 20 seconds of variable aspect changes in 3 Imax movies.


As 80-90% of my movie watching is 2.35, masking isn't needed for that. I like sitting inside 1X PW or even 2X PH, pixel density is a necessity at that distance. When I go to the movies I always sit in the same spot, as i do at home. I prefer the presentation to rise to my level of expectations and not to variably mask an image until its acceptable. I watch Avatar in 2.35. In my room my usable wall space is 6x14 of the 8.5x18 room. So no matter how large my 16x9 picture is, 2.35 still is the shape of my maximum viewing area. It wouldn't make sense for me to go with a smaller 2.35 picture to have a CIA or variable masking setup as I want to use what all picture area possible.


Clearly neither of us will give in. Maybe the best comment is no comment when it comes to this subject. But at no time were my comments made up or using someone else's posts. All I've mentioned here was based upon my actual experience. I've spent a thousand hours viewing and comparing zooming vs my A-Lens, have you. Yet you tell me I'm wrong. I've experienced 4K panels and projectors for many hours over many years, have you. But some how you've made assumptions that, that also is wrong or that my conclusion based on what I saw, was suspicious or untrue. Just the facts. Not someones else's opinion or post but my own real world observation. It's been proved time and time again that A/B is the best way to demo something. Head to Head, side by side. Come to me after you have your own Isco 3L in your own system for 6 months, then I'll listened to your argument. Do some real honest to goodness demoing at home. I've yet to here anyone say I sold my Isco 3 because it was inferior to zooming. No one would buy A-Lenses if there wasn't some merit or advantage to having one. I certainly don't have disposable income like that.


----------



## zamboniman

Find it interesting that no one has mentioned AT screens when it comes to pixel visibility. I know on my original smx that all pixel structure was masked by the weave. I can't vouch for the newer tighter weave versions but on the old smx and Seymour screens you can kiss pixel structure and seeing pixels goodbye.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/20831066
> 
> 
> 
> A projector being too bright (what does screen gains have to do with this conversation)?



You'd written: *"Does a brighter picture equal better picture. Of course it does."
*

If you really don't understand the relevance of screen gain to such a claim (hint: one way of making a projected image brighter or dimmer is via choice of screen gain), then I can't see the use in continuing.


It's too bad your replies took a turn to the dismissive, as otherwise this is a fascinating topic.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/20831421
> 
> 
> You'd written: *"Does a brighter picture equal better picture. Of course it does."
> *
> 
> If you really don't understand the relevance of screen gain to such a claim (hint: one way of making a projected image brighter or dimmer is via choice of screen gain), then I can't see the use in continuing.
> 
> 
> It's too bad your replies took a turn to the dismissive, as otherwise this is a fascinating topic.



No relevance to discussion of how a lens is better than zooming due to brightness gain, oh on identical screens.


Not trying to be dismissive, combative, demeaning or self righteous, in anyway shape or form. But let me give you an example. Several years ago I bought a Beemer, because I had always wanted. Drove it off the showroom floor and paid too much for in the process. Had a family member that had only negative comments about it based on a friends Beemer from twenty years ago and this issue and that. One day he drove it for several hours and his comment was wow that was nice. He had all this unfounded criticism that wasn't based on fact. And that was the point, ultimately I was getting at. If you said, I tried the Isco for 3 months and I can live without it or it's not worth it for the 5,10,15,20% gain or I could better use than money in a different set of speakers, then fine. I can totally respect that decision and choice. You made a first hand experience, decision.


Take the pixel density gains that an A lens gives us over zooming. With all else being equal I have 33% more pixel density. So your pixel density at 10 ft. will match mine at 7.5 ft. So if I sit at 2x ph and you prefer 2.66x it's a wash technically. Now if I sit at 2x and you at 2.66x and I use a 1.0 gain and you a 1.33 gain or whatever the difference now were equal. But the idea of buying a a lens is to push the envelope to the maximum highest larger viewing possible while not sacrificing picture fidelity. There's nothing wrong with doing it your but there's certain posters here that have repeatly used this forum tostir the pot so to speak. So you making perhaps just a point about your preferences is view by others here as a " pot stirrer" looking to aggravate. I don't think I've ever heard a person using a lens bragging. But there's certain posters here that use and have repeatedly done so for years, to do just that. It's demeaning too us. Themselves fighting words because of the lengths we go and research put in on this subject. I didn't just go out and buy my lens. I used the zoom method for many months before making the choice. I could sell it tomorrow and make most of it back. But it's indespinsible to me now. Like mark said, DVD was it at one time, then, once you've seen bluray, you can't go back. Anyway, I have enjoyed the conversation. Now I'm going to watch a movie.


----------



## Fredrik Rasmussen

Recently a lens convert. Have had the XEIT CM-5E for about a month in the cinema. Higher pixel density and smoothness yet incredibly detailed and sharp at the same time over the whole screen. It's really a large step ahead from zooming cost/setup issues aside. The fun thing is that I don't even have the latest LED generation DLP projector, just one with extremely good optics Sim2 HT380 with optional T2 lens. Throw ratio is about 2. Screen is a Studiotek Cinecurve 116".


The internal Sim2 scaler also makes anamorphic setup a breeze with the bulk Anamorphic presets already done and 3 userdefined presets as well.


----------



## 5mark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/20831617
> 
> 
> Take the pixel density gains that an A lens gives us over zooming. With all else being equal I have 33% more pixel density. So your pixel density at 10 ft. will match mine at 7.5 ft. So if I sit at 2x ph and you prefer 2.66x it's a wash technically. Now if I sit at 2x and you at 2.66x and I use a 1.0 gain and you a 1.33 gain or whatever the difference now were equal. But the idea of buying a a lens is to push the envelope to the maximum highest larger viewing possible while not sacrificing picture fidelity.



Great conversation guys. Interesting that you've been using that 2.66xSH figure as I'm right at 2.7xSH with my zoomed image (125"wide screen with main seating at 12ft). I find the immersion to be very good, although I think it helps that my screen feels almost wall to wall in my 12ft wide room. I'm also right in the sweet spot where pixel visibility isn't an issue, but if I moved any closer it would start to become one. I could never sit at 2xSH as SDE would be very distracting (even being a JVC projector). Where I sit, with no visible pixels, using my Lumagen to do the shrink method works amazingly well.


I have experimented some with zooming in and putting my VP in vertical stretch mode. It is very cool to see familiar material displayed with more vertical pixels and to be able to sit closer and have the image stay smooth and filmlike. It's tempted me to try a lens and sit closer. But then I think about how seating distance is always a compromise between immersion and PQ. Poor quality sources and even soft BD transfers look much better from further back. Also any projector weaknesses such as convergence errors or focus uniformity get magnified when sitting closer. Probably better to stick with what I'm really enjoying, especially since I like the room/furniture layout as well. Of course I could be just rationalizing to avoid the expense and complications of a lens.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/20831617
> 
> 
> No relevance to discussion of how a lens is better than zooming due to brightness gain, oh on identical screens.



Of course it's relevant. You made a claim that a brighter picture is a better picture. I explained why that was a dubious generalisation. And it doesn't matter if you are talking about "on the same screen" or not: the same projector with the same contrast ratio, but made brighter - via new bulb/adding an A-lens - will in general raise the entire image brightness

just like adding gain to your screen. Which raises black level too. There are some technical issues (e.g. effect of irises) that make that no so simple, but generally speaking that's the case when you raise the brightness of a projected image.


Is a brighter picture always preferable? I think brightness definitely brings some great things to the table, but as I said there are trade-offs, which is why, despite the fact I could have a brighter image during most of my viewing, I have my JVC's iris dialed down, not fully opened up. BECAUSE there is a trade-off in raising image brightness and black levels.


See, I'm not "anti-A-Lens" at all. I have posted MANY times in support of A-lens set ups. And even when people have wondered on this forum "Should I go for an A-lens, what about the detrimental qualities" I have chimed in with others to say I find A-lens sets ups look fantastic, that I do not notice detriments in general, and not to let worries hold you back from going for an A-lens.


It's ONLY when I see comments from users of A-lenses that make dubious generalisations, or are dismissive to comments by zoomers on poor grounds - as has been the case in some comments on this thread - that I step in and say "Hold on, let's not be so hasty here...there are other things in play to consider."


And then it seems some of the A-lens owners think their experience is relevant, but tend to dismiss mine and others. As seems to be the case on almost all fronts in your comments to me (my experience comparing pixel count and PQ on displays doesn't seem to count, but yours does).



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/20831617
> 
> 
> If you said, I tried the Isco for 3 months and I can live without it or it's not worth it for the 5,10,15,20% gain or I could better use than money in a different set of speakers, then fine. I can totally respect that decision and choice. You made a first hand experience, decision.



I told you: I was (and possibly still am) quite interested in A-lenses and thus went to lengths to see demos.


I have seen a number of high end projectors with the ISCO (with and without A-lens). And many standard consumer projectors with the well regarded Panamorph lens. I have seen MY OWN PROJECTOR with a Panamorph A-lens, zoomed and with lens. That IS first hand experience.


I found that IF there was an advantage to the A-lens set ups, it was not obvious to me...at least not remotely as obvious as the effect of masking on an image. Hence, if I personally were to make a choice between buying an A-lens, or masking, I personally find masking much more compelling (and I'd zoom the projector...and as I said, I could have bought both, but seeing A-lenses in action did not impress me with any need for an A-lens). My decisions are not simply based on theory, but on as much experience as I could get.


But some people want to just dismiss the notion that one could reasonably value the effect of masking over an A-lens. And that one could only do so on naive, inexperienced grounds. I find this rather insulting, and more important, unsubstantiated.


Again...NOTHING against A-lenses! I may get one. It's just some of the comments and attitudes from those with A-lenses deserve some replies.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/20834123
> 
> 
> Of course it's relevant. You made a claim that a brighter picture is a better picture. I explained why that was a dubious generalisation. And it doesn't matter if you are talking about "on the same screen" or not: the same projector with the same contrast ratio, but made brighter - via new bulb/adding an A-lens - will in general raise the entire image brightness
> 
> just like adding gain to your screen. Which raises black level too. There are some technical issues (e.g. effect of irises) that make that no so simple, but generally speaking that's the case when you raise the brightness of a projected image.
> 
> 
> Is a brighter picture always preferable? I think brightness definitely brings some great things to the table, but as I said there are trade-offs, which is why, despite the fact I could have a brighter image during most of my viewing, I have my JVC's iris dialed down, not fully opened up. BECAUSE there is a trade-off in raising image brightness and black levels.
> 
> 
> See, I'm not "anti-A-Lens" at all. I have posted MANY times in support of A-lens set ups. And even when people have wondered on this forum "Should I go for an A-lens, what about the detrimental qualities" I have chimed in with others to say I find A-lens sets ups look fantastic, that I do not notice detriments in general, and not to let worries hold you back from going for an A-lens.
> 
> 
> It's ONLY when I see comments from users of A-lenses that make dubious generalisations, or are dismissive to comments by zoomers on poor grounds - as has been the case in some comments on this thread - that I step in and say "Hold on, let's not be so hasty here...there are other things in play to consider."
> 
> 
> And then it seems some of the A-lens owners think their experience is relevant, but tend to dismiss mine and others. As seems to be the case on almost all fronts in your comments to me (my experience comparing pixel count and PQ on displays doesn't seem to count, but yours does).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I told you: I was (and possibly still am) quite interested in A-lenses and thus went to lengths to see demos.
> 
> 
> I have seen a number of high end projectors with the ISCO (with and without A-lens). And many standard consumer projectors with the well regarded Panamorph lens. I have seen MY OWN PROJECTOR with a Panamorph A-lens, zoomed and with lens. That IS first hand experience.
> 
> 
> I found that IF there was an advantage to the A-lens set ups, it was not obvious to me...at least not remotely as obvious as the effect of masking on an image. Hence, if I personally were to make a choice between buying an A-lens, or masking, I personally find masking much more compelling (and I'd zoom the projector...and as I said, I could have bought both, but seeing A-lenses in action did not impress me with any need for an A-lens). My decisions are not simply based on theory, but on as much experience as I could get.
> 
> 
> But some people want to just dismiss the notion that one could reasonably value the effect of masking over an A-lens. And that one could only do so on naive, inexperienced grounds. I find this rather insulting, and more important, unsubstantiated.
> 
> 
> Again...NOTHING against A-lenses! I may get one. It's just some of the comments and attitudes from those with A-lenses deserve some replies.



Masking and A-Lens use serves different purposes. I will always prefer masking my 16x9 over not masking. However, having unmasked side pillars just doesn't bother me like having the top letterbox bars unmasked. With 2.35 I'm already masked properly. At less than 2X my screen height a 1080 image is compromised (pixel grid shows). In my room I'm limited by the screen/picture height, not the width. So there's no benefit to using a CIA type setup. The reason Imax does this is its works well with it's 1.33 or around there, screens ratios. I would rather watch variable image height movies in 2.35 as this is the golden ratio in my HT. Imax 1.33 screens show 2.35 compromised and even the "IMAX scene's are shot at 1.77/1.7 and played back as 4x3 at the Imax's I've seen. Doesn't make much sense to crop this severely.


Brighter picture is better. It's been shown in studies and multiple posts on this forum, that picture brightness has the biggest impact on picture quality. Color fidelity, contrast ratios, etc. aren't as important. Hence the BestBuy/Manufacturers need to sacrifice image correctness for increased lumens You can always cut light but its much more difficult to increase brightness. Even with my size screen/A lens I prefer more brightness. Black level is never an issue. Hi powers wont work due to offset/mounting above screen. I'm comparing brightness with A-Lens/zooming being the only difference. Increasing screen gain with zooming nullifies the A lens brightness advantage, the same way view that watching a zoomed image @2.66x PH does when compared to A lens/2X PH.


----------



## Highjinx

Bright is only of value to a point, anymore and one will be visually aware of compression artifacts, panel noise eic....unwanted effects best not seen.


If a cinematographer wants to capture the best image quality and detail a prime lens is used, not a zoom lens, not an anamorphic lens.


The same applies in projection in HT.


Aim a laser at a A-lens, see how much reflection there is......the reflection is potential detail to _not_ reaching the screen.


The source image quality is compromised.


There are benefits of using an A-Lens such as a larger image than the projects lens is capable of, slight increase of brightness. MTF reduction will make the image softer, but some may find this to beneficial similar to defocusing, so one can sit closer without seeing the panel structure as much.


But detail, image quality, depth of field will be less when using an A-lens.


That's not a bad thing...simply different objectives.


For me it's minimal interference to the source image, thus no a-lens. My twin screen CIH plus delivers equal brightness for CIH 16:9 or 2.35:1. No single screen A-lens CIH set up geared for full panel use can deliver that. 2.35:1 will be dimmer than 16:9.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/20835731
> 
> 
> 
> Brighter picture is better. It's been shown in studies and multiple posts on this forum, that picture brightness has the biggest impact on picture quality. Color fidelity, contrast ratios, etc. aren't as important.



Hooboy.


If there is one theme among AV professionals, who generally are after a convincing, dimensional image, it is the importance of image contrast (and studies have shown this as well).


Before LCD flat screens ever gained the decent contrast they now have, they were blazingly bright. I (and many others) compared LCDs to plasmas every which way. At a certain time plasmas, like the Panasonic brand, simply had black levels and contrast LCD panels couldn't touch. But BOY could those panels go BRIGHT.


On a bright shelf at Best Buy, the brightness of the LCD panels, and the matte finish screens, certainly helped them stand out to the eye, vs the dimmer plasma.


But what happened when you got them into scenarios in which they would often be used? That is...dimmer living room lighting conditions (as one might find at night while watching TV). Then the difference between "brightness" and "contrast ratio" really became apparent. When you could really see the contrast differences, the LCD black levels were glowing, giving the image a flat, see-through, artificial appearance especially in any darker scenes. Whereas the plasmas, despite being dimmer!...looked MUCH more vivid and dimensional because of the lower black levels/higher contrast level.


The LCDs were an annoying neon sign with a flat looking picture when the lights went' lower: the plasmas looked more realistic, more punchy and more dimensional in comparison...BECAUSE of their higher contrast levels/deeper black levels.


So...no...a brighter picture does not mean a better picture. "Brighter picture is better" is a ridiculous generalisation.


----------



## coolrda

Everything else being equal, not plasma vs LCD, not hi gain screens vs low gain, not 500:1 cr vs 100000:1 cr, not 25" vs 100" screens, when ALL ELSE IS EQUAL, which is what I've been saying. When all else is equal a true A/B comparison will show the smallest picture improvements. Most here would take a 12ftls picture over an 8ftls picture, with all else being equal. At the same time, you could nullify the benefit/difference of an A lens by sitting @1.33x my view distance and buying a higher gain screen which is less than buying a lens. Just presenting a non lens based option. Without parameters, which I thought were made clear in my earlier posts of mentioning equal sources into equal panels, various demo's I've viewed over the years, these conclusions are meaningless. You don't change screen gains to offset a lens light gains. All else stays the same. Same everything equipment wise, calibration wise when testing a lens vs zooming. Why would I change the frontend while demoing speakers or use different amps. Unfair speaker test. Does speaker A really sound better than speaker B or is it just louder.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/20836020
> 
> 
> Bright is only of value to a point, anymore and one will be visually aware of compression artifacts, panel noise eic....unwanted effects best not seen.
> 
> 
> If a cinematographer wants to capture the best image quality and detail a prime lens is used, not a zoom lens, not an anamorphic lens.
> 
> 
> The same applies in projection in HT.
> 
> 
> Aim a laser at a A-lens, see how much reflection there is......the reflection is potential detail to _not_ reaching the screen.
> 
> 
> The source image quality is compromised.
> 
> 
> There are benefits of using an A-Lens such as a larger image than the projects lens is capable of, slight increase of brightness. MTF reduction will make the image softer, but some may find this to beneficial similar to defocusing, so one can sit closer without seeing the panel structure as much.
> 
> 
> But detail, image quality, depth of field will be less when using no A-lens.
> 
> 
> That's not a bad thing...simply different objectives.
> 
> 
> For me it's minimal interference to the source image, thus no a-lens. My twin screen CIH plus delivers equal brightness for CIH 16:9 or 2.35:1. No single screen A-lens CIH set up geared for full panel use can deliver that. 2.35:1 will be dimmer than 16:9.



3-Chip panel misconvergence even at 1/10th a pixel will kill MTF far more than even a prism lens. I have an exact replica of what goes into the lens, leaving it, as demonstrated with my eye and my Canon with macro zoom shots. My ansi and contrast numbers are the same with hundreds of runs and viewing the image with closeups and at the same distance. Certainly the theory of photography and projection as far as lenses go are different. This has been discussed here many, many times.


As far as Spherical vs Anamorphic use in Cinematography goes its up to the DP/Director. Film based Anany's use 2X lenses which compresses to 1.2x the Neg. Also Spherical use is easier with more types and options than Anany's. More movies shoot with digital cams using 16x9 sensors, and 1.3 lenses aren't available yet. Still, Anany shot movies are plentiful each and every year and continues to provide us the best demo material via Bluray. Comparing these types of lenses with playback expansion A-Lens is unfounded. Like comparing cars against bicycles. Completely different principles. You should know that.


My image quality and sharpness remain the SAME, whether in or out. Absolutely the same sharpness and detail. I even compared the picture quality between zooming and A-Lens at 3X, thus eliminating the lens pixel density advantage. They looked identical. Then I slid the lens in and out manually forty to fifty times comparing the two using zone plates and single pixel sharpness patterns. Believe me I have done exhaustive testing. If I had spotted the slightest advantage with zooming this lens would be gone in a heartbeat. My subwoofer system is due for some much needed upgrades (moving from Supercube References to ID subsystems). I would love some surround upgrades as well as a bluray-ripped hard drive playback system.


My brightness on both 1.78 (3/4 panel) and 2.35(full panel) material is absolutely the same. I use two methods. One with the lens in place for 1.78 and 2.35(same brightness) and the other for the lens sled, thus using full panel for both formats, which is macro'd to cut the Iris thus matching brightness levels. This proved to be quicker than switching HDMI inputs. Both methods are equal. My 1.78 viewing is identical to my 2.35 as far as light levels are concerned.


----------



## coolrda

One other big advantage I forgot to mentioned, though somewhat obscure, is the ability to have 33% larger width per given depth. I suspect this may not come into play as much as very few put a 10ft wide screen in a 10ft deep room. But it does give a person the option of putting a screen on the long wall of a small room.


----------



## Highjinx

Every piece of glass will affect the end image. It's filtering light after all.


Look at the lens, do you see the glass...then it's reflecting light back along with detail. There is no two ways about it.


But if the benefits to the A-Lens user out weights the compromises ..why not!?


----------



## Highjinx

 http://www.mkpe.com/digital_cinema/f...hp#single_lens 


From the above:


"Can I use a single lens to project both scope and flat images?

According to NATO's System Requirements 2.1, yes. But some studios interpret the DCI specification as opposing the use of a single lens. A different interpretation of the DCI specification is that it prefers, but does not require, the use of separate lensing to project scope and flat images.



Can I use an anamorphic lens on my projector?
*While anamorphic lenses are the best way to make efficient use of the light available to the projector, not all studios may accept their use.* (See the discussion on Single Lens above.)


Note that an anamorphic lens in digital cinema does not rely on the distribution of anamorphically squeezed images, as with film. In digital cinema, the projector can electronically perform an anamorphic re-mapping of the image onto its electronic imaging device, requiring an anamorphic lens to correctly display the image. The benefit of this projection technique is that it utilizes the full imaging array, utilizing the maximum lamp power available. Images projected with an anamorphic lens can light up larger screens than in non-anamorphic installations. The anamorphic projection technique has proven useful for large screen 3-D presentations."



It appears, they even prefer single(non zoom lens use) for scope and flat.....for image quality reasons?..........perhaps.










And where does that leave adding an A-Lens for IQ reasons?....added brightness sure, so a bigger screen can be used and more $$$$$Seats added ....but maintaining IQ.......no, if it was so, all studios would permit their use.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/20836656
> 
> *The benefit of this projection technique is that it utilizes the full imaging array, utilizing the maximum lamp power available.*



What studios are not in favor of it?


Full panel use was the key reason behind using an anamorphic lens in a HT system in the first instance. It is either that, or it is wasting vertical rez on black bars. Regardless of what screen set up you have, if your watching "Scope" and not using the full panel, your throwing away vertical rez.


CinemaScope and the anamorphic lens made wide screen presentation available to all cinema goers via 35mm film, not just the select few that could get to the 3 projector arrays like Cinerama. It gave a new look to cinema and became the preferred format for many block busters.


Where you simply can not watch 35mm Scope without the anamorphic lens, I am betting part of the reason D-Cinema is not making it mandatory is set up where there are too many under-trained cinema projectionists these days who would not be able to align the lens or re-aligne the lens should it ever need to be done. And D-cinema just made that worse because now they don't even have to know how to lace film










In part, this could be the reason why 16mm lost the anamorphic lens in favor of a zoom lens in the 1990's. Too many ID10T errors where the images were reported to be un-watchable due to mis-alignment of an anamorphic lens. The worst story I've heard was a rural 16mm set up in a community hall that ended up with everyone watching the image without the A-Lens because they couldn't bring it into focus any other way


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/20836570
> 
> 
> Look at the lens, do you see the glass...then it's reflecting light back along with detail. There is no two ways about it.



That would be brightness, not detail. And the light loss has been measured to be ~1% or less on quality, coated lenses.


----------



## coolrda

My local uses both. The large central theaters used a lens because they are CIH. All theaters on both sides are CIW and they letterbox and drop. More than likely this is why A lenses are useless in CIW cinemas.


It's certainly possible that the loss in IQ, while there, is not detectable by eye even though lasers or hi res imaging devices could show it.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/20836255
> 
> 
> Everything else being equal, not plasma vs LCD, not hi gain screens vs low gain, not 500:1 cr vs 100000:1 cr, not 25" vs 100" screens, when ALL ELSE IS EQUAL, which is what I've been saying.



What you keep missing is what I've been saying: in the real world, All things DON'T tend to stay equal!


When you raise the brightness of a projected image - the "same" projected image - you raise black level as well. This is not always preferable to many people. If you raise brightness by 15 percent via an anamorphic lens or via increasing screen gain, you are doing the same thing - making your projected image brighter! THAT is the pertinence of screen gain to the issue.

You can also make an image 15 percent brighter via opening a projector's iris, if you have such a projector (I do). THAT is the pertinence of my bringing up how I prefer my projected image settings.


If I agreed with you that making the same projector "brighter" was ALWAYS BETTER then I'd have a screen with higher gain, which would do exactly that.

And I'd have my projector's iris fully open for the BRIGHTEST image at all times. But I don't do that because...here it is again: I do not always prefer the brightest image possible. Because...to repeat...there is often a trade-off with black levels, increasing artifacts etc.


Now, people going CIH sometimes want a really big picture that strains the limits of their projector's brightness capabilities, and without an A-lens they may find the image getting a bit too dim for their tastes. That's fine if an A-lens helps (but they do not always help to the same degree, sometimes being negligible in brightness gains depending on your projector, apparently). It's fine to make a case for that. But try not to do it by making sweeping, false generalisations along the way that depend on "Brighter Is Always Better" type statements.


This being the AV*Science* forum, we like to be more exact on these issues.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/20836926
> 
> 
> What you keep missing is what I've been saying: in the real world, All things DON'T tend to stay equal!
> 
> 
> When you raise the brightness of a projected image - the "same" projected image - you raise black level as well. This is not always preferable to many people. If you raise brightness by 15 percent via an anamorphic lens or via increasing screen gain, you are doing the same thing - making your projected image brighter! THAT is the pertinence of screen gain to the issue.
> 
> You can also make an image 15 percent brighter via opening a projector's iris, if you have such a projector (I do). THAT is the pertinence of my bringing up how I prefer my projected image settings.
> 
> 
> If I agreed with you that making the same projector "brighter" was ALWAYS BETTER then I'd have a screen with higher gain, which would do exactly that.
> 
> And I'd have my projector's iris fully open for the BRIGHTEST image at all times. But I don't do that because...here it is again: I do not always prefer the brightest image possible. Because...to repeat...there is often a trade-off with black levels, increasing artifacts etc.
> 
> 
> Now, people going CIH sometimes want a really big picture that strains the limits of their projector's brightness capabilities, and without an A-lens they may find the image getting a bit too dim for their tastes. That's fine if an A-lens helps (but they do not always help to the same degree, sometimes being negligible in brightness gains depending on your projector, apparently). It's fine to make a case for that. But try not to do it by making sweeping, false generalisations along the way that depend on "Brighter Is Always Better" type statements.
> 
> 
> This being the AV*Science* forum, we like to be more exact on these issues.



I'm not generalizing and I'm being exact. This isn't the AVS Forum. This is a thread about zooming and A-Lens use in a the '2.35 Constant Image Height Chat' which is a small esoteric part of AVSForums. I thought it was clear that we're talking about CIH and A-Lens vs Zooming. Thats all I've been talking about from the beginning.


You did drive the point home though as I tried to do, we are on the cusp of picture quality vs image size. One thing we all have in common is we want a big picture. We push to the very edge. I want as big as I can get w/o seeing pixels. Now, because of the size of my screen, I more lumens. And on and on. The A-Lens gives us a benefit in this area.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/20836926
> 
> 
> If I agreed with you that making the same projector "brighter" was ALWAYS BETTER then I'd have a screen with higher gain, which would do exactly that.
> 
> And I'd have my projector's iris fully open for the BRIGHTEST image at all times. But I don't do that because...here it is again: I do not always prefer the brightest image possible. Because...to repeat...there is often a trade-off with black levels, increasing artifacts etc.
> 
> 
> Now, people going CIH sometimes want a really big picture that strains the limits of their projector's brightness capabilities, and without an A-lens they may find the image getting a bit too dim for their tastes. That's fine if an A-lens helps (but they do not always help to the same degree, sometimes being negligible in brightness gains depending on your projector, apparently). It's fine to make a case for that. But try not to do it by making sweeping, false generalisations along the way that depend on "Brighter Is Always Better" type statements.
> 
> 
> This being the AV*Science* forum, we like to be more exact on these issues.



Having a JVC has more than satisfied my black levels. Even a DLP at 5-10K CR is fine. I get a true blackout on fade or quick blackouts. Film grain and artifacts are introduced in filming and post production, even with purpose, its a fact. And lights gives you more of the good and bad aspects of the source. We may not like it, but, its their expression, and/or, as in the case of edge enhancement, lack of control. Demand a better product or live with it.


As far as light and lumens go, we all know that despite claims realistic calibrated real world light output on a typical mass-market FP is 500 lumens. Using my screen as an example, i have a 127x54 equaling about 47.5 sq ft of picture area. A 127 wide (127x71.5)16x9 screen a zoomer would use would would have 63 sq ft. Using a neutral 1.0 gain screens for both you would have 7.5 ftls on the zoomed screen and 10 ftls on the A lens screen. I have verified this with my panamorph and my Isco lenses. It is exactly a 33 percent gain in light and pixel density going from zoom method to A lens. Its a 25 percent reduction going from A lens back to zooming. Thats a fact, plain and simple. Both pictures are watchable, barely in the zooming case, but neither even reaching cinema spec at 12-16 ftls. So yes we need more light. When we have projectors that have real lumens in the thousands I won't have to make that statement. This is the 2.35 CIH forum. I've made the assumption that was a given here as this isn't the plasma or lcd forum where they have the proper brightness, 30 -100 ftls or more, to offset the lighting in a livingroom environment.

*This is a very specific thread in a very specific chat subject.* I'm not referencing HDTV's, no more than I'm talking about motorcycles and Lego's.


----------



## Highjinx




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/20836724
> 
> 
> That would be brightness, not detail. And the light loss has been measured to be ~1% or less on quality, coated lenses.



In a projection situation does not the light carry the detail?


And if ANSI is affected, the image, for a better word would be colored


----------



## CAVX

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Highjinx* 
In a projection situation does not the light carry the detail?


And if ANSI is affected, the image, for a better word would be colored








All the more the reason to use the full panel and an A-Lens


----------



## Highjinx

Quote:

Originally Posted by *CAVX* 
All the more the reason to use the full panel and an A-Lens








Not if one is diluting the detail(existing) over more pixels.....one introduces noise contained in those pixels.







......


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/20840514
> 
> 
> In a projection situation does not the light carry the detail?



Yes, in the same way pressure waves carry the detail of sound. Are you saying that turning down the volume reduces detail of an audio signal?


----------



## Highjinx




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/20843439
> 
> 
> Yes, in the same way pressure waves carry the detail of sound. Are you saying that turning down the volume reduces detail of an audio signal?



Yes, some low level sounds may 'now' be too low to hear!!!


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/20843439
> 
> 
> Yes, in the same way pressure waves carry the detail of sound. Are you saying that turning down the volume reduces detail of an audio signal?





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/20843459
> 
> 
> Yes, some low level sounds may 'now' be too low to hear!!!



Yes totally. I could not believe how detailed a soundtrack was at 00dB ref was, compared to what I normally would here when playing that same sound track at say -10dB.


I disagree with the detail loss over scaling though as I see more detail on my CIH system than I do when watching the same film letterboxed.


----------



## Highjinx




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/20844356
> 
> 
> Yes totally. I could not believe how detailed a soundtrack was at 00dB ref was, compared to what I normally would here when playing that same sound track at say -10dB.
> 
> *I disagree with the detail loss over scaling though as I see more detail on my CIH system than I do when watching the same film letterboxed*.



Well Mr.Mark....that's because you have reduced the volume...in area and thus made everything smaller!


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/20844412
> 
> 
> Well Mr.Mark....that's because you have reduced the volume...in area and thus made everything smaller!



Exactly. How many people actually listen to film soundtracks at REF? I doubt too many. And unless their rooms are properly treated, who would want to anyway - too loud if the room is too reflective.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/20841137
> 
> 
> Not if one is diluting the detail(existing) over more pixels.....one introduces noise contained in those pixels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ......



Thats why we demand a better source. More pixel always add smoothness to the picture. The digital hard edge is greatly reduce by pixel density. Adding pixels smooths the image. You have more of a blank canvas to paint on. Using four lines in place of three lines doesn't take detail but decreasing screendoor can certainly reveal more flaws in the source.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/20844450
> 
> 
> Exactly. How many people actually listen to film soundtracks at REF? I doubt too many. And unless their rooms are properly treated, who would want to anyway - too loud if the room is too reflective.



Very rarely. Typically -13 to -8db. Although its good for the quiet passages when you fall asleep.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/20844506
> 
> 
> Very rarely. Typically -13 to -8db. Although its good for the quiet passages when you fall asleep.



I have treated my room well, but even so, listen mostly between -12 ~ -20dB.


----------



## Franin

Quote:

Originally Posted by *CAVX*
Exactly. How many people actually listen to film soundtracks at REF? I doubt too many. And unless their rooms are properly treated, who would want to anyway - too loud if the room is too reflective.
I do. My room is properley treated.My family does also. Before it was treated though i couldnt. Not a chance.


----------



## Highjinx

A bit to do with the size of the room, the distance sitting from the speaker and the electro-acoustic efficiency of the speakers, I'd imagine.


----------



## Franin

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Highjinx*
A bit to do with the size of the room, the distance sitting from the speaker and the electro-acoustic efficiency of the speakers, I'd imagine.
The room treatment definitley plays the big role here.


----------



## Jeroen1000

Perhaps I finally have seen a topic where I can provide some useful information lol. It is regarding whether increased brightness yields a better picture.

Well, my stance is yes, providing the picture is not bright enough to start with. There is little to gain and much to lose in making a picture overbright.


If there is anything I learned, it is that you need to aim for a good output level in ft-L (there are "reference" numbers for this too, like for many things). At some point, brighter might result in discoloration of white, and clipping colors. Moreover, it may result in eye-strain.


So instead of making my picture brighter and brighter, I would aim for an acceptable output light output level.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jeroen1000* /forum/post/20863600
> 
> 
> If there is anything I learned, it is that you need to aim for a good output level in ft-L (there are "reference" numbers for this too, like for many things). At some point, brighter might result in discoloration of white, and clipping colors.



I think you're confusing/conflating issues here, those issues being the impact of brightness on how we perceive the image, and the impact of trying to "calibrate" a given projector to produce a brighter images.


All of the issues you list above, discolored white, clipping, are all issues associated with trying to wring too much brightness out of a projector. If you turn the contrast up too high, you'll make the image "appear" brighter (mid tones will be brighter) but you'll blow out highlights and anything approaching peak white.


You get discoloration when you start sacrificing white point (D65) for brightness by adding in too much blue and or green, for example choosing a "bright" preset.


However neither of these things are issues when talking about increasing brightness through "proper" methods. For example opening up a manual iris will have no effect on clipping or discoloration, changing to high lamp will not either (may require recalibration though).


And of course getting a brighter projector will not have these issue either, a Lumis or HT5000 has as good, or better colors, greyscale, white point, etc compared to any dimmer projector.


So I think you're mistaken that the level of brightness has anything to do with discolored white or clipping, those are issues of miscalibration of a projector.


Now sure, it is possible to get "too" bright in theory, but that's not really a problem in practice. In practical terms, most HT projectors actually struggle to hit reference brightness on the screen sizes most of us would like to run. Even on a 120" screen (with low gain) you need something Lumis class get into high brightnesses.


----------



## Jeroen1000

Yes, you are completely correct about my intake. I must have misunderstood the long conversation regarding the subject (it's not hard at all to confuse me







).


Thanks for straightening this out. I've almost finished reading the entire CIH forum now. Besided the AR ratio vs resolution, I'm getting more confident I can create a good setup. I just need some good excuse to spend a lot of money


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jeroen1000* /forum/post/20863765
> 
> 
> I just need some good excuse to spend a lot of money



Here is one: Being able to project films in CinemaScope they way the director intended them to be seen


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cavx* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> here is one: Being able to project films in cinemascope they way the director intended them to be seen



+1


----------



## Drexler

One negative thing with high brightness though is that you start to see compression artefacts, banding and other related issues much clearer. The eye is much more sensitive at higher FtL. And I don't mean going from dim to adequate brightness, but from adequate to high brightness.


----------



## 230-SEAN

I dumped my DIY prism lens for an Isco IIIL about 2 months ago. Never looking back.


-Sean


----------



## coolrda

Excellent choice. Spend the time getting it set up right as it makes a big difference.


----------



## dlynch34

I have been an A lens user for the past 3 years. We have moved and I ended up getting a different projector ( hc4000). It is my first dlp projector and still waiting to get a screen for it. I have noticed that since I have put my a lens in place it does not seem to give me the full height my old projector did and I am not really sure why...perhaps the beam on this projector is too large?... not sure. I have tried to move the projector back but that does not seem to fix the issue. This particular projector has an anamorphic option and I noticed no pin cushion when using that and seriously thinking of going without my beloved a lens if I can't correct the height issue....


any thoughts?... please dont slam about my thinking of getting rid of the A lens as I am still up in the air about my particular situation.


----------



## coolrda

What's the make and model of the lens? Projector? Throw distance and size of screen?


----------



## dlynch34

I have a hc4000 projector. The lens is primsonic 1500 Fe. I am trying to.project a 120 inch wide from 15 feet back.


----------



## CAVX

Your TR is 2.0. You should be OK with that.


----------



## dlynch34

Quote:

Originally Posted by *CAVX* 
Your TR is 2.0. You should be OK with that.
My TR? not following you?... anyway what is happening is when I have lense on height is at like 45 inches high tops.. when I remove it it seems to be at full height of over 51 inches...not sure what is going on...


----------



## Highjinx

Quote:

Originally Posted by *dlynch34* 
My TR? not following you?... anyway what is happening is when I have lense on height is at like 45 inches high tops.. when I remove it it seems to be at full height of over 51 inches...not sure what is going on...
Try the zoom on your projectors lens the focus if req.


----------



## Brad Horstkotte

Or the lens is on backwards?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dlynch34* /forum/post/20875744
> 
> 
> My TR? not following you?... anyway what is happening is when I have lense on height is at like 45 inches high tops.. when I remove it it seems to be at full height of over 51 inches...not sure what is going on...



TR = Throw ratio. The HD5000 should work well at TR 2.0+ but looking at the image of your projector, you seem to have a recessed lens.


1. Reduce the zoom to make the image as small as it goes.

2. With the lens in PASS MODE, you should have a full height 16:9 image.

3. Progressively increase the zoom until you fill the desired screen height. If you vignette (clip the beam) you will either have to reduce the size of the image you thought you could achieve or extend the throw ratio.

4. Only once you have established the largest 16:9 image should you move the lens into STRETCH MODE.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dlynch34* /forum/post/20875744
> 
> 
> My TR? not following you?... anyway what is happening is when I have lense on height is at like 45 inches high tops.. when I remove it it seems to be at full height of over 51 inches...not sure what is going on...



The Prismasonics (the front element specifically) shrinks the image a bit, I want to say about 10% with the lens in place. Doesn't sound like anything wrong to me.


----------



## R Harkness

*Have you folks seen the information on the new consumer JVC projectors that have an added pixel density feature - 4K simulation - as well as a lens memory feature (a la Panasonic) for CIH set ups?*

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...8#post20918638 




It seems that JVC (for anyone interested in those projectors) have possibly left fewer reasons to get an Anamorphic lens. If the JVCs get you added pixel density - apparently you can't see pixels almost no matter how close you are to the screen - AND they make AR switches as effortless as with an expensive remote controlled A-lens, that covers some major reasons people opt for an A-lens.


The only advantage left for an A-lens (off the top of my head) is the small increase in brightness for scope. Which some may certainly desire. But for those deciding between spending for an A-lens or zooming, JVC it seems have just tilted the scales somewhat, if you don't particularly need that bit of added brightness.


----------



## coolrda

That feature is only available in the [email protected]$8K and [email protected]$12K. Doesn't function with 3D content. Looking forward to seeing [email protected]


----------



## Highjinx

I can see the day when JVC use the e-shift to shift 16+% of the pixels in both the left and right direction and 12.5% Up and down, with processing to suit, 'painting' a widescreen image CIH, giving us the eqv of 2560 x 1080 from 1920 x 810


----------



## R Harkness

*I have a question for all A-lens users:*


For those using an A-lens, how long does it take to switch between aspect ratios? For instance, going from 16:9 to 2:35:1, how long does your process take, from start to finish?


This is necessarily going to vary of course. Some people keep the lens in place and just use a scaler to switch ARs. Or a switch in the lens. Others move the lens in/out of place. Some have automated their lens moves, others do it manually. Some people also have to deploy masking as well. So in answering the question, please let me know a little about your set up.


In my case I'm zooming my JVC RS20 while also using automated 4 way masking, so I always have to do both. This is were a universal remote pays for itself. With macros the switches between various ARs, zooming/shifting/4-way screen masking changes included, take an average of 15 seconds, sometimes 12 seconds.


(I guess I may as well ask the same question of other zoomers: How long does it take to switch ARs?)


----------



## Brad Horstkotte

I zoom - no masking - RS-20 like you - takes me about 15 seconds I'd say as well to switch aspects (zoom, then twiddle shift, then zoom, etc. - takes a couple shots since zoom affects shift - maybe will get better at it, but I'm fine with it as is).


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/20926198
> 
> *I have a question for all A-lens users:*
> 
> 
> For those using an A-lens, how long does it take to switch between aspect ratios? For instance, going from 16:9 to 2:35:1, how long does your process take, from start to finish?



Instantaneous after I hit the button, but I don't bother moving the lens, it's just not worth it for the majority of 16:9 content (overcompressed TV).


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/20928462
> 
> 
> Instantaneous after I hit the button, but I don't bother moving the lens, it's just not worth it for the majority of 16:9 content (overcompressed TV).



I am the same as stranger89. The longest part of the process is finding the button on the remote


----------



## R Harkness

Thanks guys.


Anyone else?


(BTW, I watch almost no TV on my system - that's for the plasma. I reserve it for movie-watching. And I find the level of compression on TV HD movie channels unacceptable, which is why for HD sources I prefer Blu-Ray and my HD-DVDs. This being the case, about 1/2 of the hi-def movie content I watch is 16:9. As opposed to losing any resolution and possible detail, I'd personally prefer to move the A-lens for 16:9 if I went A-lens, but to each his own of course).


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/20928462
> 
> 
> Instantaneous after I hit the button, but I don't bother moving the lens, it's just not worth it for the majority of 16:9 content (overcompressed TV).



But would you move it for non-scope Blu-Ray content?


I'd presume so given your line of reasoning when it comes to the value of pixel density with an A-lens. As you like to point out, at the seating distances you and others sit, you haven't even exhausted your visual acuity and you could perceive even more detail than we often presume. (Which is why you say, even if we don't think we perceive the pixels in our set up, increasing pixel density further could still add visible benefits) So it would be weird if you purposely chose to drop perceptible source detail (which in most cases you do if you leave an A-lens in place, as I understand it).


Apologies if I am misunderstanding your set up.


----------



## CAVX

I can't answer for stranger89, but I don't move the lens for any program. The point being that once the projector and lens is aligned, I don't want pixel density, colour temp/calibration setting, geometry, or any other point to change except the AR. It behaves the same as one of these new native Scope projectors.


----------



## coolrda

My lens is stationary as well. I do a lot of 1.78 and 2.35 switching while watching trailers and menus (1.78) to demo clips(2.35). I use iRule automation w/iPhone/iPad for HT control. I use RS232 with direct aspect control without a cycle wrap. I also leave my Oppo's display engaged throughout a 2.35 movie as they place this in the letterbox area. This gives me instant access to time left and other things during the movie if needed by a instantaneous ratio switch and back.


----------



## R Harkness

That sounds great coolrda!


I've been tempted by the iRule stuff for my iPad, but I'm not yet willing to give up being able to use "hard buttons" on a remote. (I love my RTI touch-screen/hard button combo remote). But the power and beauty of an iPad interface is compelling.


----------



## Kelvin1965S

I haven't logged in for a while, but can't help posting to the OP that I've just dumped posting about using a lens (or not) and just sit at home and enjoy what I have. I can't see the point trying to 'convert' anyone to either way of thinking. I've tried both methods and enjoy what I have now.


...off to watch a film.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Kelvin1965S* 
I haven't logged in for a while, but can't help posting to the OP that I've just dumped posting about using a lens (or not) and just sit at home and enjoy what I have. I can't see the point trying to 'convert' anyone to either way of thinking. I've tried both methods and enjoy what I have now.


...off to watch a film.








Some advice that I should take heed of tbh










Gary


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/20930464
> 
> 
> That sounds great coolrda!
> 
> 
> I've been tempted by the iRule stuff for my iPad, but I'm not yet willing to give up being able to use "hard buttons" on a remote. (I love my RTI touch-screen/hard button combo remote). But the power and beauty of an iPad interface is compelling.



It's really cool making your panels and pages to suite what you want. The interface works great with the little iTach wifi and it even has a builtin learner which I used with ease. The neat thing is you build and populate the buttons as you like. And the cost is very insignificant to have this type of control. Backgrounds are endless.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/20932956
> 
> 
> It's really cool making your panels and pages to suite what you want. The interface works great with the little iTach wifi and it even has a builtin learner which I used with ease. The neat thing is you build and populate the buttons as you like. And the cost is very insignificant to have this type of control. Backgrounds are endless.



That's what pulls at me. One thing I gave up in going with my RTI system is relying on the dealer for programming. It can be very annoying to have to call my dealer simply to change one or two commands, when I used to do this myself on my old remote. But the power of this RTI system is integral to my set up. And, again, in terms of ergonomics I find my RTI T2-C to be the ideal combo of touchscreen and hard buttons.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kelvin1965S* /forum/post/20931356
> 
> 
> I haven't logged in for a while, but can't help posting to the OP that I've just dumped posting about using a lens (or not) and just sit at home and enjoy what I have. I can't see the point trying to 'convert' anyone to either way of thinking. I've tried both methods and enjoy what I have now.
> 
> 
> ...off to watch a film.



Well put.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/20933959
> 
> 
> That's what pulls at me. One thing I gave up in going with my RTI system is relying on the dealer for programming. It can be very annoying to have to call my dealer simply to change one or two commands, when I used to do this myself on my old remote. But the power of this RTI system is integral to my set up. And, again, in terms of ergonomics I find my RTI T2-C to be the ideal combo of touchscreen and hard buttons.



If you know your way around Photoshop the skies the limit. In the past, I was the only one that was able to control the system, which is a PITA if I'm not watching. Now as I update or move function and buttons around, I just tell the wife and kids to sync their iRule iPhone app and they get the new buttons, layout and function. This is done thru wifi. I too prefer hard buttons but have laid my out to have a page with simple play/pause and volume up down. I got use to it very quickly. My family is bad about leaving the TV and lights on at bedtime so its convenient shutting everything down from the bedroom. Just a real nice simple to use system that you can scale up and down as needed.


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/20936566
> 
> 
> If you know your way around Photoshop the skies the limit. In the past, I was the only one that was able to control the system, which is a PITA if I'm not watching. Now as I update or move function and buttons around, I just tell the wife and kids to sync their iRule iPhone app and they get the new buttons, layout and function. This is done thru wifi. I too prefer hard buttons but have laid my out to have a page with simple play/pause and volume up down. I got use to it very quickly. My family is bad about leaving the TV and lights on at bedtime so its convenient shutting everything down from the bedroom. Just a real nice simple to use system that you can scale up and down as needed.



I agree, I love my iRule/iPad setup. I use the GC-100-18R and a iTach WF2IR to control everything in my setup including lights and my Cineslide (I have programed AR buttons to perform the stretch or unstretch at the same time as moving the lens in or out of the light path, very cool and fast). The not having real buttons thing wasn't too hard to get used to since you can have the iPad make a click everytime you push a button. I set my volume on my iPad to a point where the click can also be felt, I've found this helps give me a button "feel". The only downfall, to me, is having to connect to gateways everytime I turn the screen back on, it is sometimes slow enough to be bothersome especially if a volume adjustment is needed. I have heard you can get an app to assist this situation but the iPad/iPhone needs to be jailbroken to run the specific app. Coolrda, do you use the app I'm referring to? If so, how do you like it?


-Sean


----------



## Moggie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *230-SEAN* /forum/post/20936776
> 
> 
> I agree, I love my iRule/iPad setup. I use the GC-100-18R and a iTach WF2IR to control everything in my setup including lights and my Cineslide (I have programed AR buttons to perform the stretch or unstretch at the same time as moving the lens in or out of the light path, very cool and fast). The not having real buttons thing wasn't too hard to get used to since you can have the iPad make a click everytime you push a button. I set my volume on my iPad to a point where the click can also be felt, I've found this helps give me a button "feel". The only downfall, to me, is having to connect to gateways everytime I turn the screen back on, it is sometimes slow enough to be bothersome especially if a volume adjustment is needed. I have heard you can get an app to assist this situation but the iPad/iPhone needs to be jailbroken to run the specific app. Coolrda, do you use the app I'm referring to? If so, how do you like it?
> 
> 
> -Sean



Sean,


Check out my post here for more details but you can avoid re-connecting to gateways and get instance on with the "Sreen Dimmer" app. Jailbreaking these days is as simple as loading a URL and clicking a link. This fix turns the ipad into the perfect touchscreen remote... I love it.


----------



## 230-SEAN

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Moggie* 
Sean,


Check out my post here for more details but you can avoid re-connecting to gateways and get instance on with the "Sreen Dimmer" app. Jailbreaking these days is as simple as loading a URL and clicking a link. This fix turns the ipad into the perfect touchscreen remote... I love it.
Thanks, I'll have to check it out as I said that is the only issue I have with the setup.


-Sean


----------



## coolrda

Quote:

Originally Posted by *230-SEAN* 
I agree, I love my iRule/iPad setup. I use the GC-100-18R and a iTach WF2IR to control everything in my setup including lights and my Cineslide (I have programed AR buttons to perform the stretch or unstretch at the same time as moving the lens in or out of the light path, very cool and fast). The not having real buttons thing wasn't too hard to get used to since you can have the iPad make a click everytime you push a button. I set my volume on my iPad to a point where the click can also be felt, I've found this helps give me a button "feel". The only downfall, to me, is having to connect to gateways everytime I turn the screen back on, it is sometimes slow enough to be bothersome especially if a volume adjustment is needed. I have heard you can get an app to assist this situation but the iPad/iPhone needs to be jailbroken to run the specific app. Coolrda, do you use the app I'm referring to? If so, how do you like it?


-Sean
I too use screen dimming and have no problem going 4 hrs between charges or more. I also have power at the seats for charging. I can't unsync because we usually have more than one iPad/iPhone on at once. For some reason when you have more than one sync'd it takes longer to resync from off. I use multiple iPhones or iPad/with iPhone as dedicated volume only.


----------



## mtbdudex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/20836656
> 
> http://www.mkpe.com/digital_cinema/f...hp#single_lens
> 
> 
> From the above:
> 
> 
> "Can I use a single lens to project both scope and flat images?
> 
> According to NATO's System Requirements 2.1, yes. But some studios interpret the DCI specification as opposing the use of a single lens. A different interpretation of the DCI specification is that it prefers, but does not require, the use of separate lensing to project scope and flat images.
> 
> 
> 
> Can I use an anamorphic lens on my projector?
> *While anamorphic lenses are the best way to make efficient use of the light available to the projector, not all studios may accept their use.* (See the discussion on Single Lens above.)
> 
> 
> Note that an anamorphic lens in digital cinema does not rely on the distribution of anamorphically squeezed images, as with film. In digital cinema, the projector can electronically perform an anamorphic re-mapping of the image onto its electronic imaging device, requiring an anamorphic lens to correctly display the image. The benefit of this projection technique is that it utilizes the full imaging array, utilizing the maximum lamp power available. Images projected with an anamorphic lens can light up larger screens than in non-anamorphic installations. The anamorphic projection technique has proven useful for large screen 3-D presentations."
> 
> 
> 
> It appears, they even prefer single(non zoom lens use) for scope and flat.....for image quality reasons?..........perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where does that leave adding an A-Lens for IQ reasons?....added brightness sure, so a bigger screen can be used and more $$$$$Seats added ....but maintaining IQ.......no, if it was so, all studios would permit their use.



I just looked at the mkpe site, I found this graphic there ironic http://report.mkpe.com/about-2/ 


"top analysis covering the transition to digital cinema and 3-D" - refresh the page to cycle thru images










and if you refresh the page it cycles thru images and also displays this one, with Avatar in the reflection...

(I wonder if they got lic agreements to display Avatar like that on old tech glasses)










So most people still attribute the old red/blue glasses with 3D....not the newer glasses

made me smile at 3:30am.....

(I think my daughters Hannah Montana 3D concert DVD came with 2 pair of red/blue glasses







)


screen shot of the webpage...


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/20836656
> 
> 
> Can I use an anamorphic lens on my projector?
> *While anamorphic lenses are the best way to make efficient use of the light available to the projector, not all studios may accept their use.*



The key word there being *may*


----------

