# 2.35 Constant Height Faq



## Tukkis

After reading many of the same questions being asked I thought it would be a good idea to have one main thread that discusses the main ideas of a constant height setup.


This article will deal with constant height info.


Feel free to add anything I missed as I'll keep updating this main post.

*WHAT IS IT?*

*What is a 2.35 Constant Height Setup?*


In basic terms, its the ability to watch 2.35 material in full resolution and with full width just as the director intended. In a constant height setup 2.35 movies take up the whole screen without any black bars above/below. This a good read to get a better idea of constant height: http://resmagonline.com/articles/pub...icle_774.shtml 

*What benefit does constant height provide over a normal 16x9 setup?*


Because you are using the projectors full panel to display the 2.35 image, there is a 33% increase in resolution. The light output is also about 20% more than the same size picture without an anamorphic lens.


This results in a smoother more film like image that has alot more depth and punch to it.


Some other benefits of constant height also include more immersion for 2.35 films due to the extra width and no more annoying black bars. And also easier masking options.

*HOW?*

*How does it work?*

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=830657 


This link shows in a visual sense how a 2.35 constant height setup operates:
http://www.prismasonic.com/english/intro.shtml#2 

http://www.panamorph.com/index.html See "How it Works" Box

*WHAT DO I NEED?*

*What equipment do I need to run a constant height setup?*


Here's a link that has some of the products that can be used for constant height: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=537491 

1. 2.35 programming


Movies/tv shows/dvd's and even trailers. Anamorphic enhancement preferred. Look out for HD 2.35 clips/movies in the future.

2. A 16x9 native projector


Although using a 16x9 projector with a lens is the ideal method for optimal resolution, it is just as possible to establish a constant height arrangement with just a 16:9 projector and no anamorphic lens and zooming (or a 4:3 projector with anamorphic lens and zoom) so long as you are comfortable with not using all of the projector's available pixels/brightness.

Projector/Lens Compatibility 

3. Scaler that performs the required vertical stretch


This can either be built into the projector, dvd player, standalone scaler units or HT/Media Centre PC's. All you're after is the pre-lens vertically stretched image. Note though, that alot of projectors limit the options for changing the aspect especially when inputting upscaled DVD images.


Standalone scalers and HTPC's will generally provide more flexibilty.

4. 2.35:1 Screen


This means the screen is 2.35 units wide for every 1 unit high. Normal 16x9 screens are 1.78:1 ratio.


Most of the screen manufactures can produce a 2.35 ratio screen. DIY options are also possible. Again, all you're after is the 2.35:1 ratio.


The optimal screen for the true cinematic experience would be an acoustic sound screen that's transparent. This allows all front three speakers to be placed behind the screen with sound coming directly from the screen. Again, most manufactures provide this option. DIY solutions also exist, with Dazian Celtic Cloth and SMX (SandmanX) 720 being the most popular.

5. Anamorphic lens (Horizontal stretch or Vertical squeeze)


There are two ways to reach the final goal of constant height - Horizontal stretch lens or Vertical squeeze


Some may want to remove the lens for movies with ARs less than 2.35 in order to maximize the number of display pixels used. In so doing, there are a few things to bear in mind.


A situation occurs when removing a vertical squeeze lens that does not happen when removing a horizontal stretch lens. The displayed picture becomes too tall for the screen. That is assuming the screen AR matched that of the PJ and lens system. In that case the PJ zoom function must be employed to shrink the displayed pictured -- Hmm, scaling with a lens again. This time however the shrink occurs equally in both dimensions - isotropic scaling. The Pj would have to be capable of a zoom ratio of at least 1.322 : 1 , assuming the lens had a compress ratio of (16/9) / 2.35


A way of thinking about this is that the vertical squeeze lens does not affect the throw distance whereas a horizontal stretch lens decreases the throw.


Additionally, depending on the specific lens (either type) and projector, lens offset can enter into the mix and require additional adjustments. Some anamorphic lenses shift the position of the displayed picture vertically.


And finally, some projectors may shift the vertical position of the center of the picture when zoom is invoked as well.

*Which Anamorphic lens is right for me?*

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...ght=Anamorphic 

http://www.prismasonic.com/english/specs.shtml Horizontal/ Vertical with option of motorized
http://www.panamorph.com/Products.html Vertical or Horizontal
http://www.isco.eu/index.php?id=home-cinema High end lens with option of motorized
www.cineslide.com Manufacturer of Isco lens transports, USA distributor for ISCO lenses

*How Anamorphic lens technology works*

How the different lenses work 

http://www.panamorph.com/Technology.html 

*SCREEN MASKING?*

Manufacturers that sell Screen Masking for 2.35 

*What happens to sides of the 2.35 screen when I watch movies with less width (1.78/1.85 etc)?*


You mask/cover up the sides of the 2.35 screen when you watch movies that aren't as wide as 2.35. Just like the real cinemas. Ever wondered why the movie screen widens for some films when you go the cinemas. Now you know. To maintain the height necessary for 2.35 movies the width must increase. Hence the term constant height.


A fellow member posted this:

_"As with any fixed pixel display, when you need to map a non-native aspect ratio into the panel you will not use all of the pixels. Since the lens in this case transforms the 16:9 projector into a 2.35 projector any ratio other than this will result in either pillar boxing or letter boxing. For ratios greater than 2.35 this would be letter boxing (constant width). And of course this means anything less than 2.35 would have black bars on the sides, which is constant height"_

*How do I figure out how much I need to cover up?*


The great thing about constant height is you only need to mask the sides of the picture. To figure out how much you need to mask when you watch movies with less width than 2.35 you multiply the screen height (which remains the same for all movies aka constant height), by the aspect ratio of the movie.


So say you watch a 1.78:1 ratio movie. For a screen 50" high you multiply it by 1.78. Hence the 1.78 units wide for every 1 high.


So 1.78 x 50" = 89"

1.85 x 50" = 92.5"

1.33 x 50" = 66.5"


As you can see a 1.78 movie is 89" wide out of the possible 117.5" for 2.35 movies. 2.35 movies of course don't need masking as they take up the whole width.


A very limited number of films are shot in ratios wider than 2.35 eg. Ben Hur. You can either live with the small black bars top and bottom, stretch the image so it fills the 2.35 screen or if you're totally obsessed mask the top and bottom. This would mean you would need a 4 way masking system.

*What do I do with the anamorphic lens when I want to watch non 2.35 (scope)films?*


There are a few ways to go about this.


1. Leave the lens in place all the time for all aspect ratios. This implies a loss in resolution and brightness for anything other than 2.35 films as the sides of the picture are now wasted on black pillar bars. A few on this forum leave the lens in place and don't notice any PQ loss as full vertical resolution is still used for all ratios.


One thing to take note of though with brightness is that because the 16x9 image is smaller in area to the 2.35 image, it requires less light to appear as bright as the 2.35 image. Therefore leaving the lens in place means that the brightness should be perceivable the same between 2.35 and 16x9.


The brightness drop occurs if you compared a 1000 lumen 16x9 image with no lens compared to a 500 lumen image with the lens. The areas are the same but the 1000 lumens is brighter as more light is covering that area.


So by keeping the lens in place you shouldn't notice difference in brightness between a full width 2.35 image and a 16x9 image with black bars on the sides.


2. Slide the lens out of place for non 2.35 movies. This uses full resolution/brightness for all aspect ratios. This can sometimes cause the picture to drop depending on the lens.


3. Leave the lens in place but use the passthrough mode that some lenses have (prismasonic range). This involves leaving the lens in place like option 1 but using the passthrough mode on the lens which means not stretching it horizontally and just letting the projected light 'passthrough' the lens unaltered. This like option 2 uses full resolution/brightness for all aspect ratios (2.35/16x9).


How a passthrough lens works.










*WHAT ABOUT CONSTANT WIDTH/AREA?*


Constant Width is for those who can only accommodate a 16x9 screen. The width remains the same but the height changes. It still uses the full panel of the projector for 2.35 films but you dont get the extra width benefits for scope films. Only a vertical squeeze lens works for this application as you take the vertical stretched 2.35 picture and squeeze it down vertically to correct the geometry.


To find out more check out 'The 16:9 Screen Option' a little down the page: http://panamorph.com/Ultimate235.html 

*What about this Constant Area methology that everyone's talking about?*


The idea behind Constant Area is that every aspect ratio has same/similar area. This means that every aspect ratio appears large as the brain perceives size in how much area an object has not in width or height. The screen ratio for constant area is 2.05 which is halfway between 1.78 and 2.35.


Here's some links that go into more detail:

http://archive.avsforum.com/avs-vb/s...threadid=15649 
http://www.videophile.info/Screen/Page_01.htm 
http://www.mindspring.com/~zyber/cinema-screen.html 


*Where can I see some 2.35 Constant Height setups in action?*

2.35 Picture Thread 
Jeff Leonard 
Willy Gib 
Alan Gouger 
Gary Lightfoot 

*Additional reading:*

http://www.brooklyncenter.com/cinema...inemascope.htm 
http://www.thecinemalaser.com/anamor...pport-page.htm 
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articl...hic/index.html 
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articl...reenorama.html 
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attac...chmentid=39384 


If I've missed anything please tell me and I'll add it on.


----------



## joachimm




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tukkis* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> If I've missed anything please tell me and I'll add it on.



The thing that wasn't quite obvious to me at first was the "scaler" part.


As I understand it you can scale/stretch using 1) a DVD player, 2) a separate box between DVD player/projector, or 3) the projector.


I think the Panasonic PT-AE700 will do the vertical stretching, but I'm not sure if that's the best way to do it (certainly the cheapest). It might be nice to have

someone expand on this part.


Thanks for writing this up.


--Joachim


----------



## Tukkis




> Quote:
> As I understand it you can scale/stretch using 1) a DVD player, 2) a separate box between DVD player/projector, or 3) the projector.



Yes that sounds correct.



> Quote:
> I think the Panasonic PT-AE700 will do the vertical stretching, but I'm not sure if that's the best way to do it (certainly the cheapest). It might be nice to have
> 
> someone expand on this part.



Yes the AE700 will do the required vertical stretch. There's only a handful of projectors that will do this.


----------



## tvted




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tukkis* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Yes the AE700 will do the required vertical stretch. There's only a handful of projectors that will do this.



This is only true of 480 source. Wish it were otherwise.


Good work BTW.









ted


----------



## Tukkis

Yeah true, upscaled I dont think works.


----------



## Josh Z

The only issue I have with the FAQ is that it implies that the only way to do constant height is with a 16:9 projector and anamorphic lens. Although this is the ideal method for optimal resolution, it is just as possible to establish a constant height arrangement with just a 16:9 projector and no anamorphic lens (or a 4:3 projector with anamorphic lens) so long as you are comfortable with not using all of the projector's available pixels.


----------



## Shawn Kelly

Tukkis, while this covers more than constant height 2.35, we've had a lot of folks comment over the years that it has been helpful.

http://www.panamorph.com/ConfigurationGuide.htm


----------



## Tukkis




> Quote:
> The only issue I have with the FAQ is that it implies that the only way to do constant height is with a 16:9 projector and anamorphic lens. Although this is the ideal method for optimal resolution, it is just as possible to establish a constant height arrangement with just a 16:9 projector and no anamorphic lens (or a 4:3 projector with anamorphic lens) so long as you are comfortable with not using all of the projector's available pixels.



This is very true. I'll add that comment to the post. The point of the FAQ was to answer some of the basics of constant height for new comers. Alot of the same questions kept popping up in this forum.



> Quote:
> Tukkis, while this covers more than constant height 2.35, we've had a lot of folks comment over the years that it has been helpful.
> 
> http://www.panamorph.com/ConfigurationGuide.htm



Thanks Shawn, I added that link to the top.


----------



## Josh Z

Any thoughts about adding some info for those doing contant _area_ set-ups, or is that a whole different can of worms?


----------



## Tukkis




> Quote:
> Any thoughts about adding some info for those doing contant area set-ups, or is that a whole different can of worms?



I'd love to add it but dont know enough about the mechnics of it. If you or someone else would like to write a summary about constant area please do so and I'll add it in.


This is the only info I have about it. http://www.videophile.info/Screen/Page_01.htm


----------



## Josh Z

I have some screenshots from my constant-area setup here:

http://www.mindspring.com/~zyber/cinema-screen.html 


If I find some free time, I'll write up a more detailed explanation of it.


----------



## tvted

Try this
http://archive.avsforum.com/avs-vb/s...threadid=15649 



ted


----------



## Tukkis

Ted and Josh, thanks I added those links in. I'll keep adding to constant area as I get more info.


----------



## jamin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tukkis* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Alternatively to step 4, one can use a vertical anamorphic lens that squeezes the picture back down therefore gaining the same benefits.



Yes


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tukkis* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> If you were to use a vertical lens then you would have to manually zoom the projector the extra width necessary for constant height.



This is a bit misleading. There is no "extra width necessary" for constant height. There may however be a width that you want for your setup.


The vertical lens can be put in front of a 16:9 projector and boom - it is 2.35. Since the width in that case stays the same, one way of thinking of it is that the throw distance is unchanged. That is in contrast to the horizontal stretch anamorphic lens which decreases the throw distance.


> Quote:
> Without performing this zoom on a vertical lens it would only be a constant width, variable height setup and not constant height, variable width.



Other than changing the aspect ratio, the lens by itself does not make a PJ constant anything, nor does a one time zoom. The scaling performed prior to allowing the image to be displayed provides for the constancy element.


I realize that some will use the lens some of the time and remove it (or pass through) at other times. This then becomes another element of the "scaling" and typically allows for maximizing panel utilization albeit with a fluctuating illuminance ( which may or may not be a problem).


So the lens, either vertical of horizontal, merely changes the aspect ratio of the projector. As always, any picture aspect ratio greater than that of the PJ will result in a letterbox and anything less results in a pillar box.


----------



## Tukkis

jamin , thanks for the input. I updated that section with your feedback. Please check to see if its correct now.


----------



## jamin

Tukkis,


Hmm, let me try it this way.


The aspect ratio of the projector combined with the anamorphic lens transformation creates a new "native" aspect ratio for the projection system. It matters not whether the lens does a vertical squeeze or a horizontal stretch.


With respect to the aspect ratio, and given the same scalar, you can mutiply the numerator or divide the denominator and it makes no difference:


AR = ( 16 * k ) / 9 = 16 / ( 9 / k )


Any time the picture to be displayed is not the "native" aspect ratio of the projection "system" then the full panel will not be utilized.


This is true regardless of the type of lens used for the anamorphic transformation.


When the aspect ratio of the picture to be displayed is greater than that of the projection system then letter boxing needs to be established. Likewise if the AR of the picture to be displayed is less than that of the projection system then pillar boxing needs to be established.


Again this is true regardless of the type of lens used for the anamorphic transformation.


The panel AR of the projector should be thought of as a non square pixel panel that has the AR of the projection system when the lens is in place.


This is Irrespective of the type of lens employed.


If the lens is removed, or passed through, the PJ panel AR again becomes the aspect ratio that is native to the projector.


Scaling to the PJ panel is the same when either lens type is in place. Scaling to the PJ panel is the same when either lens type is removed.


****************************


A situation occurs when removing a vertical squeeze lens that does not happen when removing a horizontal squeeze lens. The displayed picture becomes too tall for the screen. That is assuming the screen AR matched that of the PJ and lens system. In that case the PJ zoom function must be employed to shrink the displayed pictured -- Hmm, scaling with a lens again. This time however the shrink occurs equally in both dimensions - isotropic scaling.


Additionally, depending on the specific lens and projector, lens offset can enter into the mix and require additional adjustments. Some vertical squeeze lenses shift the position of the displayed picture vertically. Some projectors may shift the vertical position of the center of the picture when zoom is invoked as well.


----------



## Tukkis




> Quote:
> Tukkis,
> 
> 
> Hmm, let me try it this way.
> 
> 
> The aspect ratio of the projector combined with the anamorphic lens transformation creates a new "native" aspect ratio for the projection system. It matters not whether the lens does a vertical squeeze or a horizontal stretch.
> 
> 
> With respect to the aspect ratio, and given the same scalar, you can mutiply the numerator or divide the denominator and it makes no difference:
> 
> 
> AR = ( 16 * k ) / 9 = 16 / ( 9 / k )
> 
> 
> Any time the picture to be displayed is not the "native" aspect ratio of the projection "system" then the full panel will not be utilized.
> 
> 
> This is true regardless of the type of lens used for the anamorphic transformation.
> 
> 
> When the aspect ratio of the picture to be displayed is greater than that of the projection system then letter boxing needs to be established. Likewise if the AR of the picture to be displayed is less than that of the projection system then pillar boxing needs to be established.
> 
> 
> Again this is true regardless of the type of lens used for the anamorphic transformation.
> 
> 
> The panel AR of the projector should be thought of as a non square pixel panel that has the AR of the projection system when the lens is in place.
> 
> 
> This is Irrespective of the type of lens employed.
> 
> 
> If the lens is removed, or passed through, the PJ panel AR again becomes the aspect ratio that is native to the projector.
> 
> 
> Scaling to the PJ panel is the same when either lens type is in place. Scaling to the PJ panel is the same when either lens type is removed.



As I understand it when you put a anamorphic lens in front of a 16x9 projector, the projector is now a 2.35 projector. So as you said anything smaller than the projector ratio (2.35 with lens on) has black bars. With a horizontal and vertical lens this occurs. The way around it with a horizontal lens is passthrough or remove the lens. This inturn now makes it a 16x9 native projector. Removing the vertical lens also makes it a 16x9 projector again but as you said it's too tall. So zooming is required.


So the best and simplest way to get full resolution for 16x9 and 2.35 is use a horizontal lens. This means passthrough can be used and no zooming is required.


But you're right, both vertical and horizontal will work. Vertical just needs more effort to setup each time if you want the best PQ for all ratios.


Did I write anything incorrect in the faq?


----------



## jamin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tukkis* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Alternatively to step 4, one can use a vertical anamorphic lens that squeezes the picture back down therefore gaining the same benefits.



Correct


> Quote:
> If you were to use a vertical lens and wanted to maintain constant height, you would have to scale or zoom anything narrower than 2.35 so that it fits within the height restrictions.



If you want constant height then you need do nothing with AR less than 2.35 as long as the lens stays on -- regardless of which type of lens it is.


> Quote:
> This means anything less than 2.35 would have black bars on the sides if you use a scaler.



This is true of either type of lens.


> Quote:
> If you zoom down then full picture quality is maintained for all ratios.



The full panel resolution can only be utilized for 2.35 when the lens is on (either lens type) or for 16:9 movies when the lens is off. All other ARs decrease panel utilization. Of course this is always true of all projectors at any AR other than native.


> Quote:
> You cant use all the projector's resolution/brightness for movies narrower than 2.35 with a vertical lens and still maintain constant height if you use a scaler.



You can maintain constant height for ARs less than or equal to 2.35 with a scaler regardless of which lens type is in place. You can not use the full panel resolution for all aspect ratios as noted above, regardless of which lens type.


> Quote:
> If you leave the vertical lens in place and scale instead of zooming narrower films, you lose some resolution/brightness due to side black bars.



And this is true whether the lens is a vertical squeeze or horizontal stretch.


----------



## jamin

Some may find this useful even in the CH forum.


Attached is a graph showing pixels on screen vs aspect ratio for various PJ configurations.


A couple of things to note : positive slope lines denote constant height (CH) regions and negative slope denotes constant width (CW) regions. The horizontal no slope lines are for constant area (CA) implementations.


EDIT:update jpg


----------



## Tukkis

Jamin, Thanks for the link. I added it to the post.


With regards vertical lens stuff we were discussing, would you mind writing a couple of paragraphs and I replace mine with what you write. This should clear alot of it up.


----------



## Shawn Kelly




> Quote:
> So the best and simplest way to get full resolution for 16x9 and 2.35 is use a horizontal lens. This means passthrough can be used and no zooming is required.
> 
> 
> But you're right, both vertical and horizontal will work. Vertical just needs more effort to setup each time if you want the best PQ for all ratios.



Hi Tukkis. I would just like to add that it might be good to qualify this with a "for constant height". I realize this is a constant height forum but a constant width forum does not exist here at this point. Vertical compression lenses are best for max resolution in a constant width scenario.


Also note that some horizontal lenses still produce a vertical offset when they are removed, so the relative ease of achieving 16:9 max res even in CH mode depends on the horizontal lens type.


----------



## jamin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tukkis* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> With regards vertical lens stuff we were discussing, would you mind writing a couple of paragraphs and I replace mine with what you write. This should clear alot of it up.



1. ~~~~~

2.~~~~~

3.~~~~~

4. An Anamorphic lens (Horizontal stretch or Vertical squeeze)

5.~~~~~


As with any fixed pixel display, when you need to map a non-native aspect ratio into the panel you will not use all of the pixels. Since the lens in this case transforms the 16:9 projector into a 2.35 projector any ratio other than this will result in either pillar boxing or letter boxing. For ratios greater than 2.35 this would be letter boxing (constant width). And of course this means anything less than 2.35 would have black bars on the sides, which is constant height


Some may want to remove the lens for movies with ARs less than 2.35 in order to maximize the number of display pixels used. In so doing, there are a few things to bear in mind.


A situation occurs when removing a vertical squeeze lens that does not happen when removing a horizontal stretch lens. The displayed picture becomes too tall for the screen. That is assuming the screen AR matched that of the PJ and lens system. In that case the PJ zoom function must be employed to shrink the displayed pictured -- Hmm, scaling with a lens again. This time however the shrink occurs equally in both dimensions - isotropic scaling. The Pj would have to be capable of a zoom ratio of at least 1.322 : 1 , assuming the lens had a compress ratio of (16/9) / 2.35


A way of thinking about this is that the vertical squeeze lens does not affect the throw distance whereas a horizontal stretch lens decreases the throw.


Additionally, depending on the specific lens (either type) and projector, lens offset can enter into the mix and require additional adjustments. Some anamorphic lenses shift the position of the displayed picture vertically.


And finally, some projectors may shift the vertical position of the center of the picture when zoom is invoked as well.


************************************************


----------



## Tukkis

Thanks jamin, I replaced mine with what you wrote.


----------



## acksnay

Great and noble effort Tukkis!

Here's some outstanding issues I'm having during my CIH design (Infocus 7210 / Primasonic H-1000 / Premiere Gyrolock):


1) Lumen calculations: What percentage loss/gain between a 16:9 letterboxed image and the full panel / 2.35:1 stretched image?


2) Mounting the lens. Does it have to be DIY? Do any ceiling mounts have extensions?


3) Should screen to seating ratios change based on new stretched pixel size? (Not that I'd move my sofa back and forth mind you







). 4/3x is standard with 720p. Should that be reconsidered?


----------



## Tukkis




> Quote:
> 1) Lumen calculations: What percentage loss/gain between a 16:9 letterboxed image and the full panel / 2.35:1 stretched image?



About a 20% increase between a zoom/letterboxed 2.35 image and one with the lens that uses the full panel.



> Quote:
> 2) Mounting the lens. Does it have to be DIY? Do any ceiling mounts have extensions?



There may be. I dont know enough about that to give you a decent answer. Maybe do a search on here to see how others mount theirs.



> Quote:
> 3) Should screen to seating ratios change based on new stretched pixel size? (Not that I'd move my sofa back and forth mind you ). 4/3x is standard with 720p. Should that be reconsidered?



I dont have a constant height setup yet but from what I've read for seating distances, about 1.2-1.3x for 2.35 images were what most were using. Its up to personal preference really so maybe try it on the wall first to see the size. Or if you can move seating then you have a bit of leeway.


----------



## WillyGib

My 2.35 setup


----------



## bills2k

O NELLY!!! O WILLY!!! I am stunned. What an incredible job. Thank you so much for posting. It gives people like me so much hope and excitement waiting for my goodies to arrive so that I acn proudly join you guys. What scaler are you using? The H1000 gives a stunning picture. Enjoy.


----------



## WillyGib




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bills2k* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> O NELLY!!! O WILLY!!! I am stunned. What an incredible job. Thank you so much for posting. It gives people like me so much hope and excitement waiting for my goodies to arrive so that I acn proudly join you guys. What scaler are you using? The H1000 gives a stunning picture. Enjoy.



The 4805 has a letter box mode that will do the vertical stretch for 2.35 films, so for now thats what I use. Once I upgrade the PJ, in a couple of years, then I will think about a scaler (Dragonfly)


----------



## jeffleonard

Just a quick post to say you can check out my 2.35 setup here in the member's gallery.


----------



## bills2k

Excellent work, Jeff. When am I going to be able to watch my movies in 2.35:1 ?


----------



## Tukkis

Thanks for those links. I added a section to the original post with links to user setups.


----------



## acksnay

Got my 2.35:1-love busted up some today. I just found out that switching between passthru and stretch mode on the Prismasonic requires refocusing the projector lens. What's the point of upgrading to the motorized option if I still need to jump up and realign my 7210 focus ring? Maybe this is ideal for a pj (like the H79) which also has a motorized focus ring. It probably won't be a big deal, but it still comes as a shock. There goes the automation.


----------



## Joe Przybylski




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *acksnay* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Got my 2.35:1-love busted up some today. I just found out that switching between passthru and stretch mode on the Prismasonic requires refocusing the projector lens. What's the point of upgrading to the motorized option if I still need to jump up and realign my 7210 focus ring? Maybe this is ideal for a pj (like the H79) which also has a motorized focus ring. It probably won't be a big deal, but it still comes as a shock. There goes the automation.



can't you just leave it in place the whole time?


----------



## acksnay

You mean leave it in stretch mode for non-2.35:1 material and then digitally recompress the image back to 16:9? Not an option I'd consider. It would interpolate/resample the image.


I appreciate the suggestion, but why even have a passthru mode in that case?


----------



## Tukkis




> Quote:
> Got my 2.35:1-love busted up some today. I just found out that switching between passthru and stretch mode on the Prismasonic requires refocusing the projector lens. What's the point of upgrading to the motorized option if I still need to jump up and realign my 7210 focus ring? Maybe this is ideal for a pj (like the H79) which also has a motorized focus ring. It probably won't be a big deal, but it still comes as a shock. There goes the automation.



Thats not good news if its true. I'm seriously looking at Prismasonic and one of the major selling points is the passthrough mode. The whole convienience aspect goes out the window.


Can anyone confirm the refocus?



> Quote:
> You mean leave it in stretch mode for non-2.35:1 material and then digitally recompress the image back to 16:9? Not an option I'd consider. It would interpolate/resample the image.
> 
> 
> I appreciate the suggestion, but why even have a passthru mode in that case?



Exactly if you're going to keep it in place all the time the P752 lens will do great. Even though it's a vertical both do the same - make the projector into a 2.35 ratio one


----------



## Joe Przybylski




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *acksnay* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> You mean leave it in stretch mode for non-2.35:1 material and then digitally recompress the image back to 16:9? Not an option I'd consider. It would interpolate/resample the image.
> 
> 
> I appreciate the suggestion, but why even have a passthru mode in that case?



I'm not familiar with Prismasonic products too well, but I know that you CAN do this with a Panamorph lens and TheaterTek, and the results are fantastic...


If you're working with any kind of decent video scaler (like TheaterTek and a HTPC) you will hardly notice a quality difference...


----------



## Tukkis




> Quote:
> If you're working with any kind of decent video scaler (like TheaterTek and a HTPC) you will hardly notice a quality difference...



Joe, the resolution drop is ok cause there's heaps with most projectors anyway for dvd. Hows the brightness drop though? Is it noticeable?


----------



## acksnay




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joe Przybylski* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'm not familiar with Prismasonic products too well, but I know that you CAN do this with a Panamorph lens and TheaterTek, and the results are fantastic...
> 
> 
> If you're working with any kind of decent video scaler (like TheaterTek and a HTPC) you will hardly notice a quality difference...



This is really putting me through the wringer. Maybe it's fortunate that the Primasonic is backordered. I have the 2.35:1 Stewart screen on the way so I am totally committed to CIH, but *I do not want to refocus between 2.35:1 and 16:9 material*.


Also, 16:9 HDTV cable is the only true HD source I (and most of us) have. Stretching to 2.35:1 and then compressing to 16:9 what would have been 1:1 material seems inelegant to me. You say the results are hardly noticeable, but it ought to be unnecessary.


----------



## acksnay




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tukkis* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Can anyone confirm the refocus?



Indeed.


Alan -- would you chime in here. Does the Prismasonic H series require projector refocusing after switching from passthru to stretch mode (or visa versa).


----------



## madpoet

Without some sort of scaler, I don't see how it wouldn't require it.


----------



## acksnay

This is what Prismasonic emailed me:
_"No, it's not necessary if the lens will be front of the projector all the time."_


This is what Alan Gouger PM'd me:
_"If you focus to the 16x9 passthrough mode then stretch the lens to 235:1 you will be out of focus."_


Does anyone have an authoritative, unambiguous answer to the question "Does switching from passthru to stretch mode (or from stretch to passthru mode) with a fixed-mounted Prismasonic H-1000 cause a change in focus."














c'mon. There are lots of H-1000 owners out there.


----------



## WillyGib

I focus my 4805 in the pass-through mode. When I do the stretch for 2.35 I DO NOT refocus. The slight un-focus (if there is any) seems to help with the SDE with the 4805.. The problem with the 4805 is not the deference in focus from pass-through to stretch it's the lack of resolution, small objects and background objects are not crisp, but then again I'm pushing the 4805 past it's limits on a 128" screen. I can't tell the deference in focus from pass-through to stretch because of this, but I will tell you it still looks great.


----------



## tvted

I utilize the H1000 with a Panasonic AE 700 and I also confirm what others have, that I do not find it necessary to refocus in the stretch mode after having focused in passthrough.


ted


----------



## acksnay

Thanks for the feedback guys! I've got a dealer (not AVS) telling me otherwise. So maybe he's got a defective unit. Or something.


Looks like I'll go ahead with the order ...


----------



## K.G.

I am planning to use constant height screen for my new theater. Recently I saw Dennis Erskine`s theater in atlanta.He has a curved screen,looks cool...How do you set up a curved screen ,who makes it ,and how difficult it is to set one up?.Appreciate any help.


----------



## WillyGib

I was playing around with the focus on the 4805 with the H-1000 lense. First I made certain that the focus looked good in the pass-through mode, then checked it in the stretch mode. The focus was a little out. Then I re-focused in stretch mode and checked it in pass-through mode. What a surprise. It looked like the focus got better in pass-through. The focus seemed to be tighter. I don't know if this is a result of stretching the pixels and being able to see the focusing better, but it did look better doing the focus in the stretch mode first.


----------



## acksnay




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WillyGib* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I was playing around with the focus on the 4805 with the H-1000 lense. First I made certain that the focus looked good in the pass-through mode, then checked it in the stretch mode. The focus was a little out. Then I re-focused in stretch mode and checked it in pass-through mode. What a surprise. It looked like the focus got better in pass-through. The focus seemed to be tighter. I don't know if this is a result of stretching the pixels and being able to see the focusing better, but it did look better doing the focus in the stretch mode first.



I may have that definitive answer I was looking for, and it ought to address what you've just described Willy.


This is from an email exchange between myself and Prismasonic:


> Why are these guys saying there's a focus change between passthru and stretch?


They are right. There is a little change in focus between the 'pass' and

'stretch' modes. However, the change is not visible, especially if one does the

focusing in the middle of the 'pass' and '2.35:1 stretch' modes. H-1000 allows

to do that because it is truly variable. Doing so there is no need to refocus

the projector manually, and thus it will be 100% automatic.


Makes sense. Willy: Can you try it? Focus in the middle of the 2 modes.


----------



## WillyGib




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *acksnay* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I may have that definitive answer I was looking for, and it ought to address what you've just described Willy.
> 
> 
> This is from an email exchange between myself and Prismasonic:
> 
> 
> > Why are these guys saying there's a focus change between passthru and stretch?
> 
> 
> They are right. There is a little change in focus between the 'pass' and
> 
> 'stretch' modes. However, the change is not visible, especially if one does the
> 
> focusing in the middle of the 'pass' and '2.35:1 stretch' modes. H-1000 allows
> 
> to do that because it is truly variable. Doing so there is no need to refocus
> 
> the projector manually, and thus it will be 100% automatic.
> 
> 
> Makes sense. Willy: Can you try it? Focus in the middle of the 2 modes.



I'll give it a shot tonight, but I can hardly tell the difference now without a test pattern up if I do the focus in stretch mode.


----------



## Alan Gouger

Re focus is not needed with the Prismasonic. Perform initial projector & lens focus in the 235:1 mode. Once thats done you are all set. You will never have to focus again and focus will remain stable between 16x9 & 235:1


----------



## acksnay

Is there any solution for the *subtitle* issue? The film to DVD transfer has it floating in the bottom black bar.


Ideally the HD-DVD/Blu-ray format includes character generation on the fly in the language and screen position of your choice. Fantasy?


----------



## Tukkis




> Quote:
> Is there any solution for the subtitle issue? The film to DVD transfer has it floating in the bottom black bar.



I messaged Blight the developer of Zoom Player. He said, "As far as I know, microsoft didn't publish such an interface for DVDs". I told him that TheaterTek allows you to nudge the subtitle up/down. He then said, "They might be using their own subtitle renderer instead of the one provided by the video decoders. I'm going to ask around a bit, but no promises."


So hopefully fingers crossed we'll have an update for it in a future release.


----------



## tomes

Still totally confused..


Wouldn't it make sense that a dvd player crops the black bars of the signal, and stretch the height (making people very thin) - while a projector-lense could simply stretch it out (to the sides), making it thin, alternatively squish it heightwise?


Is there a dvd player/projector combo that can accomplish this without an additional lense?


Just FYI, I have the Zenith 318 dvd player. (No projector or screen yet, though I'm looking for a house with a fitting basement, where I can have a 2.35:1 setup..)


PS;I'm hoping for such a combo, because;

a) limited budget, probably 2000 USD, MAYBE 2500.. (projector, screen, and possibly lense???)


b) Ease of setup...I'm growing tired of spending a lot of time setting up things... I've done it in the past, but at this point, I am lazy..


Thanks.


----------



## Jack Gilvey




> Quote:
> Wouldn't it make sense that a dvd player crops the black bars of the signal, and stretch the height (making people very thin)



Ok so far...



> Quote:
> - while a projector-lense could simply stretch it out (to the sides), making it thin, alternatively squish it heightwise?



The stretch thing sound like a horizontal expansion lens (prismasonic) , the "squish" sounds like a vertical compression lens (Panamorph).


----------



## tomes

Thanks Jack. After looking further, I take it no projector has a built in lens system that can do either, correct?


Also, it seemse given my budget, if I am to trust the projector to do the first piece, I have a limited number of choices


----------



## Jack Gilvey




> Quote:
> Thanks Jack. After looking further, I take it no projector has a built in lens system that can do either, correct?



None I've seen...anamorphic lenses are much larger than the zoom lenses you find on projectors. Some have been available with them (I recall an NEC), but not "built-in" per se.



> Quote:
> Also, it seemse given my budget, if I am to trust the projector to do the first piece, I have a limited number of choices



'fraid so...although the 4805 fits that bill and I can heartily recommend it paired with a Panamorph 752...you'll come in well under budget even with a good screen.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...&post5967215


----------



## tomes

Thanks. I pretty much figured the 4805 was the obvious choice at this point










Question though; Seems I could get a 720p native projector for less than 2K. In terms of resolution, even when losing the lines that are used for black bars, wouldn't the net result be pretty similar (480p vs 720p 'cropped' - for lack of a better term). Also, I would be prepared for HD dvd (depending on format/rez). On the downside, I guess the black bars would be projected, ruining some of the 'cinema' feel?


----------



## Jack Gilvey




> Quote:
> Question though; Seems I could get a 720p native projector for less than 2K. In terms of resolution, even when losing the lines that are used for black bars, wouldn't the net result be pretty similar (480p vs 720p 'cropped' - for lack of a better term). Also, I would be prepared for HD dvd (depending on format/rez). On the downside, I guess the black bars would be projected, ruining some of the 'cinema' feel?



All good points. You'd actually have a little more vertical resolution from "cropped" 720 than from squeezed 480p. I prefer the overall image (of which resolution is only a part) of the 4805 to the ~$2000 (implying LCD) 720p I've seen, but higher res is certainly in my future when there's stuff I want to watch (HD DVD). Of course, a lens like the 752 will have the same benefits with any digital pj...using the full panel resolution.


Resolution is part of the benefit of an anamorphic lens, but the other main benefit is having a "constant height" setup with a 2.35 screen. This is do-able without a lens in many setups, but requires more scaling/re-zooming.


----------



## tomes

Thanks, you are starting to convince me that yours is the way to go! I have about 500 dvds, and that will certainly be what i watch and aquire mostly for even the next few years!


How much do you think I would have to pay for the 752?


PS: Is the 4805 capable of outputting sufficient light onto a 9.4 feet wide screen? The room will be well controlled when it comes to lighting (basement). Not sure if any of you are familiar w/parkland, but I figure I would try tha as a diy solution first, for the screen,


Thanks again for all your helpful advice, Jack!


----------



## Jack Gilvey

 https://www.panamorph.com/P752Clearance.html 



Not sure on the brightness. Try this calculator to get an idea, keeping in mind you want to shoot for 12 fL or so for theater-level brightness. The lens will add about 20% to this level. Brightness also diminishes as the bulb ages. At that width, I'd recommend you sit at least 14' back.



> Quote:
> Thanks again for all your helpful advice, Jack!



Just passing on the help I recieved.


----------



## Tukkis

Try this calculator:

http://www.carltonbale.com/ht/calculator/index.html 


It's way better as it has a 2.35 screen option plus a ton of other stuff.


----------



## tomes

Thanks guys, good link to the page for lenses, and the calculator is awesome!


-Tom


----------



## Jack Gilvey

Very cool calculator! At my width and distance, I'm right between the THX and SMPTE viewing distances.


----------



## kaka

Please help me with the dumb question. I have a 16:9 (optoma H79) projector with a 16:9 screen. How could a lens help in improving the pics from a 2.35 source without distorting it? Meaning, can a lens be used to fill the whole screen without distortion? or I am pretty much struck with top and bottom bars?

Thanks,

Frank


----------



## bills2k

If you use an IMX lens it might help but it will not get rid of the bars. With an anamorphic lens you can get rid of the bars with a 2.35 source but you will still need a 2.35 screen.


----------



## vitod

Tukkis, I hope you can help.


I have a Panny 500U, Bravo D2, Panamorph 752 lens. Besides the lens, can the PJ or player do a vertical stretch? The Bravo has a custom setting but I can't get it to work for what I'm looking for. Maybe you'd know. Do I add another device?


Anybody else can chime in.


Thanks


----------



## Sirquack

I was thinking I had heard others say the D2 will do vertical stretch of 2.35 material? On my Sanyo Z2 I found I can vertically stretch 480i or 480p signals, but as soon as I try 720p or 1080i over HDMI/DVI it won't work.


----------



## Tukkis

vitod, sorry I don't have any experience with the D2. If it has a custom setting you want a 4x3 (1.33333 etc) vertical stretch.


The panny probably wont do it. My ae700 wont do it for anything above 480 so it's no use. A standalone scaler will give you more flexibility with the inputs as well.


----------



## kofboy

what's this?


----------



## SevenOut

Thanks for the info!


----------



## bills2k

Hi kofboy:


What do you mean by "what's this"? Are you asking what 2.35 is all about? Are you asking about the lens required? Are you asking about a scaler? What do you need to know? Be more specific and you shall be enlightened.


----------



## raoul




> Quote:
> 1. Leave the lens in place all the time for all aspect ratios. This implies a loss in resolution and brightness for anything other than 2.35 films as the sides of the picture are now wasted on black pillar bars. A few on this forum leave the lens in place and dont notice any PQ loss as full vertical resolution is still used for all ratios.



True: However, the amount of light reflecting off the screen per unit area, FtL is the same if you leave the lens in place at all times.


----------



## CAVX

Hello all, I have just installed a home made version (dual prism based) of an anamorphic lens.


I have been researching this for quite some time and now have successfully achieved a constant height set up that allows me to switch between 21:9 and 16:9 without having to remove the lens from the light path. My geometry is correct and I do not have annoying black bars at the top and bottom of "cinema scope" presentation...

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=561280 


Mark


----------



## Tukkis




> Quote:
> Hello all, I have just installed a home made version (dual prism based) of an anamorphic lens.
> 
> 
> I have been researching this for quite some time and now have successfully achieved a constant height set up that allows me to switch between 21:9 and 16:9 without having to remove the lens from the light path. My geometry is correct and I do not have annoying black bars at the top and bottom of "cinema scope" presentation...
> 
> 
> Sorry for the noise in the images, but the borrowed camera was not the best...



Congrats on the setup. Looks good. With every ratio properly sized and masked properly it really adds to the cinema feel.


----------



## CAVX

Thanks Tukkis,


Yes it does help make my system more cinematic...


Mark


----------



## 1st Cav




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sirquack* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I was thinking I had heard others say the D2 will do vertical stretch of 2.35 material? On my Sanyo Z2 I found I can vertically stretch 480i or 480p signals, but as soon as I try 720p or 1080i over HDMI/DVI it won't work.




So what is the alternative to this? I'll be purchasing the Z3 (as you already know SQ) and I know that it will also have the limitations with 720p and 1080i material as the Z2. In order to make the vertical stretch work with this do you need an external scaler like the Iscan or something similar?


----------



## Sirquack

It is my understanding that if you want to perform the vertical stretch on 720p or 1080i material via a Z2 or Z3, and many other projectors, you have to have HTPC, DVDO, or other scalers that perform this task. It is my understanding that some projectors will achieve this, like the Infocus models, but they are not cheap, at least the 720AR and above models.


Someone else please help this poor guy out


----------



## 1st Cav

Well once again you've covered my a$$ SQ







By the way thanks a MILLION for the info via PM, you're the $h** in my book. But the fun isnt over I still have a couple of questions for you, so keep an eye out for me.










1st Cav


----------



## FoolintheRain

I'm setting up my Projector and Screen today for constant height. Here's the big question. I have DVDs that are 1.78, 1.85, and 2.35. How do I ensure that none of the movies will have black bars on the top and bottom? Its a 16/9 projector so 1.78 will fill the panel with NO black bars, but 1.85 WILL have black bars right? Do I set it up so that 1.85 fills the screen (and the top/bottom black bars go onto the frame and 1.78 movies lose a little picture) or do I set it up so that 1.78 fills the screen and 1.85 will have slight black bars on top/bottom. Also which will translate better when I use the anamorphic lens to stretch 2.35 movies and not lose any top/bottom of pic? Thanks. I'm surprised I didn't see this question somewhere here in the FAQ already.


----------



## FoolintheRain

Until further notice I shall setup the screen using a 1.85 DVD...that way everything will have a very slight overscan except 1.85 DVDs, but there will be no black bars on top/bottom which sounds good to me. If anyone deals with this differently let me know.


Im using Optoma H77 for projecting and scaling and a Prismasonic H600m lens for the anamorphic stretch. (my DVD player is a Denon 3910, excellent in all regards except no scaling options).


----------



## jamin

FoolintheRain -

In order to have a true constant height system, you are right, one would have to have different amounts of scaling available for the different aspect ratios. Most here, it seems, just allow for the 16:9 to 2.35 jump. Some allowing the thin letter box bars to be visible for the 1.85 presentation or with perhaps a nod to the 1.85 by using the approximate 4% overscan on 16:9 that would eliminate those bars for the 1.85. That overscan also applies to the 2.35 as well.


Mostly it just depends on what equipment and $ you have available and what irks you the least.


----------



## Tukkis

Check out this link for some ideas: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...&post5692017


----------



## Jack Gilvey

I don't remember seeing this link anywhere, just a simple explanation of anamorphic lenses that might help someone. It's old, dealing with 4:3-16:9 conversion.

http://www.projectorcentral.com/anamorphic_lenses.htm


----------



## Mupi

By now you would think I shouldnt be asking this basic question but I still dont understand this. So here I go with the basic question.


Lets say I have a 16:9 projector like 4805 and I dont have any external scaler or DVD player that does the scaler.


Now I put a horizontal anamorphic lens.


Lets say the image I am feeding is already 16:9 so the PJ is using full panel.


Lets say the lens does not have a pass through model.


So the lens will stretch the 16:9 image and if the lens does not have the pass through mode the only option is to move it out of the way in which case the image will drop right? Am I missing anything here?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mupi* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> By now you would think I shouldnt be asking this basic question but I still dont understand this. So here I go with the basic question.
> 
> 
> Lets say I have a 16:9 projector like 4805 and I dont have any external scaler or DVD player that does the scaler.
> 
> 
> Now I put a horizontal anamorphic lens.
> 
> 
> Lets say the image I am feeding is already 16:9 so the PJ is using full panel.
> 
> 
> Lets say the lens does not have a pass through model.
> 
> 
> So the lens will stretch the 16:9 image and if the lens does not have the pass through mode the only option is to move it out of the way in which case the image will drop right? Am I missing anything here?



Take a look at the official picture thread images of which my set up is now a part. http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=561280 


EDIT: I have to this as the pictures previously being refered to have been removed.


When the photo was taken, I was having some alignment issues that have since been corrected, but you get the idea...


Mark


----------



## Jack Gilvey




> Quote:
> So the lens will stretch the 16:9 image and if the lens does not have the pass through mode the only option is to move it out of the way in which case the image will drop right?



If you can't scale the image to restore proper geometry, your option is to move the lens out of the way. For what it's worth, your 4805 example from above does not need an external scaler, as it does all the scaling needed to leave the lens in place for 1:85 films or HD. If a lens "stretches" the image (horizontal), it won't cause a drop, but will typically have a passthough mode. A vertical lens (squeeze)won't have such a mode and will cause a drop.



> Quote:
> Now I put a horizontal anamorphic lens.
> 
> 
> Lets say the image I am feeding is already 16:9 so the PJ is using full panel.
> 
> 
> Lets say the lens does not have a pass through model.



Which horizontal lens are you looking at that doesn't have a passthough mode?


----------



## imarkup

At the top of this FAQ, it states:

Because you are using the projectors full panel to display the 2.35 image, there is a 33% increase in resolution.

How is the 33% increase in resolution gained if the lens is simply expanding the same 16x9 image that the DVD player (thru a scaler) is sending out? Is there a special DVD player that you can configure to say "2.35 display" rather than "16x9" so that it actually sends out a full resolution image at 2.35 rather than a letter-boxed 16x9 image that must be scaled by an external scaler??


If not, then this setup IS NOT increasing the ACTUAL resolution ... it is simply relying on an external scaler to digitally expand the height so that the lens then stretches it. This actually means that the 2.35 movies ARE NOT even using the full resolution of DVD ... right? They are wasting a good portion of the resolution on those darn letterboxes.


When the DVD is encoded, is it encoded at the full 2.35 AR, or is it encoded at 16x9 with letterboxing in the encoded picture (thus NOT using the full resolution of DVD)?


Thanks for any details you can shed on this!


----------



## jamin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *imarkup* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> ................ or is it encoded at 16x9 with letterboxing in the encoded picture (thus NOT using the full resolution of DVD)?



Bingo -- For anamorphic DVD , all is mapped to a 16:9 frame, so there is waste for anything bigger than 16:9


The "increase in resolution" pertains to utilization of more pixels on the display, which isn't a bad thing.


Just a shame, as has been commented for years, that the more epic the motion picture - the less pixesl are devoted to it. Likewise CH mavens are seeking to make the picture bigger with fewer pixels.


Typical "do more with less" motto .


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jamin* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Bingo -- For anamorphic DVD , all is mapped to a 16:9 frame, so there is waste for anything bigger than 16:9
> 
> 
> The "increase in resolution" pertains to utilization of more pixels on the display, which isn't a bad thing.
> 
> 
> Just a shame, as has been commented for years, that the more epic the motion picture - the less pixesl are devoted to it. Likewise CH mavens are seeking to make the picture bigger with fewer pixels.
> 
> 
> Typical "do more with less" motto .



I have fairly entry level equipment, hence why I built my lens. Now that I have a 2.35:1 CIH set up, every thing runs at the max vertical rez. In my case it is just 854 x 480 but now both 16:9 and 21:9 run the same 480 vertical rez. Scaling is done by the projector and the images are much more dynamic than the previous letterboxed images. The larger image (2.35:1) is now larger, with as much detail and brightness as the smaller 1.78:1 image...


Mark


----------



## charlebon2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joe Przybylski* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> can't you just leave it in place the whole time?




Who ish dish? Get off my line! jett off, jett off NOW!!


Midway Sub-HOLD!

Hot or Cold the Midway???



Wally& OLGA SCHAFF


----------



## Allen

All your bases...


----------



## MountainAsh

WOW interesting...and confusing thread. It is actually making me consider 2.35:1 for my dedicated theater.


I have a Sharp 10000 can I get an anamorphic lense for it?


Almost all of my DVDs are Anamorphic, do I still need the lense.


Sorry if these questions are very basic for this thread.


Dave


----------



## Tukkis

You still need the lens because the projector is native 16x9 (1.78) and you want to turn it into a 2.35 projector by adding the lens.


You should be looking at whether your dvd's are 1.78 or 2.35 aspect ratio not so much whether they are anamorphic or not.


----------



## Jizzay1

I'm having the darndest time getting my retail 2.35 dvds to work on my 2.35 screen. I have the following:


Panny AE900U

2.35 Screen

UH-50 lens

Iodata Avel Link player 2.


Basically the problem is that i can not get my dvd player to stretch the 2.35 material vertically, thereby entirely removing the black bars before it gets to my projector. Is this how everyone else is doing it?


It seems like this needs to happen for it'll work? Please definately correct me if i'm wrong.


----------



## Tukkis

See if you can stretch it on the projector.


----------



## skhattane

Hi,


my name is samy and I'm french (sorry for my english







)

I Have created 2 topics on a french forum about 2.35 pojection and DIY anamorphic lens.


DIY LENS :
http://www.homecinema-fr.com/forum/....php?t=29803723 


2.35 PROJECTION :
http://www.homecinema-fr.com/forum/....php?t=29801701 


We create a group command for prisms in BK7, all specifications are on the forum. If you want to post in english, no pbl.










sam


----------



## skhattane

DIY ANAMORPHIC LENS OF GLUBUX, A FRIEND


----------



## skhattane




----------



## skhattane




----------



## skhattane




----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jizzay1* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'm having the darndest time getting my retail 2.35 dvds to work on my 2.35 screen. I have the following:
> 
> 
> Panny AE900U
> 
> 2.35 Screen
> 
> UH-50 lens
> 
> Iodata Avel Link player 2.
> 
> 
> Basically the problem is that i can not get my dvd player to stretch the 2.35 material vertically, thereby entirely removing the black bars before it gets to my projector. Is this how everyone else is doing it?
> 
> 
> It seems like this needs to happen for it'll work? Please definately correct me if i'm wrong.



Jizzay are you connected with YPbPr or HDMI? (This might not work over digital).

1. Ensure the DVD player is set to 16:9.

2. Select the right input for your source.

3. Select the right AR using the remote. You should have different modes to choose from including 4 x 3, ZOOM and 16:9. You need the ZOOM mode which is a 4 x 3 mode that fills the entire width of the panel. The image should look like this.









Then with the lens in place, the image should look like this.









And you should have a 2.35:1 image...


Mark


----------



## CAVX

skhattane,


Very cool DIY lens! Very neat work.

Here are my original prisms...


















Mark


----------



## skhattane

Hi mark,


Your prisms are very great look.









The specifications of our prisms :











Here my sample :


----------



## skhattane

Here the result in projection :


----------



## skhattane

The prisms are in glass of 2mm (no antireflection, it's just a sample).

The liquid is "glycérine" (I don't know the word in english). Refraction index : 1.473


The futur sample will be in BK7 (optical material) with antireflection coating, etc...

All specifications and lot of screen of many realisation are on hcfr (the french forum). Lot of informations. No pbl to post in english on the french forum










sam


----------



## CAVX

Very cool! We call it "Glycerine" as well, but these are the first screen shots I've seen using it...

I've since built a 4 prism lens. Have you tried that yet?


Mark


----------



## skhattane




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I've since built a 4 prism lens. Have you tried that yet?
> 
> Mark



No, have you better results ?

Less chromatic diffractions or better geometry ?


----------



## bruman

those pictures of inaction scemes look great!


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *skhattane* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> No, have you better results ?
> 
> Less chromatic diffractions or better geometry ?



I noticed less Chromatic Aberration and by reversing the prisms so that the hypotenuses of the right angled triangle (when viewed in plan) is out, better geometry...


Mark


----------



## Randomcreek

QUESTION FOR THE BOARD- I'm having a little difficulty understinding something. An anamorphic lens allows you to use the full resolution of the display (mine is a 720P panasonic AE900 LCD) for 2.35:1 movies (okay, got it more projector pixels being used and no black bars on top and bottom). But the DVD player still is only outputting the usable 2.35:1 image using only 70% of the 480 horizontal lines possible. The black bars generated by the DVD player use up some of the resolution and can be removed by the display using aspect ratio to scale to use all 720 lines of the projector, but there is no way to get all 480 lines off the DVD in a 2/35:1 movie. Correct? Or am I missing something. I've toggled through all the output modes of my DVD player and they all put black bars on 2/35 images. help me understand where tthe increased resolution comes from - seems more like apparent resolution than true resolution benefit. -RANDOMCREEK


----------



## Randomcreek

JIZZY1- What i'm saying is that I don't think you can remove those black bars via the DVD player. With the AE900 all you need to do is use aspect ratio button on the remote (second button up from the bottom left). This will allow the anomorphic lens to stretch the picture to 2.35:1. My issue is, however, that if you do this all you acheive is using more of the LCD panel (i.e all 720 pixels). Your not getting full 480 lines of DVD output- still only 400 (or something like that). I thought the point was to get the DVD player to output 480 horizontal lines of i2.35:1 mage (albeit squished to 16x9 aspect), then the projector to use all it's pixels in 16x9 mode (image still squished) and then anamorphic lens corrects the aspect and you'd end up with a higher resolution image on the screen. But I now am not so sure it works like that. The benefit is more display lines- not more image lines. Like having a TV with smaller pitch- this may provide more apparent resolution and reduce screen door effect, but no change in true resolution. The Panny already has smooth screen and i can sit 2 feet away from it and watch it without any screen door. IF there is a way to get greater true resolution I'm in, but can someone explain to us new to this how it's done- I'm not sure i understand.


----------



## Randomcreek

It just became clear to me now that HD-DVD/BlueRay are noit being designd with the hometheater enthusiast in mind- at least not us front projection guys. All that disc space and the 2.35:1 cinemascope movies are still going to have black bars on top and bottom that you cna't get rid of and even using an anamorphic lens these epic movies will still have less true resolution than 16x9 throw away specials and made for TV movies and sitcoms. Great. I can understand why the DVD format did not consider this an issue worthy of consideration as most of us (none of us probably) were big screen junkies at the time DVD evolved, but why HD-DVD and BlueRAy specs do not have ability to output full resolution (720/1080i) for 2.35:1 cinemascope (in a squished format so anamorphic lens could be used in front projection with anamorphic lens) to get maximum resolution (and constand height functionality, full use of display resolution, etc) is just plain wrong. The most resolution is needed for front projection home theater and cinemascope aspect. It will be the same problem all over again-granted the overalll detail will be better than DVD but again the epic movies we like to watch the most and project bigger will be less detailed than 16x9 formatted junk. I'm probalby preaching to the choir here, but I has this issue ever been brought up as an issue to the HD consortiums? It's just like the highways they build here in Pennsylvania - every one has a bottleneck desigend in- engineered obsolescence. great.


----------



## CAVX

2.35:1 CIH is about one thing - recreating the way it was meant to be seen. You can crunch rez numbers all day if you like. In the end, we have true widescreen images regardless of how much rez we have available to us to make them, our ARs are correct an the bigger AR is bigger...


We can only hope that these new generation formats do indeed offer that extra bit for cinema scope presentation...


Mark


----------



## stopdog




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Randomcreek* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> It just became clear to me now that HD-DVD/BlueRay are noit being designd with the hometheater enthusiast in mind- at least not us front projection guys. All that disc space and the 2.35:1 cinemascope movies are still going to have black bars on top and bottom that you cna't get rid of and even using an anamorphic lens these epic movies will still have less true resolution than 16x9 throw away specials and made for TV movies and sitcoms. Great. I can understand why the DVD format did not consider this an issue worthy of consideration as most of us (none of us probably) were big screen junkies at the time DVD evolved, but why HD-DVD and BlueRAy specs do not have ability to output full resolution (720/1080i) for 2.35:1 cinemascope (in a squished format so anamorphic lens could be used in front projection with anamorphic lens) to get maximum resolution (and constand height functionality, full use of display resolution, etc) is just plain wrong. The most resolution is needed for front projection home theater and cinemascope aspect. It will be the same problem all over again-granted the overalll detail will be better than DVD but again the epic movies we like to watch the most and project bigger will be less detailed than 16x9 formatted junk. I'm probalby preaching to the choir here, but I has this issue ever been brought up as an issue to the HD consortiums? It's just like the highways they build here in Pennsylvania - every one has a bottleneck desigend in- engineered obsolescence. great.



No anamorphic Blu Ray / HD DVD 2.35:1 movies? What a disappointment..










If this is true I see no point in optomizing my HT for cinemascope movies . Since the best res will be 16:9 why not go with a 16:9 screen.


----------



## Jizzay1

You guys were right, but it's annoying. I have to set my dvd player to 480p before i get the vertical stretch option on the projector. but it works great!


----------



## Tukkis




> Quote:
> No anamorphic Blu Ray / HD DVD 2.35:1 movies? What a disappointment..
> 
> 
> If this is true I see no point in optomizing my HT for cinemascope movies . Since the best res will be 16:9 why not go with a 16:9 screen.



Because it's not just about resolution. It's about the extra width you get with a 2.35 screen. As it's been said, it's the difference between it looking like a giant tv and like a cinema.


Plus, you can get full resolution for 16x9 movies by removing the lens or using passthrough mode on the prismasonics.


Trust me, once you've seen a Constant Height setup for movies you wont go back.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tukkis* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Trust me, once you've seen a Constant Height setup for movies you wont go back.



Too true










Mark


----------



## stopdog

My 1st CH theater experience will most likely be Mr. Poindexter's when he gets it finished in a couple months. Of course after that I'll be ruined for anything less and will probably be shopping for a new house to put it in my new CH HT. Oh well....


----------



## Jack Gilvey




> Quote:
> Because it's not just about resolution. It's about the extra width you get with a 2.35 screen. As it's been said, it's the difference between it looking like a giant tv and like a cinema.



Yeah, I don't think many have one specific reason they're into CH, and certainly not "extra resolution". I haven't had my lens in place in quite a while, since my AE900 doesn't do the right scaling, so "added resolution" or "full use of the projector's panel" currently have nothing to do with why I bother. The aesthetic impact of it makes all the difference.


----------



## CAVX

Jack,


the lack of scaling - is that over digital as the 700s certainly did a 4 x 3 zoom to give the so called "vertical stretch" over component...


Mark


----------



## thaxx




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Jack,
> 
> 
> the lack of scaling - is that over digital as the 700s certainly did a 4 x 3 zoom to give the so called "vertical stretch" over component...
> 
> 
> Mark



But won't that 4X3 zoom just get you back to 16X9, not 2:35.

Right?


----------



## thaxx




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Jack,
> 
> 
> the lack of scaling - is that over digital as the 700s certainly did a 4 x 3 zoom to give the so called "vertical stretch" over component...
> 
> 
> Mark



But won't that 4X3 zoom just get you back to 16X9 with the lens, not 2:35.

Right?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thaxx* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> But won't that 4X3 zoom just get you back to 16X9, not 2:35.
> 
> Right?



No. It should give full panel image with no black bars and it should be tall and thin similar to the first T2 image I posted earlier. Then with the lens in place, the geometry will be restored to look like the 2nd image - AKA 2.35:1 or cinema scope...


Mark


----------



## Brad Martin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jizzay1* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'm having the darndest time getting my retail 2.35 dvds to work on my 2.35 screen. I have the following:
> 
> 
> Panny AE900U
> 
> 2.35 Screen
> 
> UH-50 lens
> 
> Iodata Avel Link player 2.
> 
> 
> Basically the problem is that i can not get my dvd player to stretch the 2.35 material vertically, thereby entirely removing the black bars before it gets to my projector. Is this how everyone else is doing it?
> 
> 
> It seems like this needs to happen for it'll work? Please definately correct me if i'm wrong.




Obviously I am very new to this wonderful aspect, I also have a Panny AE900. After seeing an earlier post in regards to the AE-700. Can it be possible with AE-900 to project the 2.35 ratio without the prism conversion?


Thanks in advance just discovered this thread, I hope time is available to attempt the 2.65 ratio.


----------



## Tukkis




> Quote:
> Obviously I am very new to this wonderful aspect, I also have a Panny AE900. After seeing an earlier post in regards to the AE-700. Can it be possible with AE-900 to project the 2.35 ratio without the prism conversion?
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance just discovered this thread, I hope time is available to attempt the 2.65 ratio.



You still need the lens to correct the proportion of the image. The AE900 should be able to stretch the black bars out of the 2.35 image but the lens will then correct the stretched image.


----------



## Tom Hilton

Hi Brad,


IMO, what Tukkis suggests is the best way to achieve a constant height wide screen image.


However, there is another option, since you're using the Panasonic AE 900. You are fortunate in that the AE900 has quite a large zoom range compared to most projectors. I think it may be possible for you to maintain a constant height image by using the projector's zoom. What I mean is that you could zoom the picture larger so that the desired height stays constant for the wider aspect ratios. I'm not certain if the zoom range is sufficient for constant height at a ratio of 2.65:1, but I would think 2.35:1 is attainable.


Although this second option is not the preferred method for constant height, it might "get you into the game" until you're ready to spring for an anamorphic lens adapter. I used the zooming approach for a while before switching to the adapter and electronic image scaling several years ago. Once you see how that combination works, though, I bet you'll want to go that way







.


----------



## CAVX

The zoom method has been discussed time and time again. If you do this, you not only throw away valuable pixels, but you lose brightness as well. It is a quick fix solution to get you used to what you will be seeing, but it is not how to do a 2.35:1 CIH Set Up...


Mark


----------



## thaxx

O.K.

For all of you Panasonic 900 owners, I have found a combination of equipment so I now have constant 2:35 image. (All with correct geometry)

#1 is my Samsung 360 HD directv receiver.

#2 is my Panasonic RP-56 DVD player

#3 the Panasonic 900.

Heres how to configure it to have 2:35 AR at all times with all sources, including 16X9 HD.

Yes, I know I'm not gaining the extra light output with the full panel but The picture is plenty bright.

The dvd players component (out) goes to the Samsung HD receivers component (in).

The HD receivers DVI (out) goes to the Panasonics 900 HDMI in (conversion plug) DVI to HDMI.

The HD receiver must be set for 4X3 TV Letterbox in the menu.

Set your PJ to 16X9.

Set your DVD player to 16X9.

Thats all there is to it.

I know I said all sources will be 2:35. I forgot , not regular SD channels, these will still show in 16X9.

Since I rarely use my projector for regular TV this set up fits my situation perfectly.

I'm sure there is other equipment combos with the 900 that will achieve the same results.

The only time you will need to change any of your settings with your remote is if your watching a "real" 2:35 movie, you will need to change the receivers output with your remote to 4X3 FULL.

Again, with all of these settings I am getting the full picture and the proper geometry.

Also, my receiver upconverts to 1080i, 720p, or 480p, and this works with all inputs.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thaxx* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The HD receiver must be set for 4X3 TV Letterbox in the menu.
> 
> Set your PJ to 16X9.
> 
> Set your DVD player to 16X9.
> 
> Thats all there is to it.



Are you talking about the zoom method here? There is no mention of what lens you might be using, and I am curious as to why you've set the HD box to 4 x 3 and then the projector to 16:9.


A 4 x 3 source on a 16:9 display would give you a stretched image even without a lens...


Maybe a little more info...


Mark


----------



## thaxx

No lens in use.

All of the settings and equipment listed are all that is needed to display a 2:35 AR full time. The only exception is SD tv, in that case the image goes to 16X9 ( too tall for the screen) and zooming the image down would be required to fit the screen vertically. Since I rarely use my PJ for SDtv, I have a constant 2:35 AR (with all sources) without a scaler or lens.


----------



## CAVX

Whilst I am sure your happy with the results, what you have created is a full screen set up with a few limitations including the fact that you would be cropping your 16:9 images to fill the screen and well as the fact that you are not able to use your full vertical rez of the display...


A true 2.35:1 CIH set up means that your image height always remains the same, but your width will vary depending on the OAR of the source...


Mark


----------



## thaxx

I understand I'm not getting the extra light output I would with a lens, but as I said before I prefer having 2:35 AR for ALL of my veiwing on my pj. Sports, Movies ect.

One of the nice this about it is, no messing with any adjustments or lens adjustments, scaler adjustment or masking. Maybe we should start a "Contsant "2:35 AR thread.

Actually I think my setup is more "true" 2:35 setup since I'm not limited to use it for just 2:35 movies.


----------



## Tukkis




> Quote:
> understand I'm not getting the extra light output I would with a lens, but as I said before I prefer having 2:35 AR for ALL of my veiwing on my pj. Sports, Movies ect.
> 
> One of the nice this about it is, no messing with any adjustments or lens adjustments, scaler adjustment or masking. Maybe we should start a "Contsant "2:35 AR thread.
> 
> Actually I think my setup is more "true" 2:35 setup since I'm not limited to use it for just 2:35 movies.



Each to their own. I would love to use 2.35 for everything, unfortunately all the material out there is shot in different formats.


----------



## sk8conz

Over at the what looks to be the French equivalent of AVS there is huge thread (1800+ posts) in the DIY section on making an anamorphic lens.


I had mixed success using google to translate as it only seemed to do some of the messages ?? but the short verison seems to be that they have designed an anamorphic lens and will be doing a production run for forum readers.


As far as price / ETA, etc I'm not too sure, so if anyone here can read french could you check it out and perhaps summarise it for the rest of us ??

www.homecinema-fr.com


----------



## CAVX

Is that by THIS GUY ?


Mark


----------



## sk8conz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Is that by THIS GUY ?
> 
> 
> Mark




Yes, he is involved, but it seems that they are setting up to manufacture a batch for forum readers. 150 euros for a manual, 300 for a motorized was mentioned.


Babelfish seems to do a better job on the translation, but the thread is 120 pages long ....


Still reading


----------



## Ron Jones

While the use of an anamorphic lens to do a horizontal streach and a scaler to do a vertical streach of the image so as to use the full vertical resolution of the display device may have benefits when using a projector with a 720p native resolution and when the video source is 1080i or 1080p. However, I'm not convinced this is the best solution for displaying 2.35:1 material if you have a projector with a native 1080 x 1920 pixel resolution (such as the Sony Ruby or one of the soon to be available 1080p DLP front projectors). Since these projectors exactly match the resolution of the 1080i and 1080p source material (Blu-ray supports 1080p) any additional scaling to do a vertical streach would introduce some level of digital artifacts. With such 1080p projectors you may very well get better results by using the projector's zoom to enlarge a 2.35:1 image to fill the screen. You would be getting all of the resolution available from the 1080i or 1080p source material and would avoid any scaling artifacts.


Ron Jones


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ron Jones* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> With such 1080p projectors you may very well get better results by using the projector's zoom to enlarge a 2.35:1 image to fill the screen. You would be getting all of the resolution available from the 1080i or 1080p source material and would avoid any scaling artifacts.



By using the zoom, you are magnifying the size of the pixels and the gaps between pixels, which will accentuate Screen Door Effect, and will dispurse your light over a wider area, making the image dimmer. A good video processor will have negligible scaling artifacts, and is preferable to using the zoom.


----------



## sk8conz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ron Jones* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> With such 1080p projectors you may very well get better results by using the projector's zoom to enlarge a 2.35:1 image to fill the screen. You would be getting all of the resolution available from the 1080i or 1080p source material and would avoid any scaling artifacts.
> 
> 
> Ron Jones



Also worth considering is that many of us have large collections of DVD's numbering in the 100's or 1000's even, many of these titles probably won't be available on BRD or HD-DVD for years (if ever).


Personally I won't be inclined to upgrade my current collection, with a few expections (LOTR, Star Wars obviously). Will HD or BRD look better - you bet, but will I stop watching DVD's, no way.


A good HTPC or external scaler gives more flexibility and shouldn't introduce many (if any) noticeable artifacts.


So for me anyway, with a soon to be mixed collection, a scaler/htpc is the only way to go, as I want the brightest best image I can get across all media, without having to constantly adjust my projector zoom.


----------



## sk8conz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ron Jones* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> With such 1080p projectors you may very well get better results by using the projector's zoom to enlarge a 2.35:1 image to fill the screen. You would be getting all of the resolution available from the 1080i or 1080p source material and would avoid any scaling artifacts.
> 
> 
> Ron Jones



It has been mentioned in other threads that BRD and HD-DVD don't support anamorphic 2.35:1 so you are still using one third of those 1080 lines to project black bars.


To me this just begs to be scaled


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sk8conz* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> It has been mentioned in other threads that BRD and HD-DVD don't support anamorphic 2.35:1 so you are still using one third of those 1080 lines to project black bars.



Does anyone have a link that confirms that HD DVD or BRD are still only 16:9?


Mark


----------



## stevesemailbox

I notice there are anamorphic lenses available on ebay occassionally. I have a panasonic ae900u and I am wondering if anyone has an opinion as to which anamorphic lenses would be usable with the panny?


----------



## CAVX

Careful with the Ebay lenses, as most are film lenses not video lenes. Film or cinema scope lenses have 2x stretch where video anamorphic lenes have just 1.33 stretch. Trying to use a 2x with your HT (It can be done with a good scaler) could prove frustrating...


Mark


----------



## Ron Jones

I would certainly agree that you will get a brighter image using the anamorphic lens (rather than just the zoom to fill the screen). My point was if using a native 1080p resolution projector (and hopefully one with minimal SDE) the zoom approach for 1080i/1080p HD source material might look a little better by avoiding the need for any scaling and any potential loss of horizontal resolution or other distortions due to the use of the additional anamorphic lens.


Ron Jones


----------



## tcreech

Another problem with zoom - don't most PJ's shift image when zooming?


TC


----------



## CAVX

Correct...


Mark


----------



## Jack Gilvey




> Quote:
> Another problem with zoom - don't most PJ's shift image when zooming?



Yeah, I have the zoom/shift drill down to under a minute on my 900.


----------



## CAVX

And with a lens, it could be as simple as pushing a buttom. I don't even have to get out of my chair...


Mark


----------



## flint350




> Quote:
> I don't even have to get out of my chair...



Anything that allows me to make that statement is, in my estimation, a very good thing. Not that I'm lazy, mind you.


----------



## Jack Gilvey




> Quote:
> And with a lens, it could be as simple as pushing a buttom. I don't even have to get out of my chair...



I _do_ miss that.


----------



## cubedude

A few pages ago, someone posted an Excel file that would do all the calculations for 2.35:1. I'm on a Mac, and I have no way to open it, so would anyone be willing to input my specifications into the calculator?


I have an 18' throw, using the HD72 and one of the Prismasonic H lenses. I'm looking at a 118x50" screen. I'm not sure what other numbers would be needed.


It would be much appreciated if someone would do this for me!


----------



## CAVX

Try THIS calculator for viewing angles and seating distances. Just ignore the height...


Mark


----------



## cubedude




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Try THIS calculator for viewing angles and seating distances. Just ignore the height...
> 
> 
> Mark



Thanks, I've seen that one, but maybe you could clear up some confusion for me? Do I input the width of my 2.25:1 screen (118") or the width of the equivalent screen in 16:9 (which I think would be 92.5", which is screen height x 1.85)? This is my first dedicated home theater, and I'm still confused a bit.


----------



## CAVX

The viewing angle actually does [EDIT: NOT] change for any AR. So just input your width of the 2.35:1 (2.25?) screen and then the distance you want to sit at, and it will tell you both the THX min and preferred as well as SMPTE recommendations. The thing about that calculator, it was originally designed for cinema scope 2.35:1, but adopted for 1.78:1 for HT...


[why do I keep forgetting the not...]


Mark


----------



## cubedude

Thanks, CAVX!


----------



## The_Nephilim1

Hi all GREAT thread and I am sold on the 2.35:1 screen size, but I have a question or 2. I will be getting a Sanyo Z4 PJ, Denon 1920 DVD Player still deciding on the Lens, but the Prismasonic H-600M looks like a Good Choice.

The Theater is still under construction so I have some time to research this farther and get some Pricing.


My Question is If I went with this setup would I still need a Scaler?? if yes any reccomendations??


The Room is 11'x19' and the closest to the screen is 12' what would be a good size screen for this room??


Also if there is another combo that would work PJ or DVD Player that would help cut the cost of getting a scaler I am all ears, but I am really sold on the Sanyo Z4 PJ, so if you reccomend any thing Ill look into it but If you did reccomend a new DVD Player it would have to be capable of Both DVD-A / SACD Audio and Upoconvert via HDMI. THNX










-Gerald


----------



## CAVX

To answer the first question - no you don't need a scaler, but one would make life better in the future so that all video sources can be used, not just your DVD player...


The second question - it depends on the brightness of the projector/light control etc, but anywhere from 94 inches wide will work in your room. A 94 inch screen viewed from a distance of 12 feet will give you a viewing angle of 36 degrees which is preferred for 2.35:1, but you might want to go larger if you intend to instal multiple rows...


Mark


----------



## The_Nephilim1

Hmm it did say in the Guide on things needed was a scaler to perform the vertical stretch will my DVD player or PJ do this ??


If I did get a scaler in the future, cause I plan on watchin HDTV in my theater as well, what will the scaler do for the HD viewing??


I will probally go with the 94" wide screen as that would take up almost the entire wall with a lil room to spare on the side for the curtains for masking.


THNX CAVX!!


----------



## CAVX

Depending on how the signal is passed. It seems that most projectors will not allow the HD signal to be displayed on 4 x 3 zoom over digital, but it does work on component...


Mark


----------



## The_Nephilim1

Oh then the Scaler would allow me to see the picture in a 2.35:1 ratio?? But I am not going to do that cause the Upconvert only works thru DVI










I will not mind watching the 16:9 format I could always setup the curtains to mask it but will I have Black bars on the top and bottom of the screen??


why does this have to be so complicated hehe??


----------



## CAVX

Most likely you won't convert HDTV into 2.35:1 as you would end up losing the top and bottom of the image. HDTV is generally 16:9, but from time to time, a movie is presented in 2.35:1, and then your 235CIH comes into its own...


Mark


----------



## jerrodshook

I'm jumping into this adventure.....


I just read all of this and figured some of it out, but would like to ask a few questions about the scaler too. I'm thinking about a 110-120" screen, the Sammy 710 projector and I have no clue on a lens yet. I planned on getting a scaler as well, but perhaps I'll get a lens forst and then "upgrade" with a scaler.


Assuming I have a lens, but no scaler, I'll have no problem viewing 2.35 content with the lens in place and no black bars, and HDTV and 1.85 without the lens, but with bars on the sides that I can easily mask right?


Assuming I'm right so far, is the scaler is not 100% required right? I would still like to have one because I've seen what it can do to better the picture quality, but at least to get started, do you really need it?


Finally, I see that Panamorph has a $495 lens.... the U80. Thoughts on this one? I'm going to do a search, but I figured I'd throw this at the end of this post. Thanks!


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jerrodshook* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Assuming I have a lens, but no scaler, I'll have no problem viewing 2.35 content with the lens in place and no black bars, and HDTV and 1.85 without the lens, but with bars on the sides that I can easily mask right?



Correct. I use a hinged system and it works a treat (thanks Cinemax







)...



> Quote:
> Assuming I'm right so far, is the scaler is not 100% required right? I would still like to have one because I've seen what it can do to better the picture quality, but at least to get started, do you really need it?



I would say it is the cream on the cake. It is not needed but certainly completes it...


I'll let some one else comment on the U80 'cause I need to do more research on that one...


Mark


----------



## jerrodshook

Thanks for the response! I've found a bit to read on the U80. Also came across the P752 and U15 on some used marketplace sites. There's just so much to read on each these..... finding the time to do it is tough!


----------



## CAVX

So is it a VC or HE lens?


Mark


----------



## sdspga

Mark,


The U80 is VC.


Scott


----------



## CAVX

So the UH-50 is their only HE lens?


Mark


----------



## sdspga

yes and no. According to Shawn, they are no longer mass marketing this lens due to some PQ issues. However, he indicated about a week ago that some are available.


----------



## the pres

is there a way to setup the system so that the masking and lens are adjusted automatically according to the AR of the signal being watched. For example, it is easy enough for me to adjust the lens or move it when necessary but I am currently setting up a system for my father-in-law who doesn't want to mess with anything between movies (any ratio) and HD TV. I want the 2.35 but want to find out how simple it can be for him to operate. Ideally, the lens would be engaged if necessary when a wide movie is watched and disengaged otherwise. Thanks


----------



## Donny Bahama

I've long been convinced that I wanted a CIH setup. " http://www.panamorph.com/Products.html Vertical or Horizontal" convinced me that I want the kind of anamorphic lens that compresses vertically.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tukkis* /forum/post/0
> 
> *What do I do with the anamorphic lens when I want to watch non 2.35 (scope)films?*
> 
> 
> 1. Leave the lens in place all the time for all aspect ratios. This implies a loss in resolution and brightness for anything other than 2.35 films as the sides of the picture are now wasted on black pillar bars.



OK, this seems like the way to go (for me/for the best possible WAF,) but I'm really having trouble wrapping my brain around this one...


I get it (I think) that TheaterTek gives me excellent control over the aspect ratio - including applying any horizontal squeeze I might need (so that the anamorphic lens can then squeeze it back vertically.) Is that correct?


But what if I'm watching something other than a movie? (Ergo I'm not using TT.) Let's say I'm watching an HDTV program that I recorded using a MyHD card. Or I'm bringing in a signal from my DirecTiVo using a capture card and Dscaler. How do I get the image squeezed horizontally in those scenarios (without TT to do it for me?)


Also, there's a lot of mention about the 4805's ability to stretch the image such that an HTPC is not necessary. The HD72 I'm getting has 4 aspect ratio buttons on the remote - 4:3, 16:9, Letter Box, and Native. Does that mean it will do this, too?


----------



## Tukkis

If you want to keep the lens in place all the time, you need 2.35 material vertical stretched and the lens will do the rest. For 16x9 material what you want is 4x3 mode so that the scaler/software puts black pillar bars left/right of the 16x9 image.


Think of it kinda like 2.35 is like 16x9 where you use the whole panel and 16x9 is like watching 4x3 on a 16x9 projector where there is black bars left and right.


Even though you're using less resolution it's not as noticeable as you think because you're still using the full resolution in height.


----------



## Donny Bahama

OK. That makes sense. But I'm not sure there's any way of telling MyHD to output in 4:3 mode. Unless the HD72 will do it...?


----------



## Tukkis

If it's going to be anywhere it'll be in the software side of things.


Not sure if that projector can adjust the ratio from HDMI/DVI but if it does you want 4x3 mode on the projector.


----------



## FAR64

I have not read through all the threads on the 2.35 constant height topic so forgive me if what I am about to say has already been posted.


With a 1920x1080 projector, if a picture was zoomed so that a 2.35 picture filled a 2.35 screen with the black bars extending off the screen, the loss of vertical pixels for the picture itself would be approx. 25%. That means there would be about 818 pixels making up the picture vertically which is approx. 100 pixels more than a 720p projector puts out in 16:9 mode. So, if the projector is zoomed out so that the picture fills the screen and the black bars extend beyond the top and bottom of the screen, voila, a 2.35 image without the anamorphic lens. Black felt or velour above and below the screen should take care of any stray light and you have a picture made up of almost 1.6 million pixels which is still about 60% greater than a 16:9 image from a 1280 x 720 projector. This eliminates the cost of the anamorhic lense and scaler with aspect control, distortion and chromatic aberation and changing the lense setting when going from 2.35 to 1.78 ratio. A 54" high 2.35 image would have approx. 8.5" bars, top and bottom.


Assuming the projctor has enough lumens for an adequately bright picture, the only potential down side to this approach that I can see is that the image position may shift as the lens is zoomed.


Any thoughts on the subject?


----------



## Donny Bahama




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FAR64* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> That means there would be about 818 pixels making up the picture vertically which is approx. 100 pixels more than a 720p projector puts out in 16:9 mode.



If you feed a 1080 signal to a native 720p projector, it's going to scale it down to 1280 x 720.


----------



## FAR64

I'm not talking about feeding a 1080 signal to a 720 projector. I am talking about a 1080 projector with 1080 source material.


----------



## Uatatoka




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Donny Bahama* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> OK. That makes sense. But I'm not sure there's any way of telling MyHD to output in 4:3 mode. Unless the HD72 will do it...?



The HD72 will do all the scaling for you for any input resolution (480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i, 1080p, etc...)


LBX for 2.35:1, 4:3 for eveything else but you're throwing away 25% of the source to create gray/black bars on the side (1280x720 -> 960x720 + 160 lines of black on each side) when using 4:3 mode.


----------



## Donny Bahama

The whole point of using an anamorphic lens is to use every pixel on the 16:9 panel rather than "wasting" the potential luminosity from all those (black bar) pixels.


----------



## Uatatoka




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FAR64* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Any thoughts on the subject?



This is what some users of the ae900 are doing and 2.35 SD DVDs. You need a huge zoom range (ae900 has up to 2x zoom), lens shift, and black paint or felt surrounding the screen to absorb all the light spill from the psuedo black/gray bars. You have to zoom, shift, and refocus each time you do this, but it works!


----------



## Uatatoka




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Donny Bahama* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The whole point of using an anamorphic lens is to use every pixel on the 16:9 panel rather than "wasting" the potential luminosity from all those (black bar) pixels.



It is for most. That is why I got Prismasonic lens with pass mode - so I still have full panel utilization for 16:9 or less material. I only stretch the picture for 2.35 movies and lose nothing for HDTV, etc. The best of both worlds. That's the drawback of VC (like panamorph) lenses which typically have to leave the lens in place.


If you leave the lens in place and want correct geometry for anything less than 2.35:1 you'll have to create the black bars on the panel.


----------



## Donny Bahama




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Uatatoka* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> you're throwing away 25% of the source to create gray/black bars on the side (1280x720 -> 960x720 + 160 lines of black on each side) when using 4:3 mode.



I'm OK with that. The whole appeal of CIH is that the picture is at its most impressive with 2.35:1 source material. As the a.r. goes down from there, so does the overall size of the image and the relative impact - exactly as it should be, IMO.


The thing I was unclear about was whether the HD72 would properly squeeze _and_ pillar box 16:9, 1.85:1 and 4:3 source material so that I could get away with leaving the anamorphic lens in place at all times. I now have the HD72, so I guess I can play with this to my heart's content, but I don't yet have an anamorphic lens.


----------



## CAVX

That will still depend on the source. A scaler or HTPC will the best job, but DVD players such as the Samsung HD-950 also provide both horizontal squeeze (useful for 4 x 3 material) and a vertical stretch which is used for 2.35:1.


In the case of this player, the projector setting can be 16:9.


I don't have a scaler, and do own the HD-950, but prefer to use a different player for video.


In this case I use the projector modes (4 x 3 + lens = 16:9 and 4 x 3 zoom + lens = 21:9)...


Mark


----------



## Jack Gilvey




> Quote:
> I'm OK with that. The whole appeal of CIH is that the picture is at its most impressive with 2.35:1 source material. As the a.r. goes down from there, so does the overall size of the image and the relative impact - exactly as it should be, IMO.



That, to me, is what CIH is about, and why it's called what it's called. Not brightness, pixels, etc., but the theaterical/presentation aspect.



> Quote:
> This is what some users of the ae900 are doing and 2.35 SD DVDs. You need a huge zoom range (ae900 has up to 2x zoom), lens shift, and black paint or felt surrounding the screen to absorb all the light spill from the psuedo black/gray bars. You have to zoom, shift, and refocus each time you do this, but it works!



All true, and a PITA...but it does work.







DVD PQ compared to using my Panamorph 752 is comparable, but I suspect proper scaling of HD media would shift things in favor of full panel utilization.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jack Gilvey* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I suspect proper scaling of HD media would shift things in favor of full panel utilization.



I can't wait to read about the results from early adopters...


Mark


----------



## LJG

Great GReat Info:


Would it be possible to list the Pro's and Con's of each of the 3 Methods:


1)Constant Height

2)Constant Width

3)Constant Area


Thanks


Lon


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LJG* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Great GReat Info:
> 
> 
> Would it be possible to list the Pro's and Con's of each of the 3 Methods:
> 
> 
> 1)Constant Height
> 
> 2)Constant Width
> 
> 3)Constant Area
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> Lon



I think this has been done before but here goes...


1)Constant Height - 2.35:1


Pros - all ARs at the same height using full vertical rez of the projector. Can be done with either a HE or VC anamorphic lens.

Cons - some lens distortion (pincushion or barrel) and some CA depending on the type of lens used...


2)Constant Width - 1.78:1


Pros - works with or without a lens but better with.

Cons - Letter boxes the larger AR meaning vertical pixels are wasted on black bars is not using a VC lens.


3)Constant Area - 2.0:1


Pros- allows image area to roughly be the same between 2.35 and 1.78.

Cons - requires zooming to achieve maximum screen usage.


Having tried all three methods, I prefer constant image height...


Mark


----------



## Donny Bahama

I'm going to take another stab at that from more of a "what does that mean to me" standpoint...

*Constant Height*
*Pros:* Cinemascope/Anamorphic Widescreen (2.35/2.39/2.40:1) images take up the entire screen, so big, sweeping, epic films from Ben Hur to Braveheart to Lord of the Rings have the greatest impact, while lower aspect ratios are less impressive because they are pillar-boxed (black bars on the sides) so they aren't as large/don't fill the screen. Many make the case that this is the way it should be... a 2.35:1 film _should have_ greater impact and be more impressive than a 1.78:1 or 1.85:1 film which in turn _should have_ greater impact than reruns of Gilligan's Island in 4:3/1.33:1. _Side note #1:_ Cinemascope films are shot using an anamorphic lens on the camera to capture a widescreen image on film that has a much smaller aspect ratio. ("Academy format 35mm film is 1.37:1). By using a 2.35:1 screen with a 16:9 projector+anamorphic lens, you're basically just reversing the process in which these films were created. _Side note #2:_ Historically, Hollywood blockbusters were all shot in Cinemascope, and commercial theaters all had 2.40:1 screens. When displaying a film shot in something other than Cinemascope, they would draw curtains to mask the unused portions of the screen on both sides.
*Cons:* The new crop of cutting edge filmmakers are shooting their films digitally, in native HDTV, so the film is presented in a lower aspect ratio. A good example of this is Sin City. Robert Rodriguez used state-of-the-art equipment and techniques, shooting the film in 1080p. Should Sin City have less impact than LOTR? Certainly not if you're a huge fan of the film, but disregarding that specific film and any biases you have for/against it, the fact is that Cinemascope is film-based, and technology is moving away from that and toward digital. Do we "penalize" modern films, even those that are "state-of-the-art" simply because they don't conform to a decades-old standard?

*Constant Width*
*Pros:* Assuming a 16:9 "widescreen" screen, the biggest pro here is that the screen is the same aspect ratio as an ATSC/HDTV picture. Virtually all of the top TV shows that you watch via digital cable, satellite or OTA will fill your screen because they have the same exact A.R. Likewise, modern (digital) films (as mentioned above) will fill the screen. (Technically, Sin City at 1.85:1 would have very small black bars top and bottom; none of the options for dealing with this are overly objectionable - leave them displayed, vertically stretch the image, or zoom and project a very small amount of the image off the sides of the screen.)
*Cons:* Classic, film-based Cinemascope epics are presented with thick black bars top and bottom. They don't fill the screen and have less impact than 1.78/1.85:1 material. Should King Kong be "penalized" because Peter Jackson chose film over digital? _Side note #3:_ Just because "modern/state-of-the-art" films are shot digitally doesn't mean they can't be shown in 2.35:1. George Lucas shot the last two Star Wars episodes in digital 1080p. I don't know if he applied some sort of digital anamorphic compression or what, but almost anything is possible digitally. Ergo, it's quite possible that future SOTA films could be presented in 2.35:1.

*Constant Area*

I really can't speak to this as I've never understood it. IMO, it's so compromised that there are no pros, but I'm sure CA advocates have their reasons.


----------



## LJG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Donny Bahama* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'm going to take another stab at that from more of a "what does that mean to me" standpoint...
> 
> *Constant Height*
> *Pros:* Cinemascope/Anamorphic Widescreen (2.35/2.39/2.40:1) images take up the entire screen, so big, sweeping, epic films from Ben Hur to Braveheart to Lord of the Rings have the greatest impact, while lower aspect ratios are less impressive because they are pillar-boxed (black bars on the sides) so they aren't as large/don't fill the screen. Many make the case that this is the way it should be... a 2.35:1 film _should have_ greater impact and be more impressive than a 1.78:1 or 1.85:1 film which in turn _should have_ greater impact than reruns of Gilligan's Island in 4:3/1.33:1. _Side note #1:_ Cinemascope films are shot using an anamorphic lens on the camera to capture a widescreen image on film that has a much smaller aspect ratio. ("Academy format 35mm film is 1.37:1). By using a 2.35:1 screen with a 16:9 projector+anamorphic lens, you're basically just reversing the process in which these films were created. _Side note #2:_ Historically, Hollywood blockbusters were all shot in Cinemascope, and commercial theaters all had 2.40:1 screens. When displaying a film shot in something other than Cinemascope, they would draw curtains to mask the unused portions of the screen on both sides.
> *Cons:* The new crop of cutting edge filmmakers are shooting their films digitally, in native HDTV, so the film is presented in a lower aspect ratio. A good example of this is Sin City. Robert Rodriguez used state-of-the-art equipment and techniques, shooting the film in 1080p. Should Sin City have less impact than LOTR? Certainly not if you're a huge fan of the film, but disregarding that specific film and any biases you have for/against it, the fact is that Cinemascope is film-based, and technology is moving away from that and toward digital. Do we "penalize" modern films, even those that are "state-of-the-art" simply because they don't conform to a decades-old standard?
> 
> *Constant Width*
> *Pros:* Assuming a 16:9 "widescreen" screen, the biggest pro here is that the screen is the same aspect ratio as an ATSC/HDTV picture. Virtually all of the top TV shows that you watch via digital cable, satellite or OTA will fill your screen because they have the same exact A.R. Likewise, modern (digital) films (as mentioned above) will fill the screen. (Technically, Sin City at 1.85:1 would have very small black bars top and bottom; none of the options for dealing with this are overly objectionable - leave them displayed, vertically stretch the image, or zoom and project a very small amount of the image off the sides of the screen.)
> *Cons:* Classic, film-based Cinemascope epics are presented with thick black bars top and bottom. They don't fill the screen and have less impact than 1.78/1.85:1 material. Should King Kong be "penalized" because Peter Jackson chose film over digital? _Side note #3:_ Just because "modern/state-of-the-art" films are shot digitally doesn't mean they can't be shown in 2.35:1. George Lucas shot the last two Star Wars episodes in digital 1080p. I don't know if he applied some sort of digital anamorphic compression or what, but almost anything is possible digitally. Ergo, it's quite possible that future SOTA films could be presented in 2.35:1.
> 
> *Constant Area*
> 
> I really can't speak to this as I've never understood it. IMO, it's so compromised that there are no pros, but I'm sure CA advocates have their reasons.




With Constant Width couldn't one use a Vertical anamorphic lense and not have black bars on the top and bottom?


----------



## Steve Carr

can I use my projector for a 2.35:1 a/r. (Optoma ep758) XGA 1024x768 (4:3).

I'm using it as a 16:9 now with a screen size of 118", height 54" width 104" and pj. distance from the screen is 18-19ft. I also have a (DVDO VP30 Scaler). If so what type of lens do I use (horizontal..?)

Steve Carr.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Donny Bahama* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Cinemascope is film-based, and technology is moving away from that and toward digital.



Good point Donny, but the last 2 SW films were shot in digital, and they are 235...


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LJG* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> With Constant Width couldn't one use a Vertical anamorphic lense and not have black bars on the top and bottom?



Yes. A VC can be used to give 100% panel use for a 235 film whilst being projected on to a 16:9 screen...


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dteve Carr* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> can I use my projector for a 2.35:1 a/r. (Optoma ep758) XGA 1024x768 (4:3).
> 
> I'm using it as a 16:9 now with a screen size of 118", height 54" width 104" and pj. distance from the screen is 18-19ft. I also have a (DVDO VP30 Scaler). If so what type of lens do I use (horizontal..?)
> 
> Steve Carr.



It has been done before by using a 2x stretch (film) lens providing that you can find one with a large enough rear optic...


Mark


----------



## Tukkis




> Quote:
> Certainly not if you're a huge fan of the film, but disregarding that specific film and any biases you have for/against it, the fact is that Cinemascope is film-based, and technology is moving away from that and toward digital.



While I agree that most new TV shows are shooting for 16x9 (1.78) I think you'll notice more and more films shot are using 2.35.


Even comedies and romance these days which were traditionally 1.85 ratio films are being shot in 2.35


I think in part because lots of people have HDTV that are widescreen so they want to get more people back to the cinemas with a ratio that very few people can reproduce with the impact it's meant to have aka *2.35*


----------



## CAVX

Exactly. On new prints of adds during the pre-show, most adds are flat 1.85:1 (or maybe they are actually 1.78:1 but due to just 4% difference, who can really tell?) and are just like watching a really BIG TV. But when those curtains open up, you know your in for a treat that most will never have in their homes...


Mark


----------



## catnip911

Have any DVD players other than the Samsung HD-950 and Momitsu V880 been identified as providing the vertical stretch function for 2.35:1 content?


----------



## Donny Bahama




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> the last 2 SW films were shot in digital, and they are 235...



I know. I said that.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Donny Bahama* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Just because "modern/state-of-the-art" films are shot digitally doesn't mean they can't be shown in 2.35:1. George Lucas shot the last two Star Wars episodes in digital 1080p. I don't know if he applied some sort of digital anamorphic compression or what



Any idea what method Lucas used to go from digital 1080p to the 2.35:1 A.R.?


----------



## Donny Bahama




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tukkis* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> While I agree that most new TV shows are shooting for 16x9 (1.78) I think you'll notice more and more films shot are using 2.35.
> 
> 
> Even comedies and romance these days which were traditionally 1.85 ratio films are being shot in 2.35
> 
> 
> I think in part because lots of people have HDTV that are widescreen so they want to get more people back to the cinemas with a ratio that very few people can reproduce with the impact it's meant to have aka *2.35*



Interesting point. I hadn't noticed that, but I'm glad to hear it. I'm not sure it's a studio choice, though... generally it's the producer or director making that call.


As technology marches on and more power/capability becomes cheaper and cheaper, I think we'll start seeing indy filmmakers with scaled-down versions of Robert Rodriguez's ranch. (Sort of a "garage ILM" if you will.) As that happens, I suspect 2.35:1 will eventually become "old school". That's not to say that some of them won't opt to mask their digital creations down to 2.35, but I suspect that 2.35's days are (unfortunately) numbered. Just as multiplexes have supplanted the "El Capitan" and other iconic theaters of yesteryear, so, too, will 2.35:1 films slowly die off.







The good news is, that's probably at least a couple of decades away.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Donny Bahama* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Any idea what method Lucas used to go from digital 1080p to the 2.35:1 A.R.?



Based on footage I have seen, he kept the "action" between two horizontal lines that denoted the 2.35:1 frame on the 16:9 frame...


Mark


----------



## T.Wells




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tukkis* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> If you want to keep the lens in place all the time, you need 2.35 material vertical stretched and the lens will do the rest. For 16x9 material what you want is 4x3 mode so that the scaler/software puts black pillar bars left/right of the 16x9 image.
> 
> 
> Think of it kinda like 2.35 is like 16x9 where you use the whole panel and 16x9 is like watching 4x3 on a 16x9 projector where there is black bars left and right.
> 
> 
> Even though you're using less resolution it's not as noticeable as you think because you're still using the full resolution in height.



Is there an acceptable way of stretching a 16x9 image to 2.35:1 at this time? I was thinking about how my plasma or cable box stretches the image of SD material to fill my widescreen TV and was hoping that an HTPC or scaler could perform this function to eliminate the need for a 2-way masking system.


Thanks,

T.Wells


----------



## CAVX

Yes it can be done, but no I would not say "acceptable".


I leave the lens in place, so to watch 16:9, I use the 4 x 3 mode and the lens does the stretch. To "fill" the screen, I can use 4 x 3 ZOOM. It remains geometry correct, but chops the top and bottom off the image - hence why I can watch 235 with no black bars...


If I select the 16:9 mode, I get full screen, but the image is now stretched, both by the projector and the lens...I do get to see the full image, but it stretched...


Mark


----------



## T.Wells




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Yes it can be done, but no I would not say "acceptable".
> 
> 
> I leave the lens in place, so to watch 16:9, I use the 4 x 3 mode and the lens does the stretch. To "fill" the screen, I can use 4 x 3 ZOOM. It remains geometry correct, but chops the top and bottom off the image - hence why I can watch 235 with no black bars...
> 
> 
> If I select the 16:9 mode, I get full screen, but the image is now stretched, both by the projector and the lens...I do get to see the full image, but it stretched...
> 
> 
> Mark



Thanks Mark. It looks like I'll be adding some sort of masking system to the budget if possible. I saw a recent post listing the known CIH masking systems. Since I already have a screen ready to mount, it looks like I'll be in the market for a frame with motorized masking.


Thanks again,

T.Wells


----------



## DanLW

Okay, not sure exactly how to do the inbetween aspect ratios.


So, for 2.35:1 I simply stretch the image top to bottom. Easy enough.


For 16:9 I use pass mode with a lens, or remove it and re-adjust the projector to fill the screen top to bottom, ideally masking the left and right.


For 1.85:1...? If I'm understanding this correctly, in order to maintain proper proportions, the scaler needs to send the image to the projector with pillars on the side. Is this only accomplishable through advanced HTPC software or scalers - not through standard "16:9, zoom, letterbox" settings included in DVD software packages, and some projectors?


And on an un-related question, does anybody make a lens which would allow a projector such as the HC3000 (1280x768) to use the full pannel with proper geometry? Or am I getting a little too anal with wanting to get those extra 48 pixels on a CH setup?


Note: I don't have an HC3000, but it's on my short list of possible purchases.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DanLW* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Okay, not sure exactly how to do the inbetween aspect ratios.
> 
> 
> So, for 2.35:1 I simply stretch the image top to bottom. Easy enough.



Correct. You will then either optically stretch (HE) or compress the image (VC)...


> Quote:
> For 16:9 I use pass mode with a lens, or remove it and re-adjust the projector to fill the screen top to bottom, ideally masking the left and right.



With a HE, there should be no adjustment required (ISCO II is the exception) apart from maybe some slight re-focus...



> Quote:
> For 1.85:1...? If I'm understanding this correctly, in order to maintain proper proportions, the scaler needs to send the image to the projector with pillars on the side. Is this only accomplishable through advanced HTPC software or scalers - not through standard "16:9, zoom, letterbox" settings included in DVD software packages, and some projectors?



Correct, you will need a scaler or HTPC for precise imaging. Most projectors will not allow you to see the 4% difference using 4 x 3 ZOOM of letterbox modes...



> Quote:
> And on an un-related question, does anybody make a lens which would allow a projector such as the HC3000 (1280x768) to use the full pannel with proper geometry? Or am I getting a little too anal with wanting to get those extra 48 pixels on a CH setup?
> 
> 
> Note: I don't have an HC3000, but it's on my short list of possible purchases.



The amount of horizontal squeeze applied electrically to a DVD (and DTV) is 33%. All anamorphic lenses for video are designed for a 33% stretch or compression to offset the standard amount. The projector you have listed is not a native 1.78:1, but rather 1.66:1. The only way to use the full panel is to employ a scaler, or your images will be a tad thin...


Mark


----------



## DanLW

Thanks, that answers a bit. So if I understand correctly, for 1.85:1, the projector's 4:3 mode zoomed will get the image within 4% of correct geometry - not very noticeable unless perhaps a circle is displayed.


For all those oddball aspect ratios (1.66:1, 2.2:1, 2:1, etc) I guess it's best to just get a scaler and program it for all the different formats? Or are all DVD transfers from the oddball formats cropped to one of the more standard formats?


I'm going to start looking into DIY for now as getting a proper lens is too expensive for me right now. I'll be the one with the ghetto 2.35:1 CH setup. I'm even using a 4:3 projector at 800x600. I'd like to find out how to make a lens which will squish 4:3 to 2.35:1, but if I can't find that, or if even DIY is a bit pricy, I may just make a 16:9 which will work with this projector, and a future 16:9 projector.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DanLW* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Thanks, that answers a bit. So if I understand correctly, for 1.85:1, the projector's 4:3 mode zoomed will get the image within 4% of correct geometry - not very noticeable unless perhaps a circle is displayed.



What I am finding with my set up is that 1.78:1 and 1.85:1 both look the same. Geometry (circle test) is the same for both because the amount of electric squeeze Vs the optic stretch does not change. My projector has at least 5% overscan, so I am not seeing the slight difference, where there should be a slight picture width increase...



> Quote:
> For all those oddball aspect ratios (1.66:1, 2.2:1, 2:1, etc) I guess it's best to just get a scaler and program it for all the different formats? Or are all DVD transfers from the oddball formats cropped to one of the more standard formats?



Whilst a scaler would be the best form of control, the DVD transfers them selves may not be faithful to the published AR on the pack. Again, film NOT quite 1.78:1 tends to get cropped by my set up because I choose to use 4 x 3 + lens to do 16:9., and 4 x 3 ZOOM + lens to do 12:9, so I have really just two ARs. If something "oddball" is present (the original Top Gun @ 2.00:1), I have to make the choice as to what is less offensive - slight cropping the top and bottom (wider than 16:9, but less than 21:9) or small black bars on the 16:9 mode...


Mark


----------



## cpc

I have asked this elsewhere, but since this thread is merrily zooming along, perhaps I will ask it here too. Assuming you have a constant height setup with a 16:9 projector, a lens that horizontally expands 1.33x or does 1/3 vertical compression, and a 2.35:1 screen that you use the full height for both 16:9 and 2.35:1. What do you do for the few dvd's between 1.85:1 and 2.35:1.


Since most lens' stretch the image 1.33x or compress it 1/3 .. how can you utlize the most of your 2.35:1 screen with movies between 1.85:1 and 2.35:1? Normally, you take a 16:9 image that has black bars (a 2.35:1 dvd for example) and you use the lens because 1.78:1 x 1.33 = 2.35:1 (or very close). How do you use the lens and screen for movies in 2.0:1 and 2.20:1 for instance? Would you have to calculate custom aspect ratio's so that after the lens the image is the proper aspect ratio requiring custom height and width? A 2.20:1 movie on a 2.35:1 screen that is constant height would not be the full width, of course. And movies wider than 2.35:1 would have black bars top and bottom but be full width. I am assuming that most people view 1.85:1 as is and put up with the black bars, but if you can go custom for the other in between AR's, there is nothing stopping you from using the full height of your 2.35:1 screen for 1.85:1 dvd's too.


So does anybody have experience using a constant height setup with dvd's that are 2.0:1 or 2.20:1 for example? Were you able to use the full height of your 2.35:1 screen and have the proper aspect ratio? If you did not use the lens, you would of course have black bars top and bottom and on the sides. If you accomplished this, what processor did you use? I am hoping an iScan HD+ can accomplish this.


thanx for any feedback,


----------



## Tukkis

You have a couple of options:


1) Buy a lens that allows variable stretch. EG. Prismasonic


2) Use a fixed lens and have presets on the scaler for all ratios form 1.33-2.66+.


Vertical is more important than horizontal resolution so with constant height all the ratios use full vertical height. So even if you leave the lens on and ratios between 1.85-2.35 have slight bars left and right I doubt you'll notice much of a difference.


And there's not that many DVD's that use those formats so its not really a big deal.


----------



## cpc

Ok, fair enough. Thanx.


----------



## Cineplex_Dave




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cineplex_Dave* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> -- this is an excerpt from promo e-mail to DWIN dealers. I thought it might have relevance to this thread. I think this essentialy does the same thing as a Runco "Cinewide" projector but a much less expensive option...Sorry about the dupe post...I didn't know how to cross reference posts (or even if that's possible!)



_DWIN's TranScanner Processor Fully Displays Anamorphic (2.35) DVDs.

Recently several DWIN dealers have expressed interest in so-called super wide projection systems that can fully display a 2.35 aspect ratio image on a similarly sized screen. You should know that DWIN has offered this capability in its projectors since 2003!


One of the many advantages of DWIN's innovative TransVision 4 DLP projection system is the ability to independently control both the vertical and horizontal size of an image.


To fill a 2.35:1 projection screen, you may wish to consider commercially available optical lens attachments that use prisms to vertically compress or horizontally expand a picture. For example, Panamorph, Inc. manufactures a $1,495 lens fixture that optically expands a picture to fill a 2.35:1 aspect ratio screen. You simply use the DWIN Custom Image setup function to stretch an image vertically to eliminate top and bottom black bars. The lens attachment expands the image to normalize the aspect ratio.


Some screen manufacturers sell variable aspect ratio solutions with a motorized control that withdraws a shadow mask to widen the screen. You can program custom image mode in the DWIN TransVision 4 processor (as described above) to change to a custom image format as the screen shadow mask retracts.


Selling the DWIN with an anamorphic lens attachment solution can exceed the picture quality and performance of competitors systems costing two or three times the price!_


----------



## Clams Canino




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jamin* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> A way of thinking about this is that the vertical squeeze lens does not affect the throw distance whereas a horizontal stretch lens decreases the throw.
> 
> 
> 
> ************************************************




I found this sentence the most interesting... as I have limited throw possibilities.


-W


----------



## Tukkis




> Quote:
> found this sentence the most interesting... as I have limited throw possibilities.



It means that with a vertical lens, you have to zoom the 16x9 pre lens image to the width you want 2.35 and then the lens compresses the picture vertically down.


Whereas a horiztonal lens allows you to set up the projector for the 16x9 image size you want for constant height and then add the lens which increases the with of the image for 2.35. This allows you to put the projector closer as the 16x9 constant height image is smaller in width.


----------



## Clams Canino




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tukkis* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> It means that with a vertical lens, you have to zoom the 16x9 pre lens image to the width you want 2.35 and then the lens compresses the picture vertically down.
> 
> 
> Whereas a horiztonal lens allows you to set up the projector for the 16x9 image size you want for constant height and then add the lens which increases the with of the image for 2.35. This allows you to put the projector closer as the 16x9 constant height image is smaller in width.



Yes I got that... that's what I like about horizontal stretch...I have a limited throw area.










-W


----------



## Avatar74

Few things to add...


The early CinemaScope films had aspect ratios of 2.66:1 and 2.55:1 (when stereo was introduced). By the time of its decline in the late 1960's, CinemaScope's aspect ratio was 2.39:1. With rare exceptions, such as two-perf non-anamorphic widescreen, almost all 2.40:1 films since 1967 have been filmed in Panavision.


Panavision's aspect ratio is 2.39:1 or 2.40:1. Neither Panavision nor CinemaScope actually use a 2.35:1 aspect ratio. The Panavision optics which replaced CinemaScope were far improved in that they eliminated what you might notice in CinemaScope films as a horizontal distortion (due to the decrease in anamorphic power as focal length decreased) during one-shot or two-shot close ups.


Therefore, older CinemaScope films are probably not the best reference material for constant height setups... and a constant height screen probably should be slightly wider, IMO, to match the far more prevalent 2.40:1 aspect ratio that is almost always and very erroneously referred to as 2.35:1 or "Scope" aspect.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Avatar74* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> and a constant height screen probably should be slightly wider, IMO, to match the far more prevalent 2.40:1 aspect ratio that is almost always and very erroneously referred to as 2.35:1 or "Scope" aspect.



Whilst film has its own set of standards, video is something else. The video anamorphic adaptors are all based on 33% stretch or compression so 1.7777777 x 1.3333333 = 2.370370369 or 2.37:1 (rounded) so is slightly wider than 2.35:1...


Mark


----------



## Clams Canino

Ya but.????


Are they still truely 2.40:1 on the DVD's or do they shave a few pixels off each side making the DVD version of Panavision truely 2.35:1 after all??? After all, we watch DVD's, not films, with our setups.










-W


----------



## CAVX

I would say it depends on who does the transfer.


I was watching some "scope" material the other day on a projector that has no overscan issues and there was a small pillar of black on the right hand side only so the image was not centred, yet the projector was. The DVD cover said 235, but I bet if you measured the image it was 232:1...WSR point this kind of thing out all the time...


I switched discs (another film claiming to be 235), and the image uses the full width of the panel...


Mark


----------



## billymac

okay, i'll bite. this all looks very interesting. i've read the faq along with this thread. i own an in72 and an in76. both with 92" diag 16:9 screens. my throws are very different. for my in72 it's roughtly a 14.5' throw and for my in76 it's about 12'. i'd love to try this out with one of my two setups, but i have some questions.


the prismasonic with pass thru sounds a little more interesting to me because i can leave it in place as i understand it. i'm not in the market money wise to invest in an external scalar at this point in time, so i'm hoping to do this as cheaply as posslble.


Here are my sources:

Comcast Moto 6412 DVR

Bravo D1

HTPC 6600GT DVI and ZP

Toshiba HD-A1


questions:


1. anybody using either of these two projectors with their CIH setup?


2. with the prismasonic, i will have full control with the pass thru dials and the aspect button on my INXX remote right? no other settings to mess with as long as i'm set to 16x9 on my sources right?


3. what happens to HD-DVD sources with CIH?


4. screens. hhhmmm, this could be the toughest part of all. WAF is going to be huge on this one. ideally it would be sweet to have something that could either pull down or be hung right in front of my current screen. i'm guessing i'll have to go DIY? any good threads on this? i'd absolutely love to have a little larger cinemascope style screen.


5. can someone recommend the right prismasonic for me?


tia


----------



## CAVX

I can help with some...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *billymac* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> okay, i'll bite. this all looks very interesting. i've read the faq along with this thread. i own an in72 and an in76. both with 92" diag 16:9 screens. my throws are very different. for my in72 it's roughtly a 14.5' throw and for my in76 it's about 12'. i'd love to try this out with one of my two setups, but i have some questions.



Your 92" screens equate to (according to the Da-Lite screen calculator) 80.18" wide. This gives you a trow ratio of 2.17 for the in72 and 1.79 for the in76.


The Prismasonic lenses work best with higher TRs (around 1.8), so you should be right with either or both of your projectors. You will of course need a wider screen and I would suggest that a screen as large as wide as 107" (115"dia) would work best to give you a CIH...



> Quote:
> the prismasonic with pass thru sounds a little more interesting to me because i can leave it in place as i understand it. i'm not in the market money wise to invest in an external scalar at this point in time, so i'm hoping to do this as cheaply as posslble.



The H series are designed for CIH with a pass through mode. If you were to chose their V series, then you could simply use your existing screen, but your "scope" image (the one that is supposed to be *larger* would in fact be smaller, and your set up would be a CIW, not CIH.


I'll let someone else help out with the other questions...


Mark


----------



## bmrr

Hey Billymac and all,


Just wondering what you decided in regards to your IN72... In light of the prismasonic offer, I'm debating the H700 offer and would like to know if anybody has an input for this combination??? Currently, I'm projecting 11' from the wall with a diagonal of 84" and width of 73". Is the recessed lens an issue?


----------



## Farout777

I've got a ?, I'm in the process of completing my HT and was thinking about the Mits HC 5000 with a Carada 2.35 @ 112" . projection distance is approx 15' with ceiling mount. My ? is with the projector set in cinema scope mode will it fill the screen w/o black bars when using movies that are 2.35 AR. Thanx in advance and sorry for a newbie ? ....


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Farout777* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I've got a ?, I'm in the process of completing my HT and was thinking about the Mits HC 5000 with a Carada 2.35 @ 112" . projection distance is approx 15' with ceiling mount. My ? is with the projector set in cinema scope mode will it fill the screen w/o black bars when using movies that are 2.35 AR. Thanx in advance and sorry for a newbie ? ....



Only if you use an anamorphic lens. If you choose to ZOOM the image, you'll be projecting the black bars off the top and the bottom and wasting precious vertical pixels. It is also a PITA to realign the projector each time you change between 235 and 16:9...


Mark


----------



## Farout777

When SCREEN SIZE of ADVANCED MENU is set to CINEMA SCOPE(2.35:1) in the IMAGE menu, STRETCH

cannot be selected for ASPECT.


SCREEN SIZE

You can keep the image display area within the screen by setting SCREEN SIZE in the ADVANCED MENU of IMAGE

menu according to the size of the actual screen.

When setting SCREEN SIZE to CINEMA SCOPE(2.35:1):

CinemaScope size movies are projected in the full screen.


Both entries above are out of the manual of the Mits HC 5000, are they talking about a 16x9 screen? Don't mean to be a PITA but this is new territory for me and I want something thats going to look good, the projector is pushing what I wanted to spend but I want to kinda future-proof my investment.


Thanx in advance!!


----------



## CAVX

It sounds like it will crop the "scope" image back to 16:9 to "fill" the 16:9 screen. This technically is CIH as there are no black bars, but you do so at the expense of OAR.


The *only* way to use the *full* panel of the projector to display a full "scope" film is to "scale' the image. This then makes the image look tall and thin and it will not be geometrically correct. The anamorphic lens will then restore the geometry and produce an image much wider, at the same height (for HE lenses)...


Go to MY BLOG to see how CIH works...


Mark


----------



## Farout777

Thanx for the input everyone, it's Greatly Appreciated. I'll post pix when the project is complete in a month or so.







By the way CAVX, nice blog !!


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Farout777* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> By the way CAVX, nice blog !!



Thanks, I hope it was useful










Mark


----------



## Rosano

So is there a chart that gives various screen sizes for a 2:35 Ratio?


In my case I have a 96x54 in screen with the PJ mounted 12 feet away. The max width I have is 13 ft or 156 inches.


So what XxX would I end up with that could work in my room.


Thanks


----------



## McCall

It would depend on where you are putting your speakers, if you have an AT screen and put them behind it then if you used the 156" wide it would be by 66" high. OR if you used the 54" height you have now, probably a good idea, it would be 127" wide.


----------



## cpc

Does anybody stretch 4:3 TV show dvd's and other 4:3 material horizontally using a video processor/dvd player and then squeeze it horizontally to make full use of the lamp and lcd panel / dlp chip etc? What lens would allow this to work best?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cpc* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Does anybody stretch 4:3 TV show dvd's and other 4:3 material horizontally using a video processor/dvd player and then squeeze it horizontally to make full use of the lamp and lcd panel / dlp chip etc? What lens would allow this to work best?



No but I can stretch 4 x 3 on the 16:9 panel, then turn my lens around to form a HC and restore the geometry that way...


Mark


----------



## cpc

That is exactly what I meant. I will try that with my prisms. We need to get together and form our own lens company in order to get bulk anti-reflective coatings on our prisms


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cpc* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> We need to get together and form our own lens company in order to get bulk anti-reflective coatings on our prisms



And there goes our DIY savings










Mark


----------



## kheiden

There is a closed thread on the avsforum site that has a listing of what gear is available to accomlish a 2.35 setup. There hasn't been an update in some time to the listing of DVD players that support vertical stretch. Momitsu is the only one listed and their web site doesn't say that the v880, or any of the subsequent models have that capability. Is there a newer list of DVD players that have this feature?


I'm using an HTPC right now but I'd like the conenience of just popping a disc in without having to boot Windows. I also love the networking capabilities of the Momitsu v880N model but I have no idea if it can perform vertical stretch.


----------



## cpc

I am not aware of a dvd player that does the vertical stretch. Is there one?


An iScan HD+ (or maybe even the iScan HD) can do it. They aren't too expensive anymore and they are useful in that you can use it for any and all of your dvd players and other sources and it does a variable vertical stretch so that you can do all aspect ratio's that your lens can do, anything from 1.78:1 to 2.37:1.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cpc* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I am not aware of a dvd player that does the vertical stretch. Is there one?



All played set to 16:9 can do the scaling - they simply output the signal "tall and skinny" when set to 16:9. The problem is if the projector will display it like that or lock up to 16:9.


There a few players that do vertical stretch including Samsung and someone even posted a photo from a Sony that not only did the scaling, but also subtitle relocation...


Mark


----------



## f430




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> All played set to 16:9 can do the scaling - they simply output the signal "tall and skinny" when set to 16:9. The problem is if the projector will display it like that or lock up to 16:9.
> 
> 
> There a few players that do vertical stretch including Samsung and someone even posted a photo from a Sony that not only did the scaling, but also subtitle relocation...
> 
> 
> Mark




I would also like an updated list to the closed thread about the hardware, as I may consider a projector that doesn't do the stretch if I get a DVD player that does.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=537491 


Thanks!


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *f430* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I would also like an updated list to the closed thread about the hardware, as I may consider a projector that doesn't do the stretch if I get a DVD player that does.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=537491
> 
> 
> Thanks!



Are you (will you be) using an external scaler? To get the "scaled" image on screen, required both the source (DVD player set to 16:9) and the projector (able to display the "scaled" image) with at least 4 x 3 zoom AKA letterbox. You can not have just one...


Mark


PS you need to email Alan with your request for the updated list...


----------



## uxbridge

Pardon me if I have posted these questions in the wrong thread?


What are the advantages/ disadvantages of a curved screen?


What considerations must be addressed to accomplish this type of screen, ie: equipment, installation, final setup?


thanks in advance


Bill


----------



## cpc

I'm finding that having a CIH definitely make it harder to find a proper screen. I guess if I want to migrate from blackout material I have to do a build your own. My screen is about 50" x 118" for 2.37:1. Not sure if I want grey or white, but nothing too high in gain.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *uxbridge* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Pardon me if I have posted these questions in the wrong thread?
> 
> 
> What are the advantages/ disadvantages of a curved screen?
> 
> 
> What considerations must be addressed to accomplish this type of screen, ie: equipment, installation, final setup?
> 
> 
> thanks in advance
> 
> 
> Bill



The advantages of a curved screen is that the curvature can correct effects such as pincushion which may be caused by adding an anamorphic lens. Typically, the shorter the throw, the worse the pincushion becomes which is why some using lenses here don't require a curved screen.


The exact curve will be projector/lens/room dependent, so why they cost way more than flat screens...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cpc* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'm finding that having a CIH definitely make it harder to find a proper screen. I guess if I want to migrate from blackout material I have to do a build your own. My screen is about 50" x 118" for 2.37:1. Not sure if I want grey or white, but nothing too high in gain.



Are you referring to flat or curved?


Mark


----------



## f430




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Are you (will you be) using an external scaler? To get the "scaled" image on screen, required both the source (DVD player set to 16:9) and the projector (able to display the "scaled" image) with at least 4 x 3 zoom AKA letterbox. You can not have just one...
> 
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> PS you need to email Alan with your request for the updated list...



Thank you for the clarification. I was hoping that if picking a projector that did not stretch vertically that there was a DVD player that would output the full vertical image to avoid an external scaler before the projector. It seems that is not the case.


----------



## cpc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The advantages of a curved screen is that the curvature can correct effects such as pincushion which may be caused by adding an anamorphic lens. Typically, the shorter the throw, the worse the pincushion becomes which is why some using lenses here don't require a curved screen.
> 
> 
> The exact curve will be projector/lens/room dependent, so why they cost way more than flat screens...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you referring to flat or curved?
> 
> 
> Mark



Probably flat. In my current setup, my screen image has only slightly distorted geometry at the edges and my next projector will be longer throw, so a flat screen will be fine.


I could probably keep my own screen frame, but I wouldn't mind trying some screen material. Not sure if I want grey or white, but nothing that has a huge gain, say 1.1 to 1.4 gain max).


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *f430* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Thank you for the clarification. I was hoping that if picking a projector that did not stretch vertically that there was a DVD player that would output the full vertical image to avoid an external scaler before the projector. It seems that is not the case.



There are a few DVD players that will provide the scaling, but I feel it better to find a HQ player that works with the projector.


I have the both an older interlaced Toshiba as well as the Samsung HD950 (which does full scaling with both Vertical Stretch and Horizontal Squeeze and sub-title relocation), but this player hard clips the blacks and whites (if that is important to you) so is not my primary player. The older Toshiba passes PLUGE and IMHO gives a much better picture (even if it is only SD)...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cpc* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Probably flat. In my current setup, my screen image has only slightly distorted geometry at the edges and my next projector will be longer throw, so a flat screen will be fine.
> 
> 
> I could probably keep my own screen frame, but I wouldn't mind trying some screen material. Not sure if I want grey or white, but nothing that has a huge gain, say 1.1 to 1.4 gain max).



Best to get samples from a few manufactures and watch a film










Mark


----------



## MohaimenK

A dumb question, but I don't know much about 2.35:1. But I just realized that my projector can do 2.35:1 internally. It's a Mitsubishi 3000U. So, would I still need to get a lens? Will it conver all the pictures to 235:1, even if it's a 4:3?? I am so anxoius to go home and find out but just wanted to know if anyone could tell me? Thanks


----------



## MohaimenK

Nevermind, I guess it wont' work with my HD DVD movies since the most it will accept is 576p...maybe I am not understanding this 2.35:1 correctly....bummer


----------



## Tukkis




> Quote:
> A dumb question, but I don't know much about 2.35:1. But I just realized that my projector can do 2.35:1 internally. It's a Mitsubishi 3000U. So, would I still need to get a lens? Will it conver all the pictures to 235:1, even if it's a 4:3?? I am so anxoius to go home and find out but just wanted to know if anyone could tell me? Thanks



You still need the lens because you need to stretch the image back into correct proportions.


The stretch the projector gives makes everything tall and skinny whilst using the projectors full resolution and brightness.


The lens corrects the tall and skinny image so it looks correct, all the while having the advantages of the projectors full brightness and resolution.


----------



## Tukkis




> Quote:
> Nevermind, I guess it wont' work with my HD DVD movies since the most it will accept is 576p...maybe I am not understanding this 2.35:1 correctly....bummer



It just means it wont stretch HD signals. In that case you'll need some other way to stretch the image. Eg, Dedicated Scaler


----------



## McCall




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *f430* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Thank you for the clarification. I was hoping that if picking a projector that did not stretch vertically that there was a DVD player that would output the full vertical image to avoid an external scaler before the projector. It seems that is not the case.




Yes there are there are some Samsung models that do the stretch the HD860 I believe it is and the newer one 950 Perhaps? I don't have access to the information at the moment. I bought the 860 I think it was exactly for that purpose.


----------



## Prof.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *f430* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Thank you for the clarification. I was hoping that if picking a projector that did not stretch vertically that there was a DVD player that would output the full vertical image to avoid an external scaler before the projector. It seems that is not the case.




I've just bought a Samsung HD860 and it does the vertical stretch required..

It is a great little player, and when set correctly gives EXCELLENT Blacks and whites through component..


----------



## f430




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Prof.* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I've just bought a Samsung HD860 and it does the vertical stretch required..
> 
> It is a great little player, and when set correctly gives EXCELLENT Blacks and whites through component..




Excellent thank you for the update!!! Much appreciated.


----------



## CAVX

The Samsung HD-950 is also good over component (480i only). It hard clips the blacks and whites over HDMI and when upscaling - 480p, 720p and 1080i...


Mark


----------



## Jonathanengr

Okay--this totally stinks. I just ordered an HDTV (1.78:1) screen for my projector, and in hindsight would have definitely gone for a "constant height" setup. I had actually planned to make different "drops" out of black felt, dowel rods and magnets to affix to my case and adjust the "height" of the image to make a 2.35:1 screen. Thus, my 106" HDTV (52" by 92") screen would become a 39" by 92" cinemascope screen. Is this possible??? The way I understand it is my electric screen drops to the exact same point every time it opens. I can simply create this mask to hang from the projector frame when I watch cinemascope features, and viola! Problem fixed! Or is it???? What exactly happens when I project a 2.35:1 movie from my 16:9 HD projector (the projector I plan to buy is the Panny PY-AX100U). Will it not show the entire contents of a 2.35:1 film without warping? I'm totally confused here. Or will it simply display the film as a 39" by 92" image, and I'll have to adjust my screen/projector accordingly?


I had also thought about this option... a permanent, small (4" or so) felt piece hanging down from my electric screen, and I can simply drop the screen more-or-less depending on my needs (to frame the perfect setting). The electric screen I bought was the contour electrol from Da-Lite. Will I be able to stop the up and down motion of the screen at any point I wish?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jonathanengr* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Okay--this totally stinks. I just ordered an HDTV (1.78:1) screen for my projector, and in hindsight would have definitely gone for a "constant height" setup. I had actually planned to make different "drops" out of black felt, dowel rods and magnets to affix to my case and adjust the "height" of the image to make a 2.35:1 screen. Thus, my 106" HDTV (52" by 92") screen would become a 39" by 92" cinemascope screen. Is this possible???



Yes you could do that...



> Quote:
> The way I understand it is my electric screen drops to the exact same point every time it opens. I can simply create this mask to hang from the projector frame when I watch cinemascope features, and viola! Problem fixed! Or is it???? What exactly happens when I project a 2.35:1 movie from my 16:9 HD projector (the projector I plan to buy is the Panny PY-AX100U). Will it not show the entire contents of a 2.35:1 film without warping? I'm totally confused here. Or will it simply display the film as a 39" by 92" image, and I'll have to adjust my screen/projector accordingly?



You best solution is to buy a VC lens. Panamorph have a sale for them right now. The image can be scaled (does this projector do HD?) to produce the "scaled image" - I am assuming that is what you meant by "warped" so that it removes the black bars and makes the image look tall and thin. The VC will optically compress the image to restore geometry - best of both world...



> Quote:
> I had also thought about this option... a permanent, small (4" or so) felt piece hanging down from my electric screen, and I can simply drop the screen more-or-less depending on my needs (to frame the perfect setting). The electric screen I bought was the contour electrol from Da-Lite. Will I be able to stop the up and down motion of the screen at any point I wish?



In your case, I say get the VC lens...


Mark


----------



## norpus




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Yes you could do that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You best solution is to buy a VC lens. Panamorph have a sale for them right now. The image can be scaled (does this projector do HD?) to produce the "scaled image" - I am assuming that is what you meant by "warped" so that it removes the black bars and makes the image look tall and thin. The VC will optically compress the image to restore geometry - best of both world...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In your case, I say get the VC lens...
> 
> 
> Mark



Or a CAVX lens - Mark I think your lens also does VC as well as HE does it not?


----------



## CAVX

Thanks Norpus, yes it can, but I have not been promoting that angle too much...


Mark


----------



## ambientcafe

Hi. Do you know if the new affordably priced Geffen Home Theater Scaler Plus does "Mode 2 Scaling' (as referred to by Panamorph) for fixed CIH 2.35 setups? My Panny PTAX100 does the necessary vertical stretch, however all 1.78 content also gets stretched out to 2.35, resulting in the top and bottom of the frame being cut off. Would the above mentioned scaler restore the corresponding pillar boxes for 1.85 or 1.33 content, preserving the whole image? The Geffen product offers 5 preset aspect ratios only, including : 'Overscan/Underscan/Letterbox/1.33 and Pan&Scan'. Unfortunately, these terms don't mean much to me in relation to my queries, although their tech support tells me that their product fixes the missing subtitles dilemma faced by owners of 2.35 CIH setups. Thanks for listening...Matt.


----------



## CAVX

Matt,


If your leaving the lens in place all the time, you will need to use the 4 x 3 mode on the projector for 16:9 program and your use the LBX for "Scope". This (4 x 3 mode) allows you to see the full height of the frame and provides the so called "horizontal squeeze" needed to work with the lens. This works for SD, but I am not sure if it will work for HD sources. You may need that scaler...


Mark


----------



## ambientcafe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Matt,
> 
> 
> If your leaving the lens in place all the time, you will need to use the 4 x 3 mode on the projector for 16:9 program and your use the LBX for "Scope". This (4 x 3 mode) allows you to see the full height of the frame and provides the so called "horizontal squeeze" needed to work with the lens. This works for SD, but I am not sure if it will work for HD sources. You may need that scaler...
> 
> 
> Mark



Thanks Mark...I will try that...I'll let you know if this works for HD content as well...Thanks also for your assistance in the past...your presence on AVS is a real boon for the site...Matt from Canada.


----------



## CAVX

Thanks Matt, I enjoy helping where I can...


Mark


----------



## richcolorado

This thread is very informative. I had been designing my HT for a 16:9 screen but after seeing the JVC RS-1 2:35 package at Infocomm this week, I have decided to go with 2:35. I had been planning on using a 100" 16:9 screen. Since I will view both formats, I would like to maximize the size for each. With a 2.35 screen at that same width, I am would only have a 40" image height, w hcih will look rather small on 16:9 material. I would like to go up a size so that I end up with an large image for both formats. In my original design I was going to be seated back at about 1.6 or 1.7 times the screen width. It was my understanding that this was a good place to be. Should I follow that same rule of thumb for 2:35, or is OK to be seated closer? I have not found any threads that adress this. Thanks.


----------



## CAVX

When I had my house, I had two rows of seating based on 36degrees (1.54x image width) for each AR - 1.78 and 2.37. This was done for the exact reasons you mentioned above - not wanting the smaller AR to look small. However, once the system was up and running, I choose the back row for all ARs - even 1.33:1.


The true beauty of CIH is that - the image height never changes, just the width, and once you find your comfortable seating distance based on the image height (which is what we are more sensitive to), you will find that it looks great for everything.


Use THIS diagram to help work out the best seating distance for your room. Erik has since upgraded this chart with all of the industry standards...


Mark


----------



## richcolorado

Thanks for the info! Rich


----------



## Jonathanengr

Ugh, ugh, ugh. I've had months to get everything set up, and I've procrastinated. Now I'm in a crunch trying to figure everything out.


I have purchased an electric screen from Da-Lite, and it's a 106-inch screen in 16:9 format. I've still not decided on a projector, but for now I'm likely going to lean towards a 720p (Panny PT-AX100U). Now--I really want the capability of viewing all image formats, so what is the best way for me to do this? Here's what I'm thinking, and bash me if I'm incorrect:


The 16:9 screen is already perfect for HDTV and such, thus I'll need to do little, if anything, to adjust here.


2.35:1... here's the kicker. I was thinking of putting a small drop at the top of the screen, and would simply adjust the screen up or down until I achieve the appropriate height for the picture size, creating the 2.35:1 width/height ratio. The bad thing here is that I'll lose some of the lumens (since I'll be using only a portion of the pixels), and I'll have to manually adjust the vertical pictur eoffset to re-center it on the screen. Is this a correct assumption? If I dought an anamorphic lens, will the only thing it will help do is increase image brightness? (Since I'll be using all fo the pixels).


What I don't get is what/why/how some projectors aren't anamorphic compatible. I read something about that with the JVC-RS1. Is the Panny I'm looking at buying compatible with what I want to do? Also, why don't more projector companies make remote motorized focus/lens shift adjustments? Is there a projector in the sub-$2000 range with these features? I don't even see it much on more expensive 1080p versions other than the Sony.


Anyway, I would really appreciate any suggestions. We're slated to move in at the end of August, and all of the a/v equipment will begin installation in a couple of weeks. Thanks!


----------



## McCall

I don't think it is a question of whether some projectors are not anamorphic compatible, it is more does the specific application, [the room, distance to screen size of screen etc., so the throw ratio] may not work for some people and some projectors.


You are talking about using a Verticle compression lens from what I can tell from your post so yes basically it will be brighter since you use all the pixels to fill the same space as before.


----------



## CAVX

I think he is referring to the lack of Vertical Stretch with HD sources from some models unlike the ones I saw at CEDIA today...


Mark


----------



## warrior11

what an info!!


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *warrior11* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> what an info!!



We try










Mark


----------



## Marc Rumsey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jonathanengr* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Ugh, ugh, ugh. I've had months to get everything set up, and I've procrastinated. Now I'm in a crunch trying to figure everything out.
> 
> 
> I have purchased an electric screen from Da-Lite, and it's a 106-inch screen in 16:9 format. I've still not decided on a projector, but for now I'm likely going to lean towards a 720p (Panny PT-AX100U). Now--I really want the capability of viewing all image formats, so what is the best way for me to do this? Here's what I'm thinking, and bash me if I'm incorrect:
> 
> 
> The 16:9 screen is already perfect for HDTV and such, thus I'll need to do little, if anything, to adjust here.
> 
> 
> 2.35:1... here's the kicker. I was thinking of putting a small drop at the top of the screen, and would simply adjust the screen up or down until I achieve the appropriate height for the picture size, creating the 2.35:1 width/height ratio. The bad thing here is that I'll lose some of the lumens (since I'll be using only a portion of the pixels), and I'll have to manually adjust the vertical pictur eoffset to re-center it on the screen. Is this a correct assumption? If I dought an anamorphic lens, will the only thing it will help do is increase image brightness? (Since I'll be using all fo the pixels).
> 
> 
> What I don't get is what/why/how some projectors aren't anamorphic compatible. I read something about that with the JVC-RS1. Is the Panny I'm looking at buying compatible with what I want to do? Also, why don't more projector companies make remote motorized focus/lens shift adjustments? Is there a projector in the sub-$2000 range with these features? I don't even see it much on more expensive 1080p versions other than the Sony.
> 
> 
> Anyway, I would really appreciate any suggestions. We're slated to move in at the end of August, and all of the a/v equipment will begin installation in a couple of weeks. Thanks!



Hello,

There are a couple things you may want to think about here....


First off, you are correct that with a 16:9 screen, your idea is the simplest, most straightforward setup. As you stated, when using this setup with a 2.35:1 inmage, you'll lose roughly 25% of the pixels (and therefore brightness). Now, the brightness shouldn't be an issue since the PT-AX100 is a bright projector and your screen isn't overly large.


What you gain from 2.35:1 if you used an anamorphic lens....

1) Obviously you'd gain brightness since you'd be using all of your pixels.

2) You would be able to get a wider screen at the same throw distance (assuming you use a horizontal expansion lens).


What you'd lose from 2.35:1 with a lens....

The main thing is money









You would have to buy a scaler with the PT-AX100 (and most others as you noted) to do the vertical stretch and obviously there's the cost of the lens. In addition, you have the larger screen purchase, which is more money.


About your idea on adjusting the amount of material that comes out of your screen: If you have a tensioned screen, you may get waves and wrinkles since the tensioning is designed to work with it fully extended. If non-tensioned, you can do it, but there would be a lot of manual adjustments.


I would highly recommend NOT adding drop toi your screen yourself (for many reasons, but mostly you'll void your warranty).


I hope this helps!


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Marc Rumsey* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> You would have to buy a scaler with the PT-AX100



Doesn't the PT-AX100 do the vertical Stretch? I'm sure others have posted that it does, even for HD sources...


Mark


----------



## sk8conz

The AX-100 does indeed do vertical stretch for SD content.


I can't comment on HD content


----------



## Marc Rumsey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Doesn't the PT-AX100 do the vertical Stretch? I'm sure others have posted that it does, even for HD sources...
> 
> 
> Mark




I stand corrected!










I didn't think the AX100 had that, but I checked the manual this weekend to double check - and yes, you can do vertical stretch.


----------



## Jason Turk

I'll tell you it is confusing keeping all these projectors that do and do not have the necessary stretch straight!


----------



## planbbob

I cannot find info regarding vertical stretch from this PJ. I assume, therefore, that it cannot. If that is true, since I have to buy a DVD player anyways, is this the 2nd best route to CIH?


Thanks for the help.


Bob


----------



## CAVX

Does it have a 4 x 3 zoom or letter box mode?


Mark


----------



## DarthBuck

planbbob, the epson's (400, 800, 810, 1080, etc.) don't have a scaler for vertical stretch built-in, unfortunately. you'll need to purchase an external scaler, or find a dvd player with this capability.


buck


----------



## planbbob

Hey Buck and CAVX,


Thanks for the help.


I am new to this 235.1 stuff so bear with me. I have decided that I want 235 vs the other options. If the Epsons won't do it and I need a scaler, is it cheaper/better to buy a more expensive PJ (Panny AX100 as an example) or Epson & Scaler?


CAVX: Sorry but with my limited knowledge, I'm in doubt how to answer your questions. Is this important to the 235 experience?


Other options to achieve 235 I should be considering?


Thanks again for the help.


Bob


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *planbbob* /forum/post/11375505
> 
> 
> 
> CAVX: Sorry but with my limited knowledge, I'm in doubt how to answer your questions. Is this important to the 235 experience?
> 
> 
> Other options to achieve 235 I should be considering?
> 
> 
> Thanks again for the help.
> 
> 
> Bob



4 x 3 zoom is the mode I use on my SONY to perform vertical stretch. Technically, it is not vertically stretching the image at all, but shows the image native to how it is stored on the disc. This mode was originally intended for letterbox (4 x 3 transfers) program, not anamorphic widescreen program. So what it does it fzoom the image to fill the width of the panel, but clip off the top and bottom.


When I feed this mode anamorphic titles, the same thing happens, the image fills the panel's width, and the top (the black bars) and bottom are clipped. Because the image is anamorphically enhanced, the image now appears to be tall and thin (hence the name vertical stretch) and fills the entire panel. The goemetry is of course wrong, so I optically expand (correct) that using the anamorphic lens...


I would suggest loading a film like Star Wars and scrolling through the modes until you find one that does fill the panel first...


Mark


----------



## Justletmein




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *planbbob* /forum/post/11375505
> 
> 
> If the Epsons won't do it and I need a scaler, is it cheaper/better to buy a more expensive PJ (Panny AX100 as an example) or Epson & Scaler?




another option for a 720p projector that wont need a seperate scaler is the Optoma HD70 ... sells for around 1000.00


----------



## DarthBuck

planbbob, to answer your question, it really is up to you. would you prefer to make two initial purchases, or just one (i.e. buy both pj and scaler, or just pj)? most external scalers offer more options than just vertical scaling, which can be nice to have, but in many ways it's easier for the first timer to jump into CIH with a projector that has scaling built-in. perhaps then later upgrade. but, that's just my opinion. another thing to look at: the cost of external scaler. you'll find most in the $600+ range, which can take you well over $2k in a hurry for both. a unit like the ae100u goes for around $2k, and then has a $400 rebate. don't know your budget, but that would be something to keep in mind.


buck


----------



## radical68

A question about BD movies? As i have seen them they put the subtitles in the movies viewing area...so is it correct that i wouldn't need any extra scaler for the subtitles on BD to appear in the viewingarea?


DVD on the other hand subtitles appear 50% on the letterbox black bars...


I'm fresh on the CIH, just curious


Thanks for your input




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/11376738
> 
> 
> 4 x 3 zoom is the mode I use on my SONY to perform vertical stretch. Technically, it is not vertically stretching the image at all, but shows the image native to how it is stored on the disc. This mode was originally intended for letterbox (4 x 3 transfers) program, not anamorphic widescreen program. So what it does it fzoom the image to fill the width of the panel, but clip off the top and bottom.
> 
> 
> When I feed this mode anamorphic titles, the same thing happens, the image fills the panel's width, and the top (the black bars) and bottom are clipped. Because the image is anamorphically enhanced, the image now appears to be tall and thin (hence the name vertical stretch) and fills the entire panel. The goemetry is of course wrong, so I optically expand (correct) that using the anamorphic lens...
> 
> 
> I would suggest loading a film like Star Wars and scrolling through the modes until you find one that does fill the panel first...
> 
> 
> Mark


----------



## CAVX

It would appear that there is now the option to relocate the subtitles for CIH, but if that option is not available, them you run the risk of chopping them off, and it this point in time, there is nothing you can do about it either.


Subtitles in a film on DVD vary from being where they're supposed to be (in the picture) to only in the black bars. Unless you have a player like the Samsung HD960 (with VS), again there is not too much that you can do here...


Mark


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *radical68* /forum/post/11380480
> 
> 
> A question about BD movies? As i have seen them they put the subtitles in the movies viewing area...so is it correct that i wouldn't need any extra scaler for the subtitles on BD to appear in the viewingarea?
> 
> 
> DVD on the other hand subtitles appear 50% on the letterbox black bars...



This varies by studio. It has nothing to do with Blu-ray vs. DVD. Some studios put them in the movie image, some put them half-in/half-out. HD DVDs from Studio Canal in Europe offer the ability to manually move them wherever you want, and Sony recently started offering this feature on some of their Blu-ray discs (I believe Immortal Beloved, an English-language feature, is the only disc to date).


----------



## planbbob

Hi Buck,


Thanks for the insight. I suspected that it would take two purchases if I buy the Epson or 1 if I buy the Panny.


My ceiling height is only 88" so I need some built-in lens adjustment like the Epson. I also thought about the Z5 but considered the PQ too dark based on other poster comments. I'm not too thrilled with the Panny quality issues that also have been documented but apparently not resolved.


The conclusion I have come to is to go with the Epson 400. With the $500 rebate it is a great price point. The picture is reportedly very bright and I can add the scaler and anamorphic lens later. I'm trying to do this reasonably inexpensively so that appears to fit my needs.


You mentioned scalers approx $600+. I have tried to find some references to them but have not been successful. Either that or I'm looking in the wrong spots. Any suggestions?


I also ran across a site for anamorphic lenses in Colorado Springs that is right down the road from me. Also seemed to be reasonable. Any thoughts there?


Thanks in advance for the help and comments.


Bob


----------



## DarthBuck

Bob -


Colorado Springs...would that be the Home Theater Brothers? I actually ordered a lens from them (the "AR" model) just two days ago, and am expecting it tomorrow. Although there isn't a ton of info out there about this company and its products, I felt for the price I couldn't go wrong. I will be starting a thread on here just as soon as I receive the lens, as I have not seen many owners commenting on the performance, the customer service, etc. If you can wait a couple days before ordering, I think this could be helpful to you.


I think the 400 is a good choice. It does have a decent picture, and definitely has a decent price. As for the scaler, there are a ton of threads here that have scaler information...try typing "iScan" or "Lumagen" in the Search box. That will give you a good basis. Something along the lines of the iScan HD (couple years old) would run you about $600 now. Several of their other models do go for well over $1000, though.


You've certainly done your homework, and it shows. I also hope you're enjoying the experience of setting up your own home theater! I am pleased to help in anyway I can.


-Buck


----------



## planbbob

Good Morning Buck,


Thanks for the input.


I have read, reread and rereread so many posts/reviews/comments I'm suffering from TMI AKA too much information!! I just quit before going completely bonkers. That's how I concluded with the Epson 400 -- looked good, sounded good and priced good. Done deal as far as I'm concerned.


I thought the tough part was over. Then I read your comment about the scalers such as HD, I went to their web site and WOW, here I go again. I know they were speaking English because I did recognize some of the words. But, they could have been speaking Swaheli for all the sense it made.


I didn't see the part that meant "horizontal stretch" although scaler sounded familiar. I've reread (again) the front part of this thread that talks about the equipment necessary to do 235 and it would appear the HD or HD+ would do the job although I don't have a clue where the specs say it does that. I think it's more that I don't know enough about this subject. A little knowledge can be dangerous. Thanks for your guidance to their web site.


The aforementioned front part also mentions a DVD player that would also stretch, the Momitsu V880. I visited their website but it doesn't mention scaling at all that I saw. Jeez Louise, what's a mother to do?? I am more than happy to take your comment and others to heart but why don't they write these so the average, non-geeky guy like me can understand what they do.


But, I digress. The Momitsu is around $300, the HD is $550 and the HD+ is $689. Do the HDs offer something the M doesn't to justify the extra $$. If so, could you elaborate??


As far as the anamorphic lens is concerned, yes it is the Home Theater Brothers I was referring to. I don't know if they offer demos but I would certainly want to drive for an hour for a peek before buying. Based on other prices quoted for similar products, these seem very reasonable. I look forward to your review it's performance.


Buck, I don't mean to dump but frustration abounds. I appreciate your (and other knowledgeable and willing to help posters) comments on this perplexing but fascinating subject. I hope I'm not the only going through this stage.


Have a blessed day,


Bob


----------



## CAVX

Planbbob,


Your probably not going to find a manufacture anywhere that referrers to "Vertical Stretch" or "Horizontal Squeeze" needed for CIH. In most cases you are going to have to test the gear you wish to purchase yourself if you don't fully what others have openly posted on these forums.


To see what "Vertical Stretch" actually looks like, take a read of the CIH Explained link in my signature and notice the shape change of the image in the SW4 shots. Image two from those three (of R2D2 and C3PO) photos is what you should be seeing from your set up before you add the anamorphic lens.


Good luck...


Mark


----------



## planbbob

Good Morning Mark,


Thank you for your input.


I have visited your signature site many times and appreciate the info there. In fact, that was one of the first spots that got me interested in 235.


I am willing to accept other opinions on potential equipment purchases. My questioning of the meaning for the manufacturer description is purely from a learning standpoint so that someday possibly I could help someone cut through the confusion.


You mentioned that probably no manufacturers are going to refer to vertical stretch or horizontal squeeze. Do they have something in their specs that lead someone knowledgeable to understand it has this capability?


Thanks again for the help.


Bob


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *planbbob* /forum/post/11425500
> 
> 
> Do they have something in their specs that lead someone knowledgeable to understand it has this capability?



Hi Bob,


Generally no. A quick look on the remote for 4 x 3 modes like zoom or letterbox, and then simply trying them out whilst the projector is being fed a HD source is the only sure fire way to know. It will either work or it won't. There is no risk of damaging anything here and worth doing it for piece of minds sake before parting with any cash...


Mark


----------



## planbbob

Mark,


If I understand you correctly, the PJ must be able to do 4:3 in order to do CIH? Assuming that is correct, I went to the Epson manual and although they do not specify which AR they support, their chart for screen size shows 16:9 and 4:3 leading me to believe they do. Would that also be a correct assumption?


Again if the above is correct, in order to do 235 you must start with 4:3 then vertically stretch (PJ, external unit or HTPC) followed by horizontally stretch (anamorphic lens)?


Sorry for all the questions.


Bob


----------



## usualsuspects




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *planbbob* /forum/post/11427326
> 
> 
> If I understand you correctly, the PJ must be able to do 4:3 in order to do CIH? Assuming that is correct, I went to the Epson manual and although they do not specify which AR they support, their chart for screen size shows 16:9 and 4:3 leading me to believe they do. Would that also be a correct assumption?
> 
> 
> Again if the above is correct, in order to do 235 you must start with 4:3 then vertically stretch (PJ, external unit or HTPC) followed by horizontally stretch (anamorphic lens)?



Umm, no, not necessarily.

In order to do CIH you need a projector or scaler or source device that will:


Scenario 1 - HE lens on sled or lens has passthrough:

For 2.35:1 sources - Take a letterboxed 16x9 image and vertically stretch it.

For 16x9 sources - use passthrough or move the lens out of the light path


Scenario 2 - fixed in place HE or VC lens:

For 2.35:1 sources - Take a letterboxed 16x9 image and vertically stretch it.

For 16x9 (or lesser) sources - use a horizontal squeeze mode (4x3)


In order to use any anamorphic lens under any scenario, the minimum electronic scaling you need is always 33% vertical stretch. You may need a horizontal squeeze mode depending on your setup and equipment.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *planbbob* /forum/post/11427326
> 
> 
> Mark,
> 
> I went to the Epson manual and although they do not specify which AR they support, their chart for screen size shows 16:9 and 4:3 leading me to believe they do. Would that also be a correct assumption?



The Epson (TW1000?) 1080 LCD projector will only support CIH (without an external scaler) for SD, not HD.


The 2nd SW4 image in my link is 4 x 3 zoom, not 4 x 3. It is a 4 x 3 mode, but one for letter boxed material. It was never intended by design for anamorphic enhanced program, but so happens to work extremely well for that. If I was to switch to 4 x 3, there would still be bars top and bottom as 4 x 3 + lens = optic stretch 16:9.


In all 5 images from SW4 (including the subtitles ones), the full panel of the projector was used...


Mark


----------



## thebland

So, as a percent of pixels, how many am I losing on a 16:9 image using a scaler and a lens like an ISCO? Exactly how much image loss occurs if the lens is permanently in place.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thebland* /forum/post/11429916
> 
> 
> So, as a percent of pixels, how many am I losing on a 16:9 image using a scaler and a lens like an ISCO? Exactly how much image loss occurs if the lens is permanently in place.



Hi Jeff,


Based on 1080 projection, your 1.78:1 image would be made up of 1440 x 1080 pixels and your 2.37:1 image would use the full 1920 x 1080 pixels...


There are benefits to leaving the lens in place all the time including (but not limited to) ease of use and only one calibration setting required.


How much difference to the image will there be leaving the lens in place compared to removing it for 16:9? Well that is not easy to say based on the fact that you will be using the ISCO III - which can be dialled in to precise tolerances.


IMHO now that I remove the lens for 16:9 (and 4 x 3), I would say that there is some advantage to doing this because you are once again using the full panel for 1.78:1, not a just a portion of it.


2.37:1 on the other hand is a completely different ball game and is way in front when using a lens Vs the zoom method which wastes vertical rez...


Mark


----------



## planbbob

Mark & UsualSuspects,


I apologize for I must be dense or something.


I will have an Epson 400, HD or HD+ scaler and HomeTheaterBrothers anamorphic lens. Can I create a 235 picture? I would plan to use 4x3, 16x9 and 235 ARs DVDs as source materials.


Is there something else that I need to do?


Thanks for all the help.


Bob


----------



## GetGray

Jeff:


Here's the arithmatic. Disclaimer, it's Mexican restaruant night (ahem, Maragarita night), so I reserve the right to fix later














: I'm sure someone will jump on it if' I have something wrong...


The Isco III is a 1.33x expansion lens. Takes what comes into it and expands it by 133% (horizontally).


So for a 1.78:1 original image, it expands to 1.78:1 * 1.33 ~= 2.37:1


In order to get a resulting 16:9 image (not including the projected black sidebars) from a source that is "fed" into a Isco III, one must divide that source horizontal resolution by 1.33. That will allow the 1.33x multiplier to be applied to get the image back to where it is supposed to be. In other words, (1/1.33 ~=) 75% of the original. To get 75% of a 16:9 image, one would need to use 75% of the 16:9 panel (~1443 pixels).


Feed those 1443 pixels into the Isco and you get them stretched 1.33x. 1443 * 1.33 is 1920, back to the original unit width.


So, bottom line is:

a) you lose about 25% of the pixels. That is 1 of every 4 vertical lines. (1920 down to 1443)

b) you have to compress/scale the original to get the 1443. That is throwing away video information. Diagonal lines (anything not perfectly vertical or horizontal) do not have as much resoultion and require more stairstepping.

c) you are projecting black bars. Since you don't have a CRT when using an Isco, projecting black bars isn't doing anything good for the system overall.


HTH


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *planbbob* /forum/post/11430203
> 
> 
> Mark & UsualSuspects,
> 
> 
> I apologize for I must be dense or something.
> 
> 
> I will have an Epson 400, HD or HD+ scaler and HomeTheaterBrothers anamorphic lens. Can I create a 235 picture? I would plan to use 4x3, 16x9 and 235 ARs DVDs as source materials.
> 
> 
> Is there something else that I need to do?
> 
> 
> Thanks for all the help.
> 
> 
> Bob



Bob,


With an external scaler, you can have any custom AR you like...


Mark


----------



## planbbob

Mark,


Thank you, thank you.


Maybe I'm trying to make it too simple but in this case, I like to cut to the chase.


Bob


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *planbbob* /forum/post/11430423
> 
> 
> Mark,
> 
> 
> Thank you, thank you.
> 
> 
> Maybe I'm trying to make it too simple but in this case, I like to cut to the chase.
> 
> 
> Bob



Your welcome, just remember that you NEED a screen that is 2.37:1 not 2.35:1 based on 1.33x stretch...


Mark


----------



## kheiden

Is that just with the Isco lens or is it the same for others? I don't have an ISCO but I bought a 2.35:1 screen for my Prismasonic 1200 lens. I'd hate to think I spent thousands on a mismatch.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kheiden* /forum/post/11438402
> 
> 
> Is that just with the Isco lens or is it the same for others? I don't have an ISCO but I bought a 2.35:1 screen for my Prismasonic 1200 lens. I'd hate to think I spent thousands on a mismatch.



You can get around this depending on your scaling, where an outboard VP can be trimmed just below the normal 33%VS. If your using the scaling built into the projector then, you need 2.37:1 because they are based on 33%.


This will open a can of worms for sure, but 1.7777777 x 1.3333333 = *2.37*0370207. If you have "Scope" screen that is 2.35:1 and are not able to custom scale, then projecting the 0.02 balance onto the side masking is the best you can do.


True CinemaScope is actually 2.39:1, but varies with different films to be anywhere from 2.32 to 2.40, so I am saying that 2.35:1 (whilst a common AR in film) is really "market rounding" for home theatre. 235 is an easy number to remember and say as it rolls off the tongue real easy. Kind of like how multi channel sound systems are dubbed five point one, where the real number is actually 5.005 (based on 48K sample rates), but you never would hear someone ever ask for five point zero zero five system...


Mark


----------



## GetGray

Before you panic, for what it's worth, Stewart makes their "default" scope screens 2.35:1 (per a recent conversation with them). The elite Cinecurve and Vistascope's are at 2:40:1 but they have continously adjustable masking. But it is a confusing point I agree.


----------



## planbbob

Mark,


After rereading the last couple of pages, a comment kept coming up about source material. The 400 will apparently do SD but I don't see where any has addressed HD. Any thoughts?


Is my confusion from a lack of basic understanding of this PJ process to begin with?


Thanks again,


Bob


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *planbbob* /forum/post/11430203
> 
> 
> I will have an Epson 400, HD or HD+ scaler and HomeTheaterBrothers anamorphic lens.



If you have an external scaler, it won't matter, as the scaler will do the required stretching and out put the signal to match the native rez of the display...


Mark


----------



## theKrouser

OK, I was all set to buy the Mits HC1500 and an oppo upscale dvd player with a sony reciever and a 118" screen, then I started to read these posts on CHI! THAT IS WHAT I REALLY HAVE ALWAYS WANTED! Star Wars on a 10' wide screen with no black bars! Com' on! Home Theatre Heaven! But, with my very limited knowledge of projectors, dvd players and whatnot, all I really want to know is what projector, what dvd player, and all the extra dodads and thingamagigs that will give me a cinemascope theatre! I will only be watching movies ( no games or tv ). I can spend some bucks, even if I have to save up a little, but don't go crazy on me! And if you could suggest a couple of different projectors, dvd players, anamorp lenses . . . that would even be better! Thanks for reading and helping me out! TheKrouser.


----------



## CAVX

Now to watch Star Wars on a 10 foot wide CIH screen, you going to need a DVD player like the Samsung offerings (I have a HD-950) because SW (4) has subtitles in the black bars and this player is one of a select few that can relocate them into the active picture - shame it crushes the blacks and whites with the HDMI connection.


Also if you use this player, you can be certain that any 16:9 projector you want will work as the player does the vertical stretch, so you not relying on the projector.


See the CIH Explained link in my signature...


Mark


Attached is SW 4 on an 8 foot curved screen...


----------



## theKrouser

Hey, CAVX! Thanks for the reply and the screen shot of Star Wars! (If I had this in my living room, I don't think I would ever leave the house again!) The only problem is that I have looked for the Samsung HD-950 and I can't find it online anyplace! Any other players that can do what that one does? And I am thinking about getting the Mits 6000 if you said that a dvd player can handle the stretch and not to worry about the projector! Thanks, you guys are great! TheKrouser!


----------



## theKrouser

P.S. What does CRUSH the blacks and whites mean anyway? And how dare you question my ignorance! HA-HA! Thanks!


----------



## CAVX

Yeah I like watching SW at 8 foot wide and no black bars too










I think the current model is HD-960. The 950 is a DVD-A and SACD player as well, where the 960 is just a DVD-V player. They are fairly cheap - like $160, so I guess you can't expect too much.


There is signal above white and below black (see the calibration section), but these players do not allow that when connected by HDMI. They do over analogue at SD rez though, so there not too bad still.


The key point is their ability to scale for CIH and relocate the subtitles making them a perfect entry level Plug and Play solution...


Mark


----------



## theKrouser

CAVX, I am reading reviews about the samsung dvd players and sadly, there not to good as where the oppo's reviews are great! The subtitle issue, while a good one, is that there are very few movies, that I like, with some subtitles, Star Wars and Jedi are just two that i can think of off hand. I think I would like a really good upconverting dvd player and also you haven't mentioned any anamorphic lenses! Thanks for your time! Thekrouser


----------



## theKrouser

CAVX, OK. I put my foot in my mouth, again! I went to your web site and read all about YOUR anamorphic lens! OK, so now I've got a Mits6000, your lens, a soon to be announced dvd player. Now what screen dimensions are we talking about for an approx. 120" WIDE screen. (I cant find 237, only 235 dims!) Thanks!


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *theKrouser* /forum/post/11963980
> 
> 
> CAVX, I am reading reviews about the samsung dvd players and sadly, there not to good as where the oppo's reviews are great!



I agree, the Oppo is a much better video player if your chasing it only for playback. The reason I suggested the Samsung is because i am not sure what scaling modes the the projector you want has, so the Samsung is a sure fire way of ensuring that you will have the right scaling modes you need.



> Quote:
> The subtitle issue, while a good one, is that there are very few movies, that I like, with some subtitles, Star Wars and Jedi are just two that i can think of off hand. I think I would like a really good upconverting dvd player and also you haven't mentioned any anamorphic lenses! Thanks for your time! Thekrouser



Actually 3 and 5 are the only two SW films that don't have subtitles. Your not a fan of LOTR?


Also make sure that the projector still allows you to scale with HD inputs - up scaled SD is often treated the same as native HD where my projector then locks to 16:9. Lucky for me, the Samsung has both vertical stretch and horizontal squeeze...



> Quote:
> Now what screen dimensions are we talking about for an approx. 120" WIDE screen. (I cant find 237, only 235 dims!) Thanks!



Whilst 237 is the correct AR, you'll find most manufactures selling 235 screens because that is common market rounding.


FACT - CinemaScope (film) is actually 2.39:1 and for video it is 2.37:1. If you use another AR and do not have custom scaling, you will find that you end up with an image that doesn't quite fit the screen...


Mark


----------



## Clams Canino

So.... this all begs the question. When is a native 2.37/1 PJ gonna appear??


A PJ like this - with the right software for an HTPC (or a stand-alone player as part of the package) would make the anamorphic lens work needless.


-W


----------



## theKrouser

CAVX, like Clams Canino said above (kinda), Wouldn't it be great if you told someone, Hey, I've got $6,000 dollars to spend. Tell me the best projector, dvd player, reciever and screen to buy. Then you just plug it in to each other and, bam! instant home theatre! And for the LOTR question, they were beautiful to look at and exciting to watch, but I never read the books so I was a little lost with who went with whom and so forth and so on! And now that I'm older, my attention span ain't what it used to be! Thanks for all your help! TheKrouser!


----------



## f430




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *theKrouser* /forum/post/11972928
> 
> 
> CAVX, like Clams Canino said above (kinda), Wouldn't it be great if you told someone, Hey, I've got $6,000 dollars to spend. Tell me the best projector, dvd player, reciever and screen to buy.



DYI prisms $100

Dazian or Shearweave screen material $100

DYI wall/frame $250

Panasonic Ax100U $1300

Used sunfire receiver $1500

Klipsch speakers $2650

DVD player $100

-------

= $6000 but you'll have to sit on the floor.

====


----------



## theKrouser

Hey, f430! Great answer! But it also shows that I need to be more specific! First, I live in an apartment, so the speakers really don't have to be that great. ( I almost live with my headphones on, so I am really used to them! ) Really though, I'm thinking of the Mits6000 because of the great reviews it is getting. Also I want a Caranda (sp) 235:1 fixed screen (but I'll have to get some friends to put it together for me cause I'm such a clutz ) The only thing left would be the dvd player itself. Most of my favorite movies are older widescreen like, Poseidon Adventure, Jaws, Raiders, Towering Inferno, Alien, Poltergeist, some which may never see blu-ray of hd. So I am going to have to settle for sd-dvd in widescreen. Right now I have a 60" sony RPT and I think it looks great. So if I can get that quality picture 9' wide I would really be happy. Anymore comments from anybody who owns a samsung dvd player ( The one that CAVX recommened )? Sorry for the long and rambling post but you guys are fun to talk too! I just want to get it right the first time I put this stuff all together! Thanks. TheKrouser!


----------



## Clams Canino

I might have a long wait... but I'm gonna hold out for a Panavision DLP chip before I go constant height.










-W


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> I might have a long wait... but I'm gonna hold out for a Panavision DLP chip before I go constant height.



Got a link?


Mark


----------



## RodG

Hey everyone! First post on AVS for me, and I sure picked a hardcore group to make it in










I've read about 200/313 posts in this thread and it's completely turned me 180 degrees around on the whole 2.40:1 thing (in addition to my blury eyes). Before I thought it was for only HT geeks and the like. Now I'm hooked. Guess I fall into that crowd too - so be it! My first HT, currently in construction, will now be geared towards CIH 2.37:1 all the way, baby, and I'm really excited about it. Thanks to all those above me who took the time to post and explain everything.


I've got a quick question, that none of the hundreds of posts seemed to cover 100% I'm interested in figuring out the resolution loss going the stretch+anamorphic lens route. Yeah, yeah, I know, it's not about RESOLUTION it's about CINEMASCOPIC impact! But the engineer in me still wants to know







A 1080p 2.35:1 movie contains 1920 x 817 pixels of information (not counting the black bars which, of course, contain no visual information). Picture-wise, we have 1920 x 817 pixels on the BD/HDDVD (2.35:1). Now, for a native 16:9 720p projector using its built-in vertical "stretch" mode (i.e. PT-AX200U) playing such a 1080p 2.35:1 movie, does the 720p projector draw upon the source's *full 1080* lines of resolution and resample it down to 720 lines? Or, does the vertical stretch mode deal with a 1280 x 545 image by repeating pixels vertically to fill up the projector's panel from 545 up to 720 pixels?


Does anyone have any good reference material they could point me to that states which of the above is true?


-Rod


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RodG* /forum/post/11993845
> 
> 
> Does anyone have any good reference material they could point me to that states which of the above is true?



Not a definitive reference, but most projectors that now allow this "Scaling" to happen are in fact allowing a full panel ZOOM mode, so simply discarding everything above and below a certain point. These modes were traditionally used for 4 x 3 letter box program (and some still retain the name Letterbox) where they would allow the full panel to be used instead of the window boxing in the 4 x 3 portion of the 16:9 panel.


Interestingly enough, when fed a source that is 16:9 enhanced (or native 16:9 as it turns out for both HD DVD and BrD), that these traditionally 4 x 3 zoom modes display the signal as it is stored on the disc before the 16:9 display electrically stretched it out. The resulting image is one that appears vertically stretched...


Mark


----------



## RodG

So, you're saying it merely zooms those 545 horizontal lines up to 720 lines so the whole vertical height of the display panel is used?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RodG* /forum/post/11994446
> 
> 
> So, you're saying it merely zooms those 545 horizontal lines up to 720 lines so the whole vertical height of the display panel is used?



No, I am sticking with my theory that for a 720 display, it takes the middle 810 lines of a 1080 source and discards what it does not need. It would lose some information in the scaling process as some of the 810 lines would have to go as well to fit a 720 panel.


For a 1080 display, it would again discard the 270 (or so) lines that make the black bars and then scale the remaining lines to fit.


The end result is of course a very dense image which is why CIH works...


Mark


----------



## RodG

Anecdotal evidence that CIH works, from what I've read, and that you believe it shows a very dense image would appear to support your theory. I'll try not to let the fact that I can't seem to find anything besides anecdotes bother me too much. Thanks for your reply, Mark.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RodG* /forum/post/11994866
> 
> 
> Anecdotal evidence that CIH works, from what I've read, and that you believe it shows a very dense image would appear to support your theory. I'll try not to let the fact that I can't seem to find anything besides anecdotes bother me too much. Thanks for your reply, Mark.



So have you had the opportunity to see CIH in action?


Mark


----------



## RodG

I haven't, no. The reason I'm analyzing this so intensley now is it may impact my HT design. I'd love to see a CIH in action.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RodG* /forum/post/11996526
> 
> 
> I haven't, no. The reason I'm analyzing this so intensley now is it may impact my HT design. I'd love to see a CIH in action.



In reality, the only difference between a 1.78:1 and 2.37 set up is the screen width. The calculations for finding the screen height (based on a room's length) and seating distances (multiples of the screen or image height) are the same, so if you post some info on your room, I'd be happy to post my ideas for you to take to your designer...


Mark


----------



## RodG

My HT space is limited. Approx 10' wide by 15' long by 8 ' (115" x 182" x 95"). Max viewing distance is 13.5'. If I divide 13.5 by 3.68 I get a "THX recommended" cinemascope screen of about 107" x 45" (36 degrees). That leaves 0" clearance between the side walls and the black screen frame. Is it recommended to completely avoid such a configuration? What if I treat the side walls with a mat dark finish? Or, should I forget 36 degrees? LRC would have to be underneath the screen as I don't have an AT screen yet. Unfortunately, if I go much smaller 16:9 masked size suffers - even with the above it would only be a 92" diagonal. So... what do you think? Since I've never seen CIH and have no projector experience, any advice from anybody would sure help.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RodG* /forum/post/12004529
> 
> 
> My HT space is limited. Approx 10' wide by 15' long by 8 ' (115" x 182" x 95"). Max viewing distance is 13.5'. If I divide 13.5 by 3.68 I get a "THX recommended" cinemascope screen of about 107" x 45" (36 degrees). That leaves 0" clearance between the side walls and the black screen frame. Is it recommended to completely avoid such a configuration? What if I treat the side walls with a mat dark finish? Or, should I forget 36 degrees? LRC would have to be underneath the screen as I don't have an AT screen yet. Unfortunately, if I go much smaller 16:9 masked size suffers - even with the above it would only be a 92" diagonal. So... what do you think? Since I've never seen CIH and have no projector experience, any advice from anybody would sure help.



You can divide your room length by any number between 3.68 and 5.18 to find the screen height, so 15 / [3.68>5.18] to get an image height that works for you. Your are on the right path though.


Speaker placement pending (and I have my speakers in at the 1.78:1 area), I see no problem building a wall to wall screen and using dark side covers there. If you do that though, what will you use for side masks?


Mark


----------



## RodG

A hidden, electric rollup mask is what I'd try to design. Obviously a flat panel mask wouldn't work.


On your website, Mark, your masks seem fairly close to your LR speakers when in 16:9 mode. What's the seperation? Do you notice any compromises in sound like that?


----------



## CAVX

I don't actually have the masks in yet. I was originally going to do a side slide but am now looking at a roll down type. I found a ready made product in charcoal with a weave that looks identical to the SmX, so hopefully AT as well.


As for the speakers, yes they are close, but they still provide a decent stereo image (for both 2CH and MC) and they perfectly track on screen action. I have no regrets about they way this system has turned out...


Mark


----------



## RodG

Glad to hear that! You've put a lot of thought and effort into HT, so I'm truly glad it's paid off for you. So, you have a DIY SmX AT screen? How do you like it? That's a pure white 1.16 gain, right? I'm thinking about that or something like it (SeymourAV's Phifer 4500?). What kind of projector/brightness are you running, and how well do you find it tolerates ambient light? I'm sure it's acoustic properties are fantastic, but a matt grey 1.0 would more suit a Panny AX200's 2000 lumen output, I think, so am curious of your experiences.


----------



## CAVX

A SONY with 1400 Lumen onto the pure white 1.16 gain SmX. The screen is actually a commercial unit from Oz Theatre Screens, but I had to customize it to curve it.


The fabric both looks and sounds fantastic, so I am really glad I went this path. I've had my screen up now a bit over a month and am loving it.


Whilst I do control the light as much as possible, there is some ambient light and the screen seems to deal with that quite well...


Mark


----------



## RodG

Saw your bent screen pictures. Very nice. Thanks for the feedback. Hmm, sounds like it's not an ideal screen for me where I'll us it 50% movies in dim lights mode. Other 50% regular will be TV/xbox (25%/25%) where I want moderate room lighting - hence the PJ choice.


Well, I've got a bunch more questions & ideas, but don't want to bore you or the rest of the crowd with them. This is a "2.35 Constant Height FAQ" thread, I suppose


----------



## ht guy

...so 1;85 Widescreen = not scope


and while confusing, Widescreen Anamorphic 1:85 also = not scope?


So why anamorphic?


----------



## RodG

Not quite sure what you're asking. Cinemascope, aka 'scope' = 2.40 (roughly). So, you're right, 1.85:1 is NOT scope. It's just a little bit wider than standard 16:9 (1.78:1). The term 'Widescreen' is used there to indicate 'wider than standard 4:3', to put it simply.


'Anamorphic' is the concept of squeezing a wider aspect ratio frame onto a film frame (or HDDVD frame) than the format would normally fit natively. Unfortunately, HDDVD/BD don't support that natively. So, 2.40:1 scope movies are given to us (i.e. mastered onto the disk) with black bars top and bottom.


So, your question: 'why anamorphic?' Unfortunately, there is no native anamorphic 2.40 format for us! We here all WISH there was. Black bars is not the same as the true anamorphic scope *film* frame storage method, in my opinion, where there we have a true 'CIH' type of medium natively. We have to do the 'anamorphic' part ourselves either through a projector/add-on lens combo, or HTPC/add-on lens combo.


Or, did I miss the point of your question entirely?


----------



## ht guy

Great answer.


Although I didn't do a very good job of asking my question, I learned from your response.


Here is what I meant: Netflix DVDs that indicate they are 1.85 are listed one of two ways, either "1.85 Widescreen" or "Widescreen Anamorphic 1.85."


I assume, and your response seems to indicate, that the addition of the word "Anamorphic" doesn't mean anything - it's still just 1.85.


Dumb question, I'm sure, but is that correct?


----------



## bialio




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/11994556
> 
> 
> No, I am sticking with my theory that for a 720 display, it takes the middle 810 lines of a 1080 source and discards what it does not need. It would lose some information in the scaling process as some of the 810 lines would have to go as well to fit a 720 panel.
> 
> 
> For a 1080 display, it would again discard the 270 (or so) lines that make the black bars and then scale the remaining lines to fit.
> 
> 
> The end result is of course a very dense image which is why CIH works...
> 
> 
> Mark



Hey Mark - what scaler are you talking bout here? Just curious - I've often wondered how a 1080p scope image will get scaled down to 720p.


Although, in my setup, I take the 1080 image and do the stretch on that, and then let the projector scale down from 1080 to 720.


btl.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bialio* /forum/post/12083796
> 
> 
> Hey Mark - what scaler are you talking bout here?



The ones in the projectors. They are a zoom, so they simply take the centre portion of the image and discard the rest...


Mark


----------



## RodG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ht guy* /forum/post/12083081
> 
> 
> [snip]
> 
> 
> Here is what I meant: Netflix DVDs that indicate they are 1.85 are listed one of two ways, either "1.85 Widescreen" or "Widescreen Anamorphic 1.85."
> 
> 
> [snip]




ht guy, unfortunately, I'm not able to test my reply before I make it, but I think we can guess that "1.85 Widescreen" means either they Pan & Scan it OR chop off a bit on the left and right of the scope aspect; both to yield a 1:1.85 aspect ratio. "Widescreen Anamorphic 1.85" would probably mean the typical black bars top and bottom 'scope aspect ratio.


----------



## Clams Canino

So what are the chances that we're *ever* going to see a DLP chip made in Native 2.35/1 Scope aspect ratio?? I suppose for Hi-Def (1080p) it would be something like 1080x2538 Native Display.


-W


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RodG* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> ht guy, unfortunately, I'm not able to test my reply before I make it, but I think we can guess that "1.85 Widescreen" means either they Pan & Scan it OR chop off a bit on the left and right of the scope aspect; both to yield a 1:1.85 aspect ratio. "Widescreen Anamorphic 1.85" would probably mean the typical black bars top and bottom 'scope aspect ratio.



For DVD, simply stating "Widescreen 1.85:1" might also mean a letter boxed 4 x 3 transfer where the "Anamorphic Widescreen 1.85:1" means that the transfer is enhanced for 16:9 TVs. In this day, I would like to think that 4 x 3 transfers have gone the way of the Dodo, but there is still a heap of extras on DVDs that are still 4 x 3...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Clams Canino* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> So what are the chances that we're *ever* going to see a DLP chip made in Native 2.35/1 Scope aspect ratio?? I suppose for Hi-Def (1080p) it would be something like 1080x2538 Native Display.



That number would be 2560 x 1080 if it were to happen. I doubt that it will given that there is still so much TV program being produced in 4 x 3, and whist HDTV remains at 16:9, means that there is no native scope material made yet...


Mark


----------



## Clams Canino




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/12156329
> 
> 
> That number would be 2560 x 1080 if it were to happen. I doubt that it will given that there is still so much TV program being produced in 4 x 3, and whist HDTV remains at 16:9, means that there is no native scope material made yet...
> 
> Mark



Well... actually, most movies *are* "native scope".

A lot of home theater types don't really give a rats a$$ about letting broadcast TV programming kill bulb hours.


-W


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Clams Canino* /forum/post/12158867
> 
> 
> Well... actually, most movies *are* "native scope".
> 
> A lot of home theater types don't really give a rats a$$ about letting broadcast TV programming kill bulb hours.
> 
> 
> -W



Well good luck trying to convince the SMPTE of that one










We want native scope video, but there is none to date. A native scope video will actually have a 2.37:1 (2560 x 1080) image horizontally squeezed into a 1.78:1 (1920 x 1080) frame. I say bring them on, but I can already hear the moans and complaints from those with out a lens...


Mark


----------



## ritual44

Hi all,


Not sure about this....


If I go with a 2.35:1 screen + Anamorphic lens (i.e. Prismasonic) + a decent PJ with internal scaler - Am I able to display PC games and website content without any issues?


Correct me if I'm wrong....PC's can fill/display on 16:9 screen, and any 16:9 source can fit on 2.35:1 screen with an Anamorphic lens. Is it safe to say it should work?


Can anyone help? Thanks.


----------



## CAVX

Is the game(s) you intend to play this way letter boxed? If not the image will be stretched...


Mark


----------



## GG386

you guys are killing me!







Besides staying up 1/2 the night reading this forum, my family is seriously thinking of having me committed, can't finish my lower level build-out because I can't make up my mind on what to do with HT, my dog hates me- other than that life is good.










I've put on around 1,ooo miles this past week looking at vendor's HT setups and I finally was able to see a scope configuration in person. They were using a Runco DLP single chip with a 11' screen- simple OUSTANDING. The PJ did the scaling and the lens was fixed also by Runco- too bad it only cost 19k.


I know this is FAQ thread and there's a lot of great info here, and at the same time there's "average" guys who are just trying to grasp how CIH works and trying to make an educated decision on what brand and type of equipment to purchase- and of course where.

So here we go- I going to give you 15k (max) to spend for me- what do i get?

You will buy me the following:

Projector

Screen (non at) 10'

Scaler (if needed)

Lens (leaning toward fixed)


This system should be geared for Movies-50%

x-box-25%

ota- 25%


Please keep in mind that the sooner we get this done, the sooner I can get on with my life


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GG386* /forum/post/12274702
> 
> 
> I going to give you 15k (max) to spend for me- what do i get?
> 
> You will buy me the following:
> 
> Projector
> 
> Screen (non at) 10'
> 
> Scaler (if needed)
> 
> Lens (leaning toward fixed)
> 
> 
> This system should be geared for Movies-50%
> 
> x-box-25%
> 
> ota- 25%



If you get either the SONY VW60 or BenqW10000, I think you'll find that you can come in under budget as both do the scaling, so saving you some coin right there.


Also saves you because your family can operate it too










If your going fixed lens, then you can also choose between a HE and VC...


Mark


----------



## bialio

My impression, after both reading this forum daily







and building my own CIH setup is that the ISCO III lens is the best out there. I have never seen one, but it costs the most and anyone who has one says it's not a purchase they regret.


My goal is a little less lofty - one day I hope to get Prismasonic's top of the line model for about $2500. It has remote controlled pass through mode, which would suit me well for the mix of 16:9 / 2.35:1 viewing that I currently do.


----------



## c7775

now heres something from a newb...


why do some 2.35:1 installs use flat and some curved screens?


can you use a curved screen with 16:9 content



how do you adjust the projector to display on a curved screen?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *c7775* /forum/post/12806534
> 
> 
> now heres something from a newb...
> 
> 
> why do some 2.35:1 installs use flat and some curved screens?
> 
> 
> can you use a curved screen with 16:9 content
> 
> 
> 
> how do you adjust the projector to display on a curved screen?




Curved screens are actually used as a form of image correction. If your not running a lens, you don't want one, and if you are, but at a really long throw, you may not need one.


If your leaving the lens in place all the time, 16:9 material works well on a curved screen. If not, generally you find your self setting up the display for one or the other - Scope of HDTV - and I prefer SCOPE...


Mark


----------



## c7775




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/12806563
> 
> 
> Curved screens are actually used as a form of image correction. If your not running a lens, you don't want one, and if you are, but at a really long throw, you may not need one.
> 
> 
> If your leaving the lens in place all the time, 16:9 material works well on a curved screen. If not, generally you find your self setting up the display for one or the other - Scope of HDTV - and I prefer SCOPE...
> 
> 
> Mark



by lens you mean an anamorphic lens right ? and by "If your not running a lens, you don't want one" i take it if i use a normal 16/9 setup??? so what about all the people that are using 2.35:1 combos with flat screens , how are they correcting the image?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *c7775* /forum/post/12806601
> 
> 
> by lens you mean an anamorphic lens right ? and by "If your not running a lens, you don't want one" i take it if i use a normal 16/9 setup??? so what about all the people that are using 2.35:1 combos with flat screens , how are they correcting the image?



If the throw is long enough, you may not need a curved screen...


Mark


----------



## c7775




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/12806611
> 
> 
> If the throw is long enough, you may not need a curved screen...
> 
> 
> Mark



i dont even know what "throw" is... im quite the amateur in AV stuff.. give me 2channel stereo


----------



## GG386




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *c7775* /forum/post/12808226
> 
> 
> i dont even know what "throw" is... im quite the amateur in AV stuff.. give me 2channel stereo



He,he keep on reading. Just learning the lingo will take a few months...


----------



## tbase1

I have Sanyo Z4 with 8' wide scope screen using a prismasonic v 1000m. Would it be best to leave the lens in place for 2.34.1 ,1.85 ,1.78 ,and 16x9 movies or move when viewing 2.35 and use it when watching the AR's with this lens?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/12879335
> 
> 
> I have Sanyo Z4 with 8' wide scope screen using a prismasonic v 1000m. Would it be best to leave the lens in place for 2.34.1 ,1.85 ,1.78 ,and 16x9 movies or move when viewing 2.35 and use it when watching the AR's with this lens?



Well first off - 16:9 is 1.78:1 and 1.85:1 is just 4% wider than 1.78:1, so only a select few will bother making any adjustment here.


With the Prismsonic, you leave the lens in place the whole time, but you can rotate the prisms to go from a "pass" mode to a "stretch" mode. Anything from 1.33:1 to 1.78:1 will be used in "pass" mode, and anything wider than 1.78:1 can be custom scaled to fit using the "stretch" mode.


I say custom scaling because the amount of strech/squeeze in video is based around 33% where 1.33:1 x 1.33 = 1.78:1 and 1.78 x 1.33 = 2.37:1, so if your going to use partial stretch in your lens, then you need to partially stretch and squeeze using a scaler or HTPC to maintain correct geometry...


Mark


----------



## tbase1

Is a 11' throw to close for this setup?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/12938319
> 
> 
> Is a 11' throw to close for this setup?



If 8' is the Scope Screen width, then not really, it is middle range...


TR = 11' / 6' = 1.833


Mark


----------



## tbase1

Yes my screen is a 8' scope with a 11' throw.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/12940093
> 
> 
> Yes my screen is a 8' scope with a 11' throw.



So it should work quite well for you...


Mark


----------



## rbouch8828

What happens to Panavision films like Mutiny on the Bounty when shown in a CIH system? Do you see black bars on top and bottom or does it get cut off on the ends?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rbouch8828* /forum/post/13062455
> 
> 
> What happens to Panavision films like Mutiny on the Bounty when shown in a CIH system? Do you see black bars on top and bottom or does it get cut off on the ends?



It will depend on your system. There is at least one here (Vern Dias) that is able to watch pretty much all films at true CIH, but for most of us, we tend to limit ourselves to about 2.40:1 (my screen is 2.37:1), so in the case of the film you have mentioned, I would most likely see small portions of black bars unless I zoomed, then I would cut off the ends.


This is mostly because we use an anamorphic lens with 33% stretch with out 16:9 projectors. If you want a wider screen, then you need a lens with greater horizontal magnification. Vern's lens is 1.5x, not 1.33x so his optically expanded image is 2.67, not 2.37 that you get when using a 1.33x stretch lens. However, Vern would only use the full horizointal rez on special films like Mutany On The Bounty, where with modern films, you would be hard pressed to find too many wider than 2.40:1, so why a standard 1.33x lens works so well...


Mark


----------



## rbouch8828




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/13066941
> 
> 
> It will depend on your system. There is at least one here (Vern Dias) that is able to watch pretty much all films at true CIH, but for most of us, we tend to limit ourselves to about 2.40:1 (my screen is 2.37:1), so in the case of the film you have mentioned, I would most likely see small portions of black bars unless I zoomed, then I would cut off the ends.
> 
> 
> This is mostly because we use an anamorphic lens with 33% stretch with out 16:9 projectors. If you want a wider screen, then you need a lens with greater horizontal magnification. Vern's lens is 1.5x, not 1.33x so his optically expanded image is 2.67, not 2.37 that you get when using a 1.33x stretch lens. However, Vern would only use the full horizointal rez on special films like Mutany On The Bounty, where with modern films, you would be hard pressed to find too many wider than 2.40:1, so why a standard 1.33x lens works so well...
> 
> 
> Mark



If you use the 1.5 lens, is there a scaler out there that can manage that as well as the other formats? Also, do you know who makes the 1.5 lens?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rbouch8828* /forum/post/13068370
> 
> 
> If you use the 1.5 lens, is there a scaler out there that can manage that as well as the other formats? Also, do you know who makes the 1.5 lens?



I belive ISCO makes a range of horizontal stretch lenses including 2x, 1.78x, 1.5x and 1.33x...


Mark


----------



## rbouch8828




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/13068390
> 
> 
> I belive ISCO makes a range of horizontal stretch lenses including 2x, 1.78x, 1.5x and 1.33x...
> 
> 
> Mark



What about scaling the image for the projector's chip?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rbouch8828* /forum/post/13068423
> 
> 
> What about scaling the image for the projector's chip?



Anything other than 1.33x will need custom scaling and a HTPC running YXY is ideal...


Mark


----------



## tbase1

Not the greatest pictures ,given my lame camera. But ,I love my prismasonic v1000 Lens. My picture shows my hush box and lighted movie case.


----------



## distoga

I've seen a lot of people doing larger screens and I wonder what experiences they have had with brightness, especially AT screens and zoom vs optical CIH. It seems like high lumens is not something 1080p projectors are great at. Are people using high gain screens for CIH? I used project centrals screen calculator on the top 10 1080p projectors and just by using the area of 16:9 to compare to area of 2.35:1 most would require 1.3-1.5 gain for a 12' wide screen. 1.3-1.5 gain doesn't produce a good image (does it?) and finding a good screen for theater use isn't going well, especially if I'm looking at doing a seymour DIY screen.


I'm wondering if I should build a screen much larger than I'll probably use (I'd prefer it as large as possible though) and zoom down with the projector until I get a good brightness then mask the screen down? I'd prefer around a 13' screen but I don't think it's possible, even if the room is under the garage and is near pitch black without a door installed.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *distoga* /forum/post/13281020
> 
> 
> I'm wondering if I should build a screen much larger than I'll probably use (I'd prefer it as large as possible though) and zoom down with the projector until I get a good brightness then mask the screen down?



An interesting theory, but it much harder to go from a big screen down to a smaller screen after seeing the image.


Yes AT screens lose light because as they pass sound one way, the also pass light the other, but that does mean that your image is going to be dull...


Mark


----------



## tomes




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/13346458
> 
> 
> An interesting theory, but it much harder to go from a big screen down to a smaller screen after seeing the image.
> 
> 
> Yes AT screens lose light because as they pass sound one way, the also pass light the other, but that does mean that your image is going to be dull...
> 
> 
> Mark



I think the trick is to never use the full screen in the first place, so he doesn't get disappointed










I'm probably following a similar approach, building a larger 2.35:1 screen than I can fill (without a lens at least), and use the full height for 16:9 (masking the sides), then masking the top and sides a little for 2.35:1


I'll probably prioritize the projector that gets the best remarks on lumen output, in the next 9-12 months. (My schedule is to get the projector around tax return time next year.....). Then, later on, I'll eventually get a lens, unless I'm very happy with my initial results.


Mark, is your new lens coming with a front element like the prismasonics? I believe they improve sharpness quite a bit?


----------



## CAVX

I have recently started watching DTV on my CIH system. I used to have side masking, but don't any more, and even so, it is the fact that the image is framed top and bottom to the masking that makes the image so appealing. I can live with non lit screen at the edges, but could not stand having blank screen top and bottom.


I think masking defines the screen regardless of size...


Mark


----------



## armendiel

I hope I don't get slammed too hard for this as I am still somewhat new to the site, but since Scope content is only 2048 x 858, could you not get the same effect just by using top and bottom masking? I imagine that it could be difficult, but surely no less difficult than an expensive anamorphic lens, motorized lens mount and the subsequent automation required. It seems that even with an anamorph, you still need side masking, and by using top and bottom masking you still get "full resolution" of the chip, as cinema scope is encoded with approximately 400,000 fewer pixels as flat anyway. With a 1080p projector at 2048 x 1080, you have enough chip for everything.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *armendiel* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I hope I don't get slammed too hard for this as I am still somewhat new to the site, but since Scope content is only 2048 x 858, could you not get the same effect just by using top and bottom masking?



Well in HT, that scope image is 1920 x 810, but in CIH, the idea to project the image using the full 1920 x 1080, so why waste pixels when you can use them all...



> Quote:
> I imagine that it could be difficult, but surely no less difficult than an expensive anamorphic lens, motorized lens mount and the subsequent automation required. It seems that even with an anamorph, you still need side masking, and by using top and bottom masking you still get "full resolution" of the chip, as cinema scope is encoded with approximately 400,000 fewer pixels as flat anyway. With a 1080p projector at 2048 x 1080, you have enough chip for everything.



The topic of zooming gets beat to death in the forums, but what HT projector is 2048 x 1080 anyway? All we are doing is making do with what HDTV has given us (1920 x 1080) go the next step. The lens, as it turns out, is the only way currently to do this...


Mark


----------



## Brian D

Ok, I am new to the whole 2.35 deal, but I know enough about it to know I want it in my theater. I started reading this thread from the beginning, but a lot of the original links to stuff you need etc... are gone or expired, also I got about 5 pages in before I noticed I was still in 2006. I will keep reading, but I am a little anxious to get going on this a little.... so I was hoping for some advice....


Right now I have a Sony VPL-400Q projector. I have had it since it was new, and it only gets used for movies and I had it deep serviced at the end of the warranty and I still have an extra bulb for it..... I was actually going to start looking for a good replacement for it with some extra money I had, but really want to get a 2.35 set-up 1st and then upgrade projector later.... unless I can find a super deal on a projector in the process. Also, I have a Toshiba A-20 HD dvd player (I know HD is dead, but works great as an upconverting DVD player). This is a dedicated theater with an aprox. distance of 22 ft. from projector to screen, give or take, and the projector is in another room.


So, I guess I am looking for a couple of things.... maybe a Quick Start guide. What are my lens options? Will any of the lenses I have seen on-line work with pretty much any projector? I have seen some like the http://www.hometheaterbrothers.com/2...CFRmRkgodBQgew for around $600 and the http://www.htmarket.com/pacole.html for $700 and of course then you get into the thousands with stuff like the Panamorph UH380 etc... Besides the obvious price differences.... what else does more money get you? I like the idea of not getting out of my chair, but I am a little confused about my options.... I know there is a motorized cart deal, some have pass throughs, and then I saw somewhere people always leaving lens on.... so help with this would be good.


Also, if there is a projector that works best with this set-up besides the $7000+ runco, then I would love a suggestion or two there... would need to be as bright as possible and of course 1080 etc...


Now, do I need a scaler? What are the suggestions here? Are there any decent or workable ones that will give me some options, but won't break the bank... or are even inexpensive....


Screen, I am planning on either buying a fixed one or getting the screen material and building myself.... I'll figure that out later.... I have 16:9 screen now...


So, if I keep my current projector for awhile longer, I need a set-up that will work now, and then ideally can be adapted/used with my new projector whenever I get to that point....


I know this is a lot to read... and I am still doing research, I promise... but any and all help would be greatly appreciated !! I am a serious newbie with this, not with home theater, but with 2.35.


THANKS !!!!!


----------



## GG386




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brian D* /forum/post/13722324
> 
> 
> also I got about 5 pages in before I noticed I was still in 2006. I will keep reading, but I am a little anxious to get going on this a little.... so I was hoping for some advice....



Hey Brian, we've all been there. 5 pages? C-mon, give it a little more effort! GUARANTEED, all of your questions will be covered in detail somwhere on this forum and if not than you got youself a post with everybody here to help you with it. Oh, and don't worry if your family wants to have you committed for being obsessed over doing all that research- you have now joined the fold


----------



## Brian D

Yeah... I know.... I'm on page 9 now... I am sure you don't want to hear about the other million things I am working on right now on top of this....










Maybe I will get to it, but why is this lens set-up so expensive?

Optoma BXAL133 Anamorphic Lens ?


Are there others that offer this auto detect feature deal?


THANKS!!


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brian D* /forum/post/13722324
> 
> 
> Ok, I am new to the whole 2.35 deal, but I know enough about it to know I want it in my theater. I started reading this thread from the beginning, but a lot of the original links to stuff you need etc... are gone or expired, also I got about 5 pages in before I noticed I was still in 2006. I will keep reading, but I am a little anxious to get going on this a little.... so I was hoping for some advice....



And hopefully I can help out here...



> Quote:
> Right now I have a Sony VPL-400Q projector. I have had it since it was new, and it only gets used for movies and I had it deep serviced at the end of the warranty and I still have an extra bulb for it..... I was actually going to start looking for a good replacement for it with some extra money I had, but really want to get a 2.35 set-up 1st and then upgrade projector later.... unless I can find a super deal on a projector in the process. Also, I have a Toshiba A-20 HD dvd player (I know HD is dead, but works great as an upconverting DVD player). This is a dedicated theater with an aprox. distance of 22 ft. from projector to screen, give or take, and the projector is in another room.



HD DVD may be dead, but the format (if you have software) rocks and looks as good as Blu-ray IMHO. So the projector is mounted 22+ from the screen? What is the size of the screen height? Longer TRs def work better than short, but of course, not all projectors can work at really long (or short) throws. Your sony will be LCD, have you considered DLP? I recently bought a Benq W5000. Total 1080 bang for buck, and Panamorph Approved, with both scaling modes on board!



> Quote:
> So, I guess I am looking for a couple of things.... maybe a Quick Start guide. What are my lens options? Will any of the lenses I have seen on-line work with pretty much any projector? I have seen some like the http://www.hometheaterbrothers.com/2...CFRmRkgodBQgew for around $600 and the http://www.htmarket.com/pacole.html for $700 and of course then you get into the thousands with stuff like the Panamorph UH380 etc... Besides the obvious price differences.... what else does more money get you? I like the idea of not getting out of my chair, but I am a little confused about my options.... I know there is a motorized cart deal, some have pass throughs, and then I saw somewhere people always leaving lens on.... so help with this would be good.



The first lens you have linked to is a HE lens, where the next is VC. The difference is that the HE will allow you to remove the lens without changing the image height. The VC is best left in the light path all the time. The VC is also useful if your TR is not long enough.


The reason the lens prices go up is due to corrective elements - both focus and CA correction. A simple 2 prisms lens will work, but no where as good as a 3 to 5 element lens...



> Quote:
> Also, if there is a projector that works best with this set-up besides the $7000+ runco, then I would love a suggestion or two there... would need to be as bright as possible and of course 1080 etc...



See above, but also check out the SONY VW60 as it will also do CIH out of the box...


> Quote:
> Now, do I need a scaler? What are the suggestions here? Are there any decent or workable ones that will give me some options, but won't break the bank... or are even inexpensive....



Scaler's will improve an image as well as let you do more than 2 or 3 ARs, so budget pending, but you don't need one right away with either projector I have mentioned. There are of course many others that fit this critea, but these two are units that I have personally installed and used.


> Quote:
> Screen, I am planning on either buying a fixed one or getting the screen material and building myself.... I'll figure that out later.... I have 16:9 screen now...



You will need a screen with at least an AR of 2.37:1

(1.7777777 x 1.3333333 = 2.37037202). Most anamorphic lenses for video are 1.33x stretch, but our very knowledgeable member Vern Dias uses a 1.5x stretch lens with HTPC and can projector CIH out to 2.66:1...



> Quote:
> So, if I keep my current projector for awhile longer, I need a set-up that will work now, and then ideally can be adapted/used with my new projector whenever I get to that point....



Supply screen sizes (need the height) and you will be able to work out the TR to help select a lens for you...



> Quote:
> I know this is a lot to read... and I am still doing research, I promise... but any and all help would be greatly appreciated !! I am a serious newbie with this, not with home theater, but with 2.35.
> 
> 
> THANKS !!!!!




Yeah, there is a bit to it, but most def worth the effort...


Mark


----------



## Brian D

Thanks for all the help!! I am still working on learning about this.


Yeah, my theater is 20' deep and then the projector sits a couple of feet back into the next room behind my theater behind my back row of seats and riser (I'd have to measure to see exactly.... maybe it's only a foot or so)...


I have between 48" and 49" or so in height. 48" of viewable area for sure it's 48" and some change and then any of the screens that come with black masking around, I can put behind my speakers. Before you ask, I have huge Altec Lansing Voice of the Theater speakers that I love the sound and the look of and they will be in front of the screen, that's what limits the height as well as my double sheet rocked/green glued ceiling which was not that tall to begin with. I have 48" and some change from the top of the speaker to the ceiling and I want to use all of that viewable space. I may try and build a screen and if I do that it won't have any black bars around it at all. I want to have motorized curtains that will cover whole screen and be able to use for side masking. Was what I was thinking anyway, maybe black curtains would work well.


I looked at this, just for an idea, but are these junk? I could probably go a little bigger without the surround masking....
http://www.htdepot.com/Focupix_Ultra...f235mw-125.htm 


What do you think of this lens and auto detect set-up?: Optoma BXAL133 Anamorphic Lens


If I can keep my projector for now, and buy a lens, scaler, and screen, maybe that would be the way to go, and then I can upgrade projector later. So I would want the equipment I buy now to work with whatever I get next.... of course I could be talked into buying a new projector too.... just depends as this stuff starts adding up.... and what other toys I want to by right now.







I have also torn apart my theater and am re-building/re-dressing as we speak...


THANKS AGAIN!!


EDIT: Ok, I am on the beginning of page 12. I need to go eat some dinner and put in some wife time.







I also, took a look at your CIH explained link. Can you tell me more about your Aussie Lens set-up? Is the sled motorized or manual? When will you have more of the one you are out of?


----------



## CAVX

Brian,


Based on a 48" high image and a 20 foot throw, the TR should be -


240" / 85.5" = 2.8:1 wow you might even run into some focal issues here, but you most certainly won't see pincushion...I think your going to be hard pressed to find a new projector that will zoom down to allow that distance. Every one I talked to said the DLP I bought needs a really long room, yet I have it set on the smallest image at just 3.2x the image height. I if move it back, I have to get a bigger screen. This projector is more suited for a seating distance of 2.5x. I actually wanted to make my cinema 36degrees or 3.68x, but the projector will not allow that.


Those screens might be OK, but you really need 2.37:1, not 2.35:1 if you actually want circles to be round and not slightly oval.


Auto detect would have to work off the black bars being encoded below video black. Not sure how that works...


Mark


----------



## Brian D

crap, I caught up with myself..... I need more to read... guess I'll start looking through the forum.










Here is the description of that lens: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...BXAL133K&Q=&O= 


You didn't really say anything about the Aussie lens.... any more info on that?


I think I would really like something that either does not have to move, or can be moved by remote control or do a remote pass through.... do to my projector being in another room. Although I am not sure I really understand the reasons for these different methods.


Any screen suggestions? Does anyone make a screen without the black masking around them? I'd prefer not to have it as my screen wall will be black fabric anyway and I'd rather go to the ceiling with the viewable screen area.


Scaler suggestions?


So at that distance, I am out of luck on a projector? The numbers are a little over my head... as long as I have been into Home Theater as a hobby, I always kind of glazed over the numbers.... didn't worry what the correct distance for the 1st row of seats, just kept doing rows until I got to a row that was unwatchable.







Anyway you can dumb down the number stuff for me a bit? Or can you think of any mid priced projectors that might work? I am still trying to figure out the whole subtitle deal and the DVD player.... will a scaler fix this? What are my options here?


lead me, oh wise master.


edit: couple things I found poking around. 1. I see now that the MKIII (?) is coming out in July, maybe?

2. there are some nice looking scalers on ebay.... no idea what I am looking for though... most bang for the buck?

3. I think I can get a Sony VW60 for around $3500, I think.... have to do more research on quality etc... would love

opinions. Like it better or less than Benq W5000? Also, I think I saw a bunch of people on here talking about having

some Panasonic projector? I think I paid like $5000 when I bought my Sony 400q back in the day new.... so this

seems reasonable..... any idea how this would compare to my current projector? One thing I noticed is that it looks

like the bulbs for this thing cost around $350, which is cheaper then the $400 or $500 for my current projector....

but also one of the things I hated most about it.....


edit 2: I am spending way to much time on this tonight.... it's 2:30am.... I haven't decided whether I am ready to buy a new projector yet, but I was looking at the reviews and info at projectorcentral.com (anyone have an opinion on the accuracy/quality of their reviews/stats?) and it looks like my top 3 choices would be the Sony Vpl-VW60, (or maybe Vpl-Vw40), the BenQ W5000 and the Panasonic PT-AE2000U. Am I missing any important choices in this price range? Can you give me your thoughts on these? I think you said the Benq and Sony's do CIH out of the box, does the Panasonic? Also, when you say they do it out of the box, does that mean I don't need a scaler or a special DVD player, just a lens, screen and projector? Am I understanding this correctly? The Panasonic looks like a good choice, except it looks like it's max throw is just barely at 20'. Anyway, enough for tonight.... any and ALL thoughts would be GREATLY appreciated!!


----------



## Chris Young

Hi all,


I've been using the 2 crystals stretch setup for about 6 months now and have really enjoyed using it. What I'm running into is Blu-ray movies that say they are 2:40 or 2:35 to 1 on the box and when I play them they come out at 1:85 to 1 and look fine. The 2 movies that I'm playing are "Night at the musieum" and "Chain Reaction" If I play the movies with out the crystals they look correct. If I adjust it to the vertical height and put the crystals in it looks streched. Could these movies really be 1:85 to 1 or maybe 1:78 to 1?

Have anyone else noticed this problem? Am I not setting something up correctly? Any help would be great.

Thanks,

Chris


Equipment being used.

Sony PS3 Blu-ray player

Panasonic PT-AX100U

Cinascope Screen out of Da-lite Screen Material

2 Crystials


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chris Young* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> 
> I've been using the 2 crystals stretch setup for about 6 months now and have really enjoyed using it. What I'm running into is Blu-ray movies that say they are 2:40 or 2:35 to 1 on the box and when I play them they come out at 1:85 to 1 and look fine. The 2 movies that I'm playing are "Night at the musieum" and "Chain Reaction" If I play the movies with out the crystals they look correct. If I adjust it to the vertical height and put the crystals in it looks streched. Could these movies really be 1:85 to 1 or maybe 1:78 to 1?
> 
> Have anyone else noticed this problem? Am I not setting something up correctly? Any help would be great.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Chris
> 
> 
> Equipment being used.
> 
> Sony PS3 Blu-ray player
> 
> Panasonic PT-AX100U
> 
> Cinascope Screen out of Da-lite Screen Material
> 
> 2 Crystials


Chris,


This sounds like your using the normal 16:9 mode plus prisms to create a scope image and why your image is over stretched...


Night In The Museum is 1.85:1, so you should be watching this film with black pillars on a scope screen. If your projector does not have an overscan issue, you actually see very small portions of black bars top and bottom, as 1.85:1 is 4% wider than 1.78, and anything wider then 1.78 will have black bars hard encoded on the image.


The only way to remove them and projector your 1.85:1 AR 4% wider than 1.78:1 as it should be seen is to use a HTPC or scaler, but, you end up not using the full horizontal rez of the panel on your projector...


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brian D* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> crap, I caught up with myself..... I need more to read... guess I'll start looking through the forum.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brian D* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the description of that lens: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...BXAL133K&Q=&O=


The lens in the link is the Panamorph UH380 - a good lens BTW. It might however be rebadged by Optima.


> Quote:
> You didn't really say anything about the Aussie lens.... any more info on that?


Brian I am not allowed to openly discuss the Aussiemorphic Lens here


> Quote:
> I think I would really like something that either does not have to move, or can be moved by remote control or do a remote pass through.... do to my projector being in another room. Although I am not sure I really understand the reasons for these different methods.


There are pros and con for both. Right now I am once again leaving the lens in place as I am finding it better with my new 1080 DLP (Benq w5000). This projector has a much longer throw than my previous SONY, so after realigning the projector to the screen, I have found that my images are more consistent when changing ARs using the projector. This happens for too reasons including but n iot limited to both ARs having e the same pixels per square unit of screen area, so just calibration, same light intensity for all ARs.


1.78:1 image = 1440 x 1080 + lens

2.37:1 image = 1920 x 1080 + lens




> Any screen suggestions? Does anyone make a screen without the black masking around them? I'd prefer not to have it as my screen wall will be black fabric anyway and I'd rather go to the ceiling with the viewable screen area.
> 
> 
> 
> I am using SmX and love it on a curved 2.37:1 screen. The masking just ensures a nice sharp edge to your image...
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Scaler suggestions?
> 
> 
> So at that distance, I am out of luck on a projector? The numbers are a little over my head... as long as I have been into Home Theater as a hobby, I always kind of glazed over the numbers.... didn't worry what the correct distance for the 1st row of seats, just kept doing rows until I got to a row that was unwatchable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway you can dumb down the number stuff for me a bit? Or can you think of any mid priced projectors that might work? I am still trying to figure out the whole subtitle deal and the DVD player.... will a scaler fix this? What are my options here?
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, the scaler will not re-locate subtitles. Some DVD upscalers like the new OPPO can with their new VS function.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> lead me, oh wise master.
> 
> 
> edit: couple things I found poking around. 1. I see now that the MKIII (?) is coming out in July, maybe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again I can't really comment here but will say it is coming soon...
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 2. there are some nice looking scalers on ebay.... no idea what I am looking for though... most bang for the buck?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Someone else might better answer that question for you. The best bang for buck is the one built into the projector...
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 3. I think I can get a Sony VW60 for around $3500, I think.... have to do more research on quality etc... would love
> 
> opinions. Like it better or less than Benq W5000? Also, I think I saw a bunch of people on here talking about having
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a tough one given that one is LCos and the other is DLP. I really wanted DLP this round, so bought the benq. I do however really like the new SONY too, but I would not go back to LCD again after having DLP...
> 
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Brian D

MArk, Thanks for all of your time and help!!!


I think I still have more questions than answers at this point.... but at least I feel a little more confident....


I need a projector, and if I choose the BenQ or the Sony, I probably don't need a scaler, right? I still might be interested in an older one off of ebay, but I'll have to learn more about what I need there.... any thoughts on either of these projectors and the LUMENS (I want it as bright as I can get, without losing image quality of course), and what about my 20+ foot throw?


I need a screen... I know the black bars make the image more defined, but if my whole wall is black fabric, then I don't need more black... I want the actual image to go to the ceiling, with the black bars on the screen you lose 2" to 5" I think in height on top and bottom. Does anyone know if there is a pre-made screen without the bars, or would I have to make my own?


I need a lens.... more prisms are better and cost more....


I think that covers it.... anymore tips or suggestions would be appreciated. I still feel I have a ton to learn, and don't feel comfrotable enough yet to start dropping cash.... though I want to bad.... I'm in the mode!


THANKS!!


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brian D* /forum/post/13743617
> 
> 
> MArk, Thanks for all of your time and help!!!
> 
> 
> I think I still have more questions than answers at this point.... but at least I feel a little more confident....
> 
> 
> I need a projector, and if I choose the BenQ or the Sony, I probably don't need a scaler, right? I still might be interested in an older one off of ebay, but I'll have to learn more about what I need there.... any thoughts on either of these projectors and the LUMENS (I want it as bright as I can get, without losing image quality of course), and what about my 20+ foot throw?



Correct. Both the SONY and Benq scale for two ARs so you can leave the lens in place if you want. A VP will let you customize your image as well as enhace detail, so a plus, not needed right away...


I have to say that in a light controlled room, you would not want a brighter image from either projector...



> Quote:
> I need a screen... I know the black bars make the image more defined, but if my whole wall is black fabric, then I don't need more black... I want the actual image to go to the ceiling, with the black bars on the screen you lose 2" to 5" I think in height on top and bottom. Does anyone know if there is a pre-made screen without the bars, or would I have to make my own?



Most pre fab screens attach the fabric to the frame, so you're going to be ard pressed to find one with out a frame.



> Quote:
> I need a lens.... more prisms are better and cost more....
> 
> 
> I think that covers it.... anymore tips or suggestions would be appreciated. I still feel I have a ton to learn, and don't feel comfrotable enough yet to start dropping cash.... though I want to bad.... I'm in the mode!
> 
> 
> THANKS!!



More elements are better, but they need not be prisms...


Mark


----------



## Brian D

man, I am so pissed.... there was a Optoma BXAL133 lens and sled on ebay and it sat until the end at like $890... I wanted it so bad, just becasue of the motorized sled. I bid like $1700 and it sold for $1800 and some change in the last few seconds.... I should have bid $2000.... I really was hoping to steal it for a $1000 or it would be hard to justify the new projector too.... guess I am looking for a cheaper option now.... damn!!


----------



## amtctt

My projector won't scale images. anyone know if the ps3 will?


----------



## Chad T




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brian D* /forum/post/13755769
> 
> 
> man, I am so pissed.... there was a Optoma BXAL133 lens and sled on ebay and it sat until the end at like $890... I wanted it so bad, just becasue of the motorized sled. I bid like $1700 and it sold for $1800 and some change in the last few seconds.... I should have bid $2000.... I really was hoping to steal it for a $1000 or it would be hard to justify the new projector too.... guess I am looking for a cheaper option now.... damn!!



Ebay Sniper Success Rule #1: Do not place a single bid until 10 seconds or less remain, then bid the absolute maximum you are willing to pay. If you win, all is good....you didn't pay too much by getting in a bidding frenzy. If you lose, all is good....it wasn't meant to be and went above the max you were willing to pay anyway.


----------



## Brian D

yeah I know, I actually tried sniping at 5 seconds remaining.... I should have put a higher total in.... I wasn't sure I wanted to pay that much until it was gone.


----------



## CAVX

PLease keep this thread on topic guys...


Mark


----------



## Brian D

sorry, it's still on topic though, I still need a lens.... hurry up with the Aussie 3 (I know u can't talk about it on here).... unless you have another $1500 and under suggestion....


Also, if I went with a JVC RS1 projector (the RS2 can stretch it internally, right?), can I get away with not having a scaler if I have the right DVD player that can export the stretched image I need? If so, is there a list of these players?


Or does anyone know what the cheapest scaler I can get to perform just this function and still be able to pass a 1080p signal for hd movies?


THANKS!


----------



## Cheap Dave

I had this in mind when I designed my HT. I chose a projector with a powered zoom lense. My screen has top and bottom limits but no width limit. So I just zoom out until the height fills the screen. So my picture just keeps getting wider (just like at the theater). My projector (Sony Cineza Hs10) has about a 25% zoom. YOu really need 33% to completly fill the screen (to go from 1.78 to 2.35).


The projectror aslo has some vertical stretch modes. I use these sometimes if it isn't too distracting. With Blu-ray I find there is plenty of resolution for my 720p projector.


----------



## GoCaboNow

In the designing stage of my totally light controlled cave and I think I am getting a handle on the relative strengths of the projectors I am looking at. The Benq5000, 1080ub, vp60, rs1 and 2. There is a fair amount of comparison on each. What I am struggling with is the same detail on the stretching lenses. Aussie 3, Optoma BXAL133, UH380, UH480 and the HTB product. What am I getting with these lenses compared to each other and their costs??


My throw can be as close or far as needed. looking to do a 125" - 138" 2.37 1.3 1.5 or so screen? Haven't figured out which of these pj's would handle this size best yet but alot depends on the budget and the biggest variable is the he lense. Does anyone have some consolidated details they can point me to or share on lense options?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GoCaboNow* /forum/post/14054464
> 
> 
> What I am struggling with is the same detail on the stretching lenses. Aussie 3, Optoma BXAL133, UH380, UH480 and the HTB product. What am I getting with these lenses compared to each other and their costs??



Put very simply, the more you spend, the better the end result...


Mark


----------



## GoCaboNow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/14056388
> 
> 
> Put very simply, the more you spend, the better the end result...
> 
> 
> Mark



Funny. It is hard to know what I really demand in the product without seeing examples. At my level would a sub $1000 2 element lense be fantastic for me with a Benq5000 or would I not be satisfied until I doubled/tripled the price. I just saw the Sony VW60 at a Sony style store and it did not look good on the 90" screen and darkish room. The 10 year veteran, high pressure sales guy said the strength of the pj was how well it puts out in ambient light and when I asked about the "internal scaler" he said yes it scales everything to 1080p. Also, they do not calibrate the demo unit because they want the customer to see it uncalibrated. Real hard to see what a good set up is. Anybody in Portland that has a good fp setup?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GoCaboNow* /forum/post/14056674
> 
> 
> Funny. It is hard to know what I really demand in the product without seeing examples. At my level would a sub $1000 2 element lense be fantastic for me with a Benq5000 or would I not be satisfied until I doubled/tripled the price.



In the end, yes you do need to see it yourself. I own the W5000 and a sub $1K two prisms lens, but I also have access to much more high end lenses, and yes, I would love to have on of them sitting in the light path...


Mark


----------



## Cnd Joe

Ok I need some help with a CURVED CIH set up. Here is some issues I have.

Firstly thanks too Aussie Bob for his spreadsheet.


Onto my questions to help solve my problems.


A) What is a good Pincushion/Height ratio?

B)I have a Panny AE2000. Room is 11 x 19ish. Looking at either a 46 or 50 CIH set up.


C) is kinda complicated but when looking at this website for pj placement can someone tell me

1)If I set the height at 46 or 50 then proceed to move the zoom lens out it changes the throw range but not the hieght of the screen. Yet when I move the throw range itself it changes the hieght. Does this mean I can keep a constant height and by moving my PJ farther back and using the zoom get the image to be constant at the height I want?

http://www.projectorcentral.com/Pana...ulator-pro.htm 


D) If I pick a 50inch high screen and then place the pj at 18.5 feet and zoom the image in to fit the 50 inch height screen, my Pincoushion/hieght ratio is 74%. Is this ok will I see bending of straight lines?


Thanks for all the help. I plan to make a Black widdow DIY screen.


----------



## piratehunter

Do we have a list of which projectors can do the vertical stretch? I ran a search and came up empty.


----------



## McCall




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *piratehunter* /forum/post/14096814
> 
> 
> Do we have a list of which projectors can do the vertical stretch? I ran a search and came up empty.



Here is one link that might help some.

http://panamorph.com/Compatibility.html


----------



## AlexBen

We should have a pair of "sticky"s in this sub-forum:


Scalars that do the Vert expansion we want (and list if they're analog or digital)

Lenses that do the Horiz expansion we want


These seem to be the two components any newb (like myself) wants to sift through and choose from.. but there doesn't seem to be a neat list of manufactures and products for each app.


(maybe I'm missing something, or its such a short list its not worth while)


I'd love to read a string on which scalars do this, which ones do it completely digitally to avoid D/A conversion and back to A/D before sending it to a PJ


----------



## adrian27

Please folks, I need some help: I have a SONY vpl vw60 and a SAMSUNG BD 1400, I use the anamorph stretch function in the SONY menu but suddenly the subtitles disappears, Can anybody tell me why ?


thanks in advance


----------



## jhu01

I am looking to buy a new screen. I am deciding between getting a 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 fixed screen. What are the differences and which one should I get? If I watch 2.35:1 on a 2.40:1, do I get black bars at the two sides?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *adrian27* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Please folks, I need some help: I have a SONY vpl vw60 and a SAMSUNG BD 1400, I use the anamorph stretch function in the SONY menu but suddenly the subtitles disappears, Can anybody tell me why ?
> 
> 
> thanks in advance



Adrian, if the subtitles are in hard encoded in the black bars, then they will be cut along with the black bars. There is talk of re-locatable subtitles with some BD, but I have only seen one example to date...



> Quote:
> I am looking to buy a new screen. I am deciding between getting a 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 fixed screen. What are the differences and which one should I get? If I watch 2.35:1 on a 2.40:1, do I get black bars at the two sides?



If you intend to use a lens and scale with the projector, you actually want a 2.37:1 screen otherwize you will find that you do have very small pillars on the 2.40:1 and slightly overshoot on the 2.35:1 screen. Otherwize you need a scaler or HTPC to custom the stretch to fit...


Mark


----------



## jhu01




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/14409280
> 
> 
> If you intend to use a lens and scale with the projector, you actually want a 2.37:1 screen otherwize you will find that you do have very small pillars on the 2.40:1 and slightly overshoot on the 2.35:1 screen. Otherwize you need a scaler or HTPC to custom the stretch to fit...
> 
> Mark



Mark, thanks for your answer. Yes, I am planning on using a lens and do V-Stretch from a JVC RS2. Why would i get small pillars on the 2.40:1 when playing 2.40:1 content? So does that mean I should get 2.40:1 only if I am going to do side masking? And I should get 2.37:1 screen if I am not going to do side masking? And is it correct that I'll still get small pillars on the 2.37:1 when playing 2.35:1 content?


----------



## jhu01




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The 2.40:1 screen is actually a touch too wide for a true 1.33x HE lens and 16:9 panel. The maths works out to be 2.37, though with a prisms lens, a slight twist, and you can make it fit the extra width of the 2.40 or twist the other way, fit the 2.35, and you should not notice the slight geometric distortions, but the correct width is 2.37:1...
> 
> Mark



I am still confused. Panamorph states the below on their website. Why would they recommend using 2.40:1 if 2.37:1 would be the correct AR? Also, what happens when you display 2.40:1 content on your 2.37:1 screen?


What aspect ratio screen should I order - 2.35:1, 2.40:1, or 2.37:1? The fact is that there is an entire range of aspect ratios, mostly from 2.35:1 to 2.40, used by directors for major motion pictures. "2.35:1" has caught on mostly because many of the earlier True Widescreen movies (as opposed to those made for smaller screen) were filmed in this ratio. We actually use the phrase "True Widescreen" to encompass the format realm of major motion pictures in an attempt to minimize confusion. However, "2.35:1" is still strongly part of the vernacular for emerging home cinema so we use just as frequently.


The direct answer is that we recommend a 2.40:1 screen and to set your system up so that 1.85 movies (in a constant height system) fill the top and bottom of your 2.40 screen. There are a lot of convoluted reasons for this, but basically using a 2.40:1 screen seems to be the most effective way of minimizing black bars (or strips) from the top and bottom of popular content short of having adjustable masking.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jhu01* /forum/post/14421359
> 
> 
> I am still confused. Panamorph states the below on their website. Why would they recommend using 2.40:1 if 2.37:1 would be the correct AR? Also, what happens when you display 2.40:1 content on your 2.37:1 screen?



Your best bet for this is to ask Panamorph, but 1.7777777 x 1.3333333 = 2.3703702...



> Quote:
> What aspect ratio screen should I order - 2.35:1, 2.40:1, or 2.37:1?



See above...


There is about 4% difference between 1.78:1 and 1.85:1, so when the scaling in the projector, you have to make a decision as to living withing with very small bars top and bottom or zooming a touch. Only a dedicated scaler or HTPC will give allow you to use the full vertical rez, but you then also need a higher value of stretch...


Mark


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jhu01* /forum/post/14421359
> 
> 
> I am still confused. Panamorph states the below on their website. Why would they recommend using 2.40:1 if 2.37:1 would be the correct AR? Also, what happens when you display 2.40:1 content on your 2.37:1 screen?
> 
> 
> What aspect ratio screen should I order - 2.35:1, 2.40:1, or 2.37:1? The fact is that there is an entire range of aspect ratios, mostly from 2.35:1 to 2.40, used by directors for major motion pictures. "2.35:1" has caught on mostly because many of the earlier True Widescreen movies (as opposed to those made for smaller screen) were filmed in this ratio. We actually use the phrase "True Widescreen" to encompass the format realm of major motion pictures in an attempt to minimize confusion. However, "2.35:1" is still strongly part of the vernacular for emerging home cinema so we use just as frequently.
> 
> 
> The direct answer is that we recommend a 2.40:1 screen and to set your system up so that 1.85 movies (in a constant height system) fill the top and bottom of your 2.40 screen. There are a lot of convoluted reasons for this, but basically using a 2.40:1 screen seems to be the most effective way of minimizing black bars (or strips) from the top and bottom of popular content short of having adjustable masking.



Most manufactured cinemascope screens are 2.35. DVD uses 2.35, hddvd/bluray uses 2.40, theatrical use 2.39, but as CAVX stated 2.37 is what you'll get with a 16x9 FP. Anything less than 2.37 is clipped, for instance Grand Prix use a 2.20 aspect. Anything over has small bars (Ben Hur 2.76, lawrence of arabia 2.55, though BR will be 2.20). I wouldn't grip about a few pixels. You'll may need to overscan, depending on the lens used, anyway. Dave.


----------



## EJ1

What if you only used the zoom method to achieve CIH? Would 2.35, 2.37, or 2.40 be ideal?


----------



## CAVX

If you zoom, you can use anything you want...


----------



## Widlarizer

CAVX adviced me to use 2.37:1 and that was a good decision. In the most cases, i even don't notice the small black bars watching (for example) "I Am Legend". It's easy to zoom them out of the screen


----------



## Pfdjr1

There's only a handful of projectors that will do this.


1. A 16x9 native projector

2. Scaler that performs the required vertical stretch

3. Anamorphic lens (Horizontal stretch or Vertical squeeze)



Anyone care to elaborate on that point, specifically which projectors?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pfdjr1* /forum/post/15095704
> 
> 
> There's only a handful of projectors that will do this.
> 
> 
> 1. A 16x9 native projector
> 
> 2. Scaler that performs the required vertical stretch
> 
> 3. Anamorphic lens (Horizontal stretch or Vertical squeeze)
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone care to elaborate on that point, specifically which projectors?



A few lists have been formed, but it us difficult to stay on top with all the new models coming out. In the case of my list, I won't add a projector unless I can actually test it for myself...


I use a BenQ W5000 as it is a native 16:9 HD projector with both Vertcial Stretch and Horizontal Squeeze...


Mark


----------



## phansson

I will be jumping into the CIH setup this year. I have finally decided to do it.


I didn't want to start a new thread on this. Maybe someone in this thread could throw some light on the subject.


After doing as much possible reading on this forum, it appears that the cylindrical lenses are the best. If an ISCO III is 100%, what would a prismasonic U480 or panamorph 5000 be? Properly setup of course.


Also, are most CIH setups using a curved screen?


Thanks


----------



## CAVX

You should really compare apples with apples. Cylindrical lenses are better as they offer continious astigmatism adjustments, so you bring the image into focus in both the horizontal and vertical plains at the same time at pretty much any TR in the lenses's opperating range.


Prisms lenses on the other hand are more dependend on specific TRs and there corrective elements tend to be designed for specific focal points. Because they are not adjustable, a prism lens will never be as good as a cylindrical lens...


Mark


----------



## phansson

Thanks CAVX,


Thanks for the input. I have a Sony VPL-VW60 and spending $6000 on an ISCO III seems like overkill if a $2500 prism lens is going to be 95% of the performance. I know I can use the lens forever, but it is still a lot of money for a 5% gain in performance.


Of course those numbers are being pulled out of my backside because I have no experience with either. I have read quite a few threads about this and the threads all say that a cylindrical lens is better, but how much is what I am interested in.


BTW, there is an ISCO II on ebay for a decent price. Would this lens be to small for my "black pearl"?


----------



## CAVX

The lens should work if your TR is long enough. The problem with the ISCI II is that is uses sperical elements as well as the cylindrical elements, so the height changes meaning that you HAVE to leave this lens in place all the time. That is not as isse as your "black pearl" has both scaling modes, so your fine.


The difference between a dialed in cylindrical and a prisms lenes is that the cylindrical lens can bring both H and V lines into focus at the same time. This is what the Zoomers are so obsessed with even though most don't even know it...


Mark


----------



## rockstar0215

I am looking around for some anamorphic lenses and I found one that has an aspect ratio of 2.37:1. How would that work with a 2.35 screen? Or would it even work at all?


Second question: most movies now are in 2.40:1 ratios, if that is projected through an anamorphic lens on a 2.35 screen, would I have subtle letterboxing on top and bottom?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rockstar0215* /forum/post/15928291
> 
> 
> I am looking around for some anamorphic lenses and I found one that has an aspect ratio of 2.37:1. How would that work with a 2.35 screen? Or would it even work at all?



All 1.33x stretch lenses produce a 2.37:1 image when used with a 16:9 projector. 1.7777777 x 1.3333333 = 2.3703702...



> Quote:
> Second question: most movies now are in 2.40:1 ratios, if that is projected through an anamorphic lens on a 2.35 screen, would I have subtle letterboxing on top and bottom?



If you use a 2.40:1 screen, then you zoom a touch to fill the width.


----------



## rockstar0215




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/15932694
> 
> 
> If you use a 2.40:1 screen, then you zoom a touch to fill the width.



But if I leave it in place I would have little letterboxing correct?


And thank you for all the help, I am now considering an anamorphic 2.35 setup in my HT. =P


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rockstar0215* /forum/post/15932817
> 
> 
> But if I leave it in place I would have little letterboxing correct?



About 2%, or 1% top and 1% on the bottom, so please try not to lose any sleep over it...


----------



## rockstar0215




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/15933144
> 
> 
> About 2%, or 1% top and 1% on the bottom, so please try not to lose any sleep over it...



Hence the "subtle letterboxing"







but thank you for the help


----------



## pdg540

I've been using a panny pt-ax100u and an aussie mkii A-lens shooting on a 10ft wide screen. I use the vertical stretch of the panny for 2.35:1 material and it displays with no distortion. When I switch back to HD 16:9 broadcasts, I switch the panny back to 16:9 and leave the lens in place. The picture continues to be displayed at 2.35:1. Theoretically, as I understand it, the image should be distorted in a manner that makes the images appear short and fat. I'm not seeing this distortion..... to me the stretched 16:9 image looks perfect. I guess my question is this: Is the optical distortion (with no correction) when stretching 16:9 to 2.35:1 less noticeable than when stretching 4:3 to 16:9? I can remember doing the latter stretch and feeling very unsatisfied with the results.


Thanks in advance.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pdg540* /forum/post/15943676
> 
> 
> o me the stretched 16:9 image looks perfect. I guess my question is this: Is the optical distortion (with no correction) when stretching 16:9 to 2.35:1 less noticeable than when stretching 4:3 to 16:9? I can remember doing the latter stretch and feeling very unsatisfied with the results.
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance.



You should be using the 4 x 3 mode + lens for opical stretched 16:9. Using the 16:9 mode will make everything look too wide as the lens will stretch everything, so you get a doublle horizontal stretch - first by the display, then by the lens. If you want your TV as "Scope TV" then you have to use the same mode that you use for your Scope movies. This of course chops off the top and bottom of the image, but at least the geometry will be correct.


The point about CIH is about projecting all ARs at the same height, not filling the screen.


----------



## rockstar0215

I noticed I am asking a bunch of questions about CIH lately, and thank you everyone for responding.

I used projector central's calculator and for my 130" wide screen it says my projector should be at around 13'. After reading in the forums, I realized that at closer distances the more likely I am going to get a pincushion effect. Is there an equation or something of that sort to determine how far my PJ could possibly be with an anamorphic lens?


----------



## CAVX

Scope screen width x 0.75 x TR will give you the distance from the screen to your projectors lens. TR should 2.0 or greater.


----------



## helmsman

I'm trying to set up my Samsung BD-P1200 blu-ray player in my home theater, connecting it to my SIM2 HT300 Plus DLP projector with a Panamorph anamorphic lens. Unfortunately due to the limitiations of my projector I have to use component video connections (no HDMI but the picture quality out of this projector more than makes up for it). I have no problems playing regular DVDs, getting the projector to stretch the 2.4:1 content that's letterboxed in 16:9 mode, so that the anamorphic lens can fill my 2.4:1 screen by horizontally stretching it and restoring the correct AR. But I can't seem to duplicate that when playing 2.4:1 blu-ray movies - it's as if the Samsung player won't send a letterboxed 2.4:1 image in a 16:9 format. I know that when the Samsung was connected to my LCD tv it would, but that was with an HDMI connection. Does anyone have any ideas or have you tackled a similar problem? Will the Samsung player not send such an image with component connections? Thanks!


----------



## helmsman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *helmsman* /forum/post/16246310
> 
> 
> I'm trying to set up my Samsung BD-P1200 blu-ray player in my home theater, connecting it to my SIM2 HT300 Plus DLP projector with a Panamorph anamorphic lens. Unfortunately due to the limitiations of my projector I have to use component video connections (no HDMI but the picture quality out of this projector more than makes up for it). I have no problems playing regular DVDs, getting the projector to stretch the 2.4:1 content that's letterboxed in 16:9 mode, so that the anamorphic lens can fill my 2.4:1 screen by horizontally stretching it and restoring the correct AR. But I can't seem to duplicate that when playing 2.4:1 blu-ray movies - it's as if the Samsung player won't send a letterboxed 2.4:1 image in a 16:9 format. I know that when the Samsung was connected to my LCD tv it would, but that was with an HDMI connection. Does anyone have any ideas or have you tackled a similar problem? Will the Samsung player not send such an image with component connections? Thanks!



Okay, just figured it out and am answering my own question. I was getting hung up during all the preview and menu material, much of which is not 2.4:1AR and therefore not letterboxed, so my vertical stretching was chopping off al lot of the top and bottom. Once the movie actually starts then it finally goes to 2.4:1 letterboxed in 16:9, which all the settings and lens take care of. Of course, my older DVDs don't have all this preview and bonus material menus so I didn't notice or have the problem with them. Had me scratching my head for a while though.


----------



## CAVX

So are you saying that your projector Scales over Component for HD but not HDMI?


----------



## helmsman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX*  /forum/post/16249022
> 
> 
> So are you saying that your projector Scales over Component for HD but not HDMI?



No, it scales for both but I thought I was having problems with component, but it was because the preview material and menus often are not 2.4:1 letterboxed into 16:9 before the scaling, it that makes sense. In other words, many of the previews have content on the top and bottom cut off post-scaling, but once the movie starts it performs as it should. I would notice the same thing if I were using HDMI, but never thought about it on my LCD TV. Funny that I haven't seen this mentioned in any of my CIH reading.


----------



## CAVX

Most of us start playback in 16:9 mode (scaling or lens removed), and I have often suggested that togglig back to the 4 x 3 mode is the easiest way to nav a menu for both BD and DVD.


----------



## phansson

CAVX,


I am about to do the install on my ISCO II lens. I have the mount, PJ (all ready had it) and will pick up the screen in the next couple of weeks. I would like to get the mount/PJ/lens up for now.


I am a little confused about throw ratio. Earlier you stated that it was projection distance/screen width x .75 = throw ratio. Is this correct?


My projector lens would be about 18' from the screen and I am looking at a 110"/115" wide 2.40 format screen. It doesn't look like my throw ratio is going to reach that magic 2.0 number. Any suggestions?


Thanks

Patrick


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *phansson* /forum/post/16353317
> 
> 
> CAVX,
> 
> 
> I am about to do the install on my ISCO II lens. I have the mount, PJ (all ready had it) and will pick up the screen in the next couple of weeks. I would like to get the mount/PJ/lens up for now.



Are you arware that this lens will change the height if you move it out of the light path? This lens is best left in the light path at all times and scale electronically - either projector or scaler.



> Quote:
> I am a little confused about throw ratio. Earlier you stated that it was projection distance/screen width x .75 = throw ratio. Is this correct?



Yes this is correct. I prefer to take SW x 0.75 x 2.0 to find the actuall distance needed though.



> Quote:
> My projector lens would be about 18' from the screen and I am looking at a 110"/115" wide 2.40 format screen. It doesn't look like my throw ratio is going to reach that magic 2.0 number. Any suggestions?



115 x 0.75 x 2.0 = 172.5" /12 = 14 Feet, so you should be even better at 18 feet. Just be sure to use min Zoom (smallest image).


18' / [115" x 0.75] = TR 2.5:1 which is awesome if the image is small enough at that distance to fit the screen. Bench test this first! Longer TRs = less pincusion


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *phansson* /forum/post/16353317
> 
> 
> I am a little confused about throw ratio. Earlier you stated that it was projection distance/screen width x .75 = throw ratio. Is this correct?



There's a lot of confusion introduced with recommended throw ratio calculations vs which number to use when talking about 2.35 screens.


If you use this, you don't have to know if the width means the 2.37 width or the 16:9 width:


TR = ( [throw distance] / [screen height] ) * 0.5625

Use same units in each variable of course (e.g. inches)


----------



## phansson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16353479
> 
> 
> Are you arware that this lens will change the height if you move it out of the light path? This lens is best left in the light path at all times and scale electronically - either projector or scaler.



Yes I will keep the lens in place all the time and use the projector to scale the image. Doesn't the ISCO II also "enlarge" the image somewhat?




> Quote:
> 115 x 0.75 x 2.0 = 172.5" /12 = 14 Feet, so you should be even better at 18 feet. Just be sure to use min Zoom (smallest image).
> 
> 
> 18' / [115" x 0.75] = TR 2.5:1 which is awesome if the image is small enough at that distance to fit the screen. Bench test this first! Longer TRs = less pincusion



You really know your stuff and I appreciate you helping me out.


Now, I just need a screen. I would prefer to do a fixed curved screen, but with the WAF being somewhat of a factor, an electronic screen is necessary.

At this TR, pincushion shouldn't be an issue.


CAVX, you are an important part of the CIH forum. Thanks again.


----------



## phansson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/16353592
> 
> 
> There's a lot of confusion introduced with recommended throw ratio calculations vs which number to use when talking about 2.35 screens.
> 
> 
> If you use this, you don't have to know if the width means the 2.37 width or the 16:9 width:
> 
> 
> TR = [throw distance] * [screen height] * 0.5625
> 
> Use same units in each variable of course (e.g. inches)



Thank you GetGray. That seems even easier.


----------



## helmsman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16353479
> 
> 
> Are you arware that this lens will change the height if you move it out of the light path? This lens is best left in the light path at all times and scale electronically - either projector or scaler.




CAVX, I have a question about this (although I'm talking about HE vs VC). I have a Panamorph UH380 currently fixed, and I use one of my projector's custom scaling settings to "unstretch" the horizontally expanded image for 1.85, 16:9 and 4:3 content. I'm toying with the idea of adding a transport to alternatively move the lens out of the way and then using a standard unscaled setting on the PJ. I'm wondering whether I should bother with this.


I believe the benfits from using the transport approach for non-2.35 material would be: improved horizontal resolution, improved brightness (less glass between the bulb and the screen). Cons: added cost (for the transport), more mechnical complexity and therefore the potential for maintenance or mechanical problems, different calibration required (not sure about this one, and even if true it's probably so negligible that it would not be noticeable).


Thoughts?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *helmsman* /forum/post/16356288
> 
> 
> CAVX, I have a question about this (although I'm talking about HE vs VC). I have a Panamorph UH380 currently fixed, and I use one of my projector's custom scaling settings to "unstretch" the horizontally expanded image for 1.85, 16:9 and 4:3 content. I'm toying with the idea of adding a transport to alternatively move the lens out of the way and then using a standard unscaled setting on the PJ. I'm wondering whether I should bother with this.



Personally I don't move the lens because of the change in pixel density, but there are many that belive that moving the lens is better than leaving in in place.



> Quote:
> I believe the benfits from using the transport approach for non-2.35 material would be: improved horizontal resolution, improved brightness (less glass between the bulb and the screen). Cons: added cost (for the transport), more mechnical complexity and therefore the potential for maintenance or mechanical problems, different calibration required (not sure about this one, and even if true it's probably so negligible that it would not be noticeable).
> 
> 
> Thoughts?



Using the full panel for 16:9 really depends in how much TV you watch. I don't watch TV on my system, just movies, and most are scope anyway...but that is me.


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *phansson* /forum/post/16353624
> 
> 
> Thank you GetGray. That seems even easier.



Welcome, but note I typed an error. I have it corrected in teh original answer now. Sorry about that.


TR = Throw distance / Screen height * 0.5625


Scott


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *helmsman* /forum/post/16356288
> 
> 
> I believe the benfits from using the transport approach for non-2.35 material would be: improved horizontal resolution, improved brightness (less glass between the bulb and the screen). Cons: added cost (for the transport), more mechnical complexity and therefore the potential for maintenance or mechanical problems, different calibration required (not sure about this one, and even if true it's probably so negligible that it would not be noticeable).



Correct. And

No potential image scaling artifacts from compressing the original 1:1 16:9 pixel mapping. No need to mess with it if it's where it's supposed to be already.


re cons. The higher end transports should be reliable. Mine is tested to 300,000 moves (we got tired of listening to it after that) Same test unit still going today a year later.


If you watched 99% 2.35 and only needed an occasional slumming into 1.78







, then perhaps the expense of a high end transport is hard to justify. But I watch a great edal of 1.78 material. With kids, many of their movies are 1.78 (e.g. Shrek, maybe all the Pixar movies?). And I watch a good deal of HDTV (LOST is eye candy on my big screen). I would never throw any of the original resolution away. I'd use a drawer slide first.


HTH


----------



## b4kramer

I have heard that the JVC DLA-RS20 projector can only be used with certain lenses, but it is still unclear to me which those are. I will have a 16 X 24 room, and was thinking about putting a JVC DLA-RS20 projector with the FireHawk G3 or perhaps one of the other Stewart screens, like StudioTek 130. I have always been a fan of the 'bigger the better' philosophy, and was looking to see if you think that a 153" CINE-W, A 2.35:1 CURVED SCREEN, 60" X 141" would work? I was pondering a SCHNEIDER or ISCOIII or Panamorph 480 (I have no idea which lens would work best)? I think the ceiling height will be around 8-10. I am open to any lens that will work and is less than 10K US dollars. Also, will this projector be bright enough for this size screen?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/16361533
> 
> 
> 
> TR = Throw distance / Screen height * 0.5625
> 
> 
> Scott



Good one Scott. It seems you can also sub the TR for a throw distance - IE to find the distance to mount the projector?


EG: 6m / 1.33m * 0.5625 = TR2.5:1


and TR 2.5 * 1.33m / 0.5625 = TD of 5.911m


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b4kramer* /forum/post/16373660
> 
> 
> I have heard that the JVC DLA-RS20 projector can only be used with certain lenses, but it is still unclear to me which those are. I will have a 16 X 24 room, and was thinking about putting a JVC DLA-RS20 projector with the FireHawk G3 or perhaps one of the other Stewart screens, like StudioTek 130. I have always been a fan of the 'bigger the better' philosophy, and was looking to see if you think that a 153" CINE-W, A 2.35:1 CURVED SCREEN, 60" X 141" would work? I was pondering a SCHNEIDER or ISCOIII or Panamorph 480 (I have no idea which lens would work best)? I think the ceiling height will be around 8-10. I am open to any lens that will work and is less than 10K US dollars. Also, will this projector be bright enough for this size screen?



Depending on where you mount the projector (throw distance), then the Isco IIIS might be enough and save you some. The IIIL is reputed to be the very best and is within your budget. But the IIIS will have similar performance IF your throw is long enough.


----------



## b4kramer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/16393738
> 
> 
> Depending on where you mount the projector (throw distance), then the Isco IIIS might be enough and save you some. The IIIL is reputed to be the very best and is within your budget. But the IIIS will have similar performance IF your throw is long enough.



The website I was looking at suggested 21.5' for the throw, so I was thinking about just putting a shelf high up on the wall of the 24'4" foot room. So you like the ISCOIII the best of those choices?


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b4kramer* /forum/post/16396746
> 
> 
> The website I was looking at suggested 21.5' for the throw, so I was thinking about just putting a shelf high up on the wall of the 24'4" foot room. So you like the ISCOIII the best of those choices?



I believe without doubt it is the best lens you can get. Schneider bought Isco last year and even they still say the Isco's are better (in a recent Home Theater magazine article). If for no other reasons, these are ground glass lenses of high end photographic quality and have adjustable astigmatism (focus) where other solutions rely on specific ranges of focus. However as I am an Isco dealer, I will add the disclaimer that I have a biased opinion. That said, I don't know of anyone who disagrees. The Isco's are only available from a very limited number of places. We sell them but Jason Turk or Alan Gouger here at AVS are particularly good sources.


----------



## turls

Lot of dead links in the first post in this thread. Just mentioning that it is frustrating to newbies like myself, since I realize there are some evangelists here that may want to take note.


----------



## Mike_WI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/16396936
> 
> 
> I believe without doubt it is the best lens you can get. Schneider bought Isco last year and even they still say the Isco's are better (in a recent Home Theater magazine article). If for no other reasons, these are ground glass lenses of high end photographic quality and have adjustable astigmatism (focus) where other solutions rely on specific ranges of focus. However as I am an Isco dealer, I will add the disclaimer that I have a biased opinion. That said, I don't know of anyone who disagrees. The Isco's are only available from a very limited number of places. We sell them but Jason Turk or Alan Gouger here at AVS are particularly good sources.



The ISCO is one of the only things that has gone UP in value since I bought it.

That's hard to say for anything else in consumer electronics (I realize it's not electronics -- but related).


Mike


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *turls* /forum/post/16476385
> 
> 
> Lot of dead links in the first post in this thread. Just mentioning that it is frustrating to newbies like myself, since I realize there are some evangelists here that may want to take note.



This thread is pretty old. What exactly did you want to know?


----------



## EmoryS




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tukkis* /forum/post/5823644
> 
> 
> This can sometimes cause the picture to drop depending on the lens.



I have read through this thread multiple times and have looked at many of the sources people reference in their footers, but this is one aspect of CIH that I still don't understand...


Assuming that one wanted to do horizontal vs. vertical and wanted to move the lens out of the way for 16x9 movies or TV what is the "norm" as it relates to the image shifting down?


Do you adjust the projector? Do you program something in your scaler to combat this? Or, is it a non-issue for most lenses? And if it is a non-issue for most lenses, is this something that companies will tell you when you are making a buying decision?


Based on my very limited understanding of CIH based on what I have read on this forum, I am thinking for my application (which is about a year away, but laying the groundwork now so I can hit the ground running once I get wife approval) I would prefer to move the lens out of the projector path for non-scope films, but don't understand how to combat the image dropping if this is a byproduct.


Any words of wisdom?


Thank you!










EmoryS


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *EmoryS* /forum/post/16521307
> 
> 
> Assuming that one wanted to do horizontal vs. vertical and wanted to move the lens out of the way for 16x9 movies or TV what is the "norm" as it relates to the image shifting down?



The image shift you refer to is not an exact known quantity. There have been reports if this from none to upto an 1" (25mm). It seems that some have reported that inverting the lens helps here.



> Quote:
> Do you adjust the projector? Do you program something in your scaler to combat this? Or, is it a non-issue for most lenses? And if it is a non-issue for most lenses, is this something that companies will tell you when you are making a buying decision?



If you are experiencing this shift then lens shift is useful or simply don't move the anamorphic lens - set and forget.



> Quote:
> Based on my very limited understanding of CIH based on what I have read on this forum, I am thinking for my application (which is about a year away, but laying the groundwork now so I can hit the ground running once I get wife approval) I would prefer to move the lens out of the projector path for non-scope films, but don't understand how to combat the image dropping if this is a byproduct.
> 
> 
> Any words of wisdom?
> 
> 
> Thank you!



I would not go so far as to call it a "bi-product" as this "abberation" does not seem to occur all the time with every lens. I would say this problem is more to do with the lower end DIY lenses than the higher end prism and cylindrical lenses.


----------



## The_Nephilim1

Hi, I had Posted in this thread back in o6' but never went ahead because of my budget. But I am back and I need to know if my current setup will be able to do the vertical stretch?? I had emailed a few of the companies and they are clueless as to what I asked or flat out did not know??


I have a Denon 1930ci DVD Player and a Acer PH 530 DLP PRojector. I had looked in the manual all I see is a Zoom Feature is that what I need to do the vertical stretch??


Thnx for any info you can provide











EDIT: I Found CAVX EXcellent website and the EASY Math calculations that I needed to know. AS far as ?I see I can leave the projector in itis current position and get a 107.44" Wide 2.37 screen









'


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *The_Nephilim1* /forum/post/16596043
> 
> 
> Hi, I had Posted in this thread back in o6' but never went ahead because of my budget. But I am back and I need to know if my current setup will be able to do the vertical stretch?? I had emailed a few of the companies and they are clueless as to what I asked or flat out did not know??



And most won't










> Quote:
> I have a Denon 1930ci DVD Player and a Acer PH 530 DLP PRojector. I had looked in the manual all I see is a Zoom Feature is that what I need to do the vertical stretch??
> 
> 
> Thnx for any info you can provide



Try the zoom feature. Being an 06 model, it may only work for component and for SD only.



> Quote:
> EDIT: I Found CAVX EXcellent website and the EASY Math calculations that I needed to know. AS far as ?I see I can leave the projector in itis current position and get a 107.44" Wide 2.37 screen



Glad to have helped


----------



## notoriousmatty

Whats the math to calculate proper throw distance on a 2:35. Im going to be using a FPJ1 (rs2 clone) and a 88 inch 2:35 carada classic white screen. Projector can be as far as 14 feet and as close as it needs to be. Ceiling mounted. I read something about a 2.0 throw distance whatever that means. What is the correct placement of the projector. I wont be using a lens just zooming for now.


----------



## CAVX

The 2.0 TR means that the projector's lens is 2.0x the width of the 16:9 image. Therefore if your 16:9 image is 100" wide, then your projector is mounted so that the lens is 200" off the screen.


----------



## phansson

Ok, for all of you CIH "pros"....


Do you feel that using the video processor in the projector is good enough? Would it be better to go with an aftermarket video processor like the DVDO product? How much of an improvement would it be. I can't help but think that the video processing in my VW-60 isn't the "best on the market".


Just wondering.


----------



## CAVX

out board VPs give more flexibility for sure. The Scaling in the WV60 is quite good.


----------



## phansson

Flexibility I am not worried about. Quality is my concern. If you think that the vw60 is as good as an outboard processor, I am happy with that.


thanks CAVX


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *phansson* /forum/post/16795520
> 
> 
> Flexibility I am not worried about. Quality is my concern. If you think that the vw60 is as good as an outboard processor, I am happy with that.
> 
> 
> thanks CAVX



For providing simple Vertical Stretch (Anamorphic Zoom) or Horizontal Squeeze (4x3 mode).


----------



## j Nyce




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16772224
> 
> 
> The 2.0 TR means that the projector's lens is 2.0x the width of the 16:9 image. Therefore if your 16:9 image is 100" wide, then your projector is mounted so that the lens is 200" off the screen.



How do you calculate TR if you are zooming to achive 235 ratio, is it the same ratio as 16:9?


----------



## GetGray

There's a lot of confusion introduced with recommended throw ratio calculations vs which number to use when talking about 2.35 screens.


If you use this, you don't have to know if the width means the 2.37 width or the 16:9 width:


TR = ( [throw distance] / [screen height] ) * 0.5625

Use same units in each variable of course (e.g. inches)


Above from: Post #427 in this thread


Technically this applies to native panel size. If you are "zooming" then you are not using the native panel size. When zoomed, you are effectively "projecting" onto a much larger (virtual) screen and not using the top and bottom of it, so the height of the "projected image" with bars would go up by 33% (I believe , haven't thought about that too hard) and I the real "projector TR" would go down as you would use the "taller" number in the forumula above.


In general, the TR will be based on the formula above and relate to the screen size vs distance to the PJ, not including any zoom. It depends on the context you are discussing TR or what you are using it for.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *j Nyce* /forum/post/16820460
> 
> 
> How do you calculate TR if you are zooming to achive 235 ratio, is it the same ratio as 16:9?



Technically yes as this is the same method for working out the TR for a VC lens as well.


----------



## gimmepilotwings

I briefly searched this thread, but I figured it would be easier to just ask.


Is there an optimal screen height (from the floor) that you need to place a 2.35:1 screen? Does it need to be 1/3 of the way up, or a ratio, or what?


I'm trying to design screen wall/riser height.


Thanks in advance.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gimmepilotwings* /forum/post/16915455
> 
> 
> I briefly searched this thread, but I figured it would be easier to just ask.
> 
> 
> Is there an optimal screen height (from the floor) that you need to place a 2.35:1 screen? Does it need to be 1/3 of the way up, or a ratio, or what?
> 
> 
> I'm trying to design screen wall/riser height.
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance.



1/3 up is the 'rule of thumb' and where screen type pending, you may wish to raise or lower that. I have an AT screen, and as my three LCRs are behind the fabric at seated ear height, I've had to lower my screen to just 600mm (2 feet) off the floor I would have been required to tilt the speakers down. I also now find that the eye line is closer to centre and that I enjoy that more than looking slighty up.


I've had my screen as high off the floor as 1200mm (4 feet) which also worked when I had a 300mm (1 foot) riser for the seating. When I sold my house and moved into a town house (talk about a dowen size), I basically re-calculated the heights -300mm, which now meant that the screen was 900 (3 feet) off the floor. This also worked as at the time, m screen was solid and the three LCRs were below the screen. They had to be tilted up.


So it comes down to what is better for you. I want both viewing and listening to be as good as I can get it, so why I've choosen an AT approach.


I am currently in a re-design phase yet again, and this time am lowering the surrounds by about a foot as well.


----------



## gimmepilotwings




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16916357
> 
> 
> 1/3 up is the 'rule of thumb' and where screen type pending, you may wish to raise or lower that. I have an AT screen, and as my three LCRs are behind the fabric at seated ear height, I've had to lower my screen to just 600mm (2 feet) off the floor I would have been required to tilt the speakers down. I also now find that the eye line is closer to centre and that I enjoy that more than looking slighty up.
> 
> 
> I've had my screen as high off the floor as 1200mm (4 feet) which also worked when I had a 300mm (1 foot) riser for the seating. When I sold my house and moved into a town house (talk about a dowen size), I basically re-calculated the heights -300mm, which now meant that the screen was 900 (3 feet) off the floor. This also worked as at the time, m screen was solid and the three LCRs were below the screen. They had to be tilted up.
> 
> 
> So it comes down to what is better for you. I want both viewing and listening to be as good as I can get it, so why I've choosen an AT approach.
> 
> 
> I am currently in a re-design phase yet again, and this time am lowering the surrounds by about a foot as well.



Thank you for the reply. I am going with a 2.35 AT screen when my build is complete.


----------



## MikeWojcik

I have completed the construction of my theater room - it is 17.5x12x8 with 2 rows of seating 11 and 16 feet from the screen. I was originally going with a 110" diagonal 1.78 AT screen. But I am now leaning towards implementing a CIH setup with a 110" wide 2.35 AT SMX screen.


Am planning on the JVC RS20 pj with an anamorphic lens - not really sure which one yet? The projector will be in a soffit 16 feet from the screen which gives me a ratio of 2.1 if I did that correctly.


The room will be used for both movies and high def television - especially sports.


Now for some questions:

- Does the overall setup sound OK?

- After reading about the pin cushion affect, should I go with a curved screen? Will I see the distorted corners?

- If i do go with the curved screen will that then distort regular high def television when I move the lens out of the way?

- Is moving the lens back and forth a really big deal?


Thanks in advance for the guidance.

Mike


----------



## Mike_WI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MikeWojcik* /forum/post/16963819
> 
> 
> I have completed the construction of my theater room - it is 17.5x12x8 with 2 rows of seating 11 and 16 feet from the screen. I was originally going with a 110" diagonal 1.78 AT screen. But I am now leaning towards implementing a CIH setup with a 110" wide 2.35 AT SMX screen.
> 
> 
> Am planning on the JVC RS20 pj with an anamorphic lens - not really sure which one yet? The projector will be in a soffit 16 feet from the screen which gives me a ratio of 2.1 if I did that correctly.
> 
> 
> The room will be used for both movies and high def television - especially sports.
> 
> 
> Now for some questions:
> 
> - Does the overall setup sound OK?
> 
> - After reading about the pin cushion affect, should I go with a curved screen? Will I see the distorted corners?
> 
> - If i do go with the curved screen will that then distort regular high def television when I move the lens out of the way?
> 
> - Is moving the lens back and forth a really big deal?
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance for the guidance.
> 
> Mike



Mike -


I don't have all the answers, but you might check the HT pics link in my thread for my search and questions. There are some similarities to your setup.


JVC RS20

ISCOIIIL anamorphic lens

CineSlide transport

Lumagen RadianceXE

Carada BW 128" 2.40:1 screen



Mike


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MikeWojcik* /forum/post/16963819
> 
> 
> 
> Now for some questions:
> 
> - Does the overall setup sound OK?



Yes it does.



> Quote:
> - After reading about the pin cushion affect, should I go with a curved screen? Will I see the distorted corners?



Pincushion is actually straight lines that bend outwards, not the corners. The idea of curving the screen outwards means that you now shorten the distance from that part of the screen back to the projector. The image in that point is therefore smaller than it would be on a flat screen. This optical reduction is what corrects the pincushion.



> Quote:
> - If i do go with the curved screen will that then distort regular high def television when I move the lens out of the way?



Only if you move the lens for 16:9, 4 x 3 etc. The reason is that the anamorphic lens is causing the pincushion, and your curved screen is now correcting the error. If you remove the cause, then you are adding correction to a problem that is not now there, hence you introduce barreling, the opposite of pincushion.



> Quote:
> - Is moving the lens back and forth a really big deal?



It really depends on the lens and the set up. I personally think that moving the lens is not required. When you leave the lens in place all the time, you calibrate the system and the only thing that changes is you AR when you switch from Scope to HDTV. Pixel density, light levels and colour setting remain the same.


----------



## MikeWojcik

Mark / Mike - Thanks for the replies.


If I leave the lens in place for 1.78 viewing, I will still cut off the top and bottom of the image, correct? That will likely cut off the sports "info bar" - or worse, part of it, for sports programs that display that "fixed" component - e.g. football games.


Just trying to make sure I understand all the pros/cons with the various approaches:

- zooming

- Anamorphic lens, fixed lens, curved screen

- Anamorphic lens, fixed lens, flat screen

- Anamorphic lens, transport lens, curved screen

- Anamorphic lens, transport lens, flat screen


----------



## Mike_WI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MikeWojcik* /forum/post/16965344
> 
> 
> Mark / Mike - Thanks for the replies.
> 
> 
> If I leave the lens in place for 1.78 viewing, I will still cut off the top and bottom of the image, correct? That will likely cut off the sports "info bar" - or worse, part of it, for sports programs that display that "fixed" component - e.g. football games.
> 
> 
> Just trying to make sure I understand all the pros/cons with the various approaches:
> 
> - zooming
> 
> - Anamorphic lens, fixed lens, curved screen
> 
> - Anamorphic lens, fixed lens, flat screen
> 
> - Anamorphic lens, transport lens, curved screen
> 
> - Anamorphic lens, transport lens, flat screen



I hope I say this correctly...


If you leave the a-lens in place (2.35:1 horizontal optical stretch) and have a 16:9 movie or video you can trun off v-stretch (or equivalent) to see top and bottom.

I believe there is another stretch mode (with external VP and some projectors) that compensates for a a-lens fixed in place.

Others can comment more intelligently on this.


Mike


EDIT

Here is one source for a dealer/source for more info - link


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MikeWojcik* /forum/post/16965344
> 
> 
> Mark / Mike - Thanks for the replies.
> 
> 
> If I leave the lens in place for 1.78 viewing, I will still cut off the top and bottom of the image, correct? That will likely cut off the sports "info bar" - or worse, part of it, for sports programs that display that "fixed" component - e.g. football games.



You simply use the 4 x 3 mode on the projector. This gives you a Horizontal Squeeze on the program and the lens expands it back out to 1.78:1. AR changing can be as simple as one buttom push.


----------



## MikeWojcik

Great - thanks for the info Mark. One "final" clarification - when using the 4x3 squeeze mode on the projector, we lose some horizontal resolution, correct? But horizontal is not very visible?


----------



## GetGray

That is correct, and why many of us do not recommend doing it that way. Only a very few do it that way that I am aware of here. I tell people it depends on the amount of 16x9 material you watch. I watch a significant amount, including 16x9 movies and HD TV. I would say 50/50. No way I'm going to run my clean HD images through a downscaler and not only toss resolution, but take the double whammy of scaling the image that fits if you move the lens. If you only watch "scope", never (rarely,


----------



## MikeWojcik

Gray - do you use a curved screen to deal with the pincushion effect?

If so - how bad is the 16x9 image on the curved screen?

If not - what does the pincushion effect look like?

Thanks!


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MikeWojcik* /forum/post/16972301
> 
> 
> Great - thanks for the info Mark. One "final" clarification - when using the 4x3 squeeze mode on the projector, we lose some horizontal resolution, correct? But horizontal is not very visible?



Correct. We are more sensitive to the vertical rez than we are to horizontal. I choose not to move the lens, however, as Getgray has pointed out, you do down rez the image (in the horizontal plain) doing this. However, leaving the lens in place keeps pixel density, light levels and calibration settings the same.


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MikeWojcik* /forum/post/16972531
> 
> 
> Gray - do you use a curved screen to deal with the pincushion effect?
> 
> If so - how bad is the 16x9 image on the curved screen?
> 
> If not - what does the pincushion effect look like?
> 
> Thanks!



Personally, I prefer a curved screen unless you have a really long throw ratio (i.e. ~3.0+). But not just for the geometric correction, I just like the look of the curve. It is a very shallow curve. For customers using a curved screen I recommend the ubiquitous 40' radius used by most of the top-line manufacturers as a good compromise for most installations where you split the effects from curve for perfect 2.37 and no curve for perfect 16:9. Geometric effects on either are minimal and for the most part not noticeable. We run some calculations to determine the effect when we spec the screen.


Best,

Scott


----------



## MikeWojcik

OK, another clarification required.

Is the general recommendation to go with a 2.35, 2.37, or 2.4 screen? What are the differences in watching 2.4 on a 2.35 screen vs watching 2.35 on a 2.4 screen? It never ends...


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MikeWojcik* /forum/post/16984616
> 
> 
> OK, another clarification required.
> 
> Is the general recommendation to go with a 2.35, 2.37, or 2.4 screen? What are the differences in watching 2.4 on a 2.35 screen vs watching 2.35 on a 2.4 screen? It never ends...



There is a trend to go with 2.40:1 simply because so many movies come out in this AR. A 16:9 projector + 1.33x A-Lens = 2.37.


It depends if you like making a small zoom for 2.40 Vs 2.35 or not.


I use a 2.37:1 screen and generally have it very slightly over scanned.


----------



## jimim

*Edited cause I found out some of my questions.*


I am new to the projector aspects of HT so hopefully this question has not been beaten to death elsewhere. I read this and a few other threads in full last night and lots of the info is from years ago and we all know how quickly things change. This was also touched on a few pages back but then kinda dropped.


My question is re: the AL in place and out of place for other than 2:35 viewing.


Lens in place: If the lens is kept in place do all projectors handle 4:3 the same way to get your pic back to a proper 16x9 if that is your source material for viewing? Or are there other ways to get the proper aspect back with the lens in place?


Lens moved out: I spoke with a panamorph dealer yesterday and got some interesting info. He said there is no lens shift when the lens is moved out of the way. If the projector is properly attached to the mount on the ceiling, (he said the chief RPA series are great for this) then there should be no lens shift? Also, if the lens is now out of place how much of a change in color and brightness are we talking about. Enough that you would need 2 diff calibration setups for the lens in and out of place?


Finally. . . the passthrough settings on some of these lens. If it is set to passthough do I even have to worry about all this hoopla? Meaning when it is set to passthrough do I get now more HS but the pic also won't shift and then I can just mask the sides of the screen for 16:9 viewing?


Thanks again you guys ALL have awesome setups! great great work!


Jimi


----------



## CAVX

Basically the 16:9 image is made up of 1440 x 1080 pixels and the Scope image is 1920 x 1080 pixels.


----------



## BillFree

I have to say my infocus sp-4805 w/Panamorph vc setup finally got my wife to sit down and enjoy "no black border" movies. My screen is 106 x 54 for now. the picture is fantastic.(and this is my busness pj) I'm looking at a JVC 350/750 in next few months.

Even my letterbox laserdisk movies are great. We aren't looking back after just what we finally enjoyed. For the first time a guys toy's rocked.


----------



## tbase1

Hey guys,


What's the proper distance for a sony ruby on a 96" wide scope screen with a prismasonic V1000 lens. I'm running my blu-ray images through a dvdo vp30 and I'm running my HTPC content directly to the dvi port on the ruby as well. On projector central it's cal. is telling me to be at 14.2, but as know they don't figure the lens with the distance figures. My though is to set it up like I did my Z4 and Z5, which is to mount the projector to my oak wood ceiling mount that i use to move everything attached to it (projector and lens), zoom in , and move the projector back until the image fits the screen width then adjust the vertical with the lens adjustments. What say you guys.


----------



## pyro2003

Going 2.35 using a SIM2 HT300Plus, sitting at about 11' , do I really need a curved screen (Stewart, 88" Firehawk, acoustic transparent) ? The hoizontal is only 81" wide. I read that as the room is not completely black (white ceiling and walls) so maybe the curved screen can help ?


The proposed kit included a $1000 motor for swapping 16:9 and 2.35:1, if I skip this, where can I buy a slider or I have to build one ? I really don't mind manual swaps if it does not involve readjustments



thanks

pyro


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17208518
> 
> 
> Hey guys,
> 
> 
> What's the proper distance for a sony ruby on a 96" wide scope screen with a prismasonic V1000 lens. I'm running my blu-ray images through a dvdo vp30 and I'm running my HTPC content directly to the dvi port on the ruby as well. On projector central it's cal. is telling me to be at 14.2, but as know they don't figure the lens with the distance figures. My though is to set it up like I did my Z4 and Z5, which is to mount the projector to my oak wood ceiling mount that i use to move everything attached to it (projector and lens), zoom in , and move the projector back until the image fits the screen width then adjust the vertical with the lens adjustments. What say you guys.



You still use the native 16:9 image width to find the TR or use the TR to find the distance for projection.


In your case, the V1000 is a VC lens, so you Scope screen width is used, not the 16:9 centre portion. So 96" x 2.0 = 192" for the throw.


If your lens was the H1000 (a HE lens), you would have: 96 x 0.75 x 2.0 = 144".


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pyro2003* /forum/post/17211138
> 
> 
> Going 2.35 using a SIM2 HT300Plus, sitting at about 11' , do I really need a curved screen (Stewart, 88" Firehawk, acoustic transparent) ? The hoizontal is only 81" wide. I read that as the room is not completely black (white ceiling and walls) so maybe the curved screen can help ?
> 
> 
> The proposed kit included a $1000 motor for swapping 16:9 and 2.35:1, if I skip this, where can I buy a slider or I have to build one ? I really don't mind manual swaps if it does not involve readjustments
> 
> 
> 
> thanks
> 
> pyro



Curved screens are for correcting the abberation known as pincushion which is a bi-product of HE anamorphic lenses. If your going to move the lens for non Scope material, you probably don't want a curved screen as the image with the lens removed now barrels.


----------



## tbase1

With that said on distance is my lens and scaler okay? I don't want to add additional cost to my setup and later on change it again if I get another projector, so based on my equipment and screen what should I do if anything to achieve the same results as I have with my Sanyo Z5 content wise? So that I don't miss any of my other content I'm running a HTPC for my non-HD content, and I watch HDTV ONLY for the football season, so we need to be factor that as well.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17213130
> 
> 
> With that siad on distance is my lens and scaler okay? I don't want to add additional cost to my setup and later on chnage it again if I get another projector, so based on my equipment and screen what should I if anything to achieve the same results as I have with my Sanyo Z5 content wise? So that I don't miss any of my other content I'm running a HTPC for my non-HD content, and I watch HDTV ONLY for the football season, so we need to be factor that as well.



Two points to consider:


1. Does the VP30 do 1080P/24? If not, then you would want a scaler that does like the DVDo Edge.


2. Being a VC lens, you best leaving the lens in place 100% of the time and scale with the VP. There should be pre-sets (4x3 and LB) where 4x3 will give you HS for 16:9 and LB will give you VS for Scope.


----------



## tbase1

The VP30 does 1080p/60 which matches the ruby due to it not having 24fps. It looks like I'm on the right track


----------



## tbase1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17214870
> 
> 
> Two points to consider:
> 
> 
> 1. Does the VP30 do 1080P/24? If not, then you would want a scaler that does like the DVDo Edge.
> 
> 
> 2. Being a VC lens, you best leaving the lens in place 100% of the time and scale with the VP. There should be pre-sets (4x3 and LB) where 4x3 will give you HS for 16:9 and LB will give you VS for Scope.






Should I use the bypass mode of the lens?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17254508
> 
> 
> Should I use the bypass mode of the lens?



Not if you want CIH.


----------



## CRGINC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17216892
> 
> 
> The VP30 does 1080p/60 which matches the ruby due to it not having 24fps. It looks like I'm on the right track



The VP30 does 48 fps and the ruby takes that on the DVI input I am told. Just frame doubles the 24 pfs. I use that method on my Pearl.


----------



## tbase1

Is the dvi-d port just as sharp as the hdmi? I attached my lens (prismasonic v1000) setup


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17282994
> 
> 
> Is the dvi-d port just as sharp as the hdmi? I attached my lens (prismasonic v1000) setup



Yes. The difference is that DVI(D) won't do audio where HDMI does both. You can even use an adaptor from DVI to HDMI if you like.


----------



## cinema mad

Also HDMI 1.3 has Deep color compatibility, 3 main color space settings, YcBcR 4:2:2 YcBcR 4:4:4 and RGB compared to DVI-D with just RGB...


IMO & with my Calibrated (Video chain) setup when it comes to pic quality running HDMI 10bit YcBcR 4:2:2 is far superior to DVI's RGB,


I have gone as far as comparison's showing the difference to people that have been in my theatre, and when switching between 10 bit YcBcR 4:2:2 and 8bit RGB they easily allways pick 10 bit YcBcR 4:2:2...


Cheers...


----------



## tbase1

Hey guys,


Is it best to have the scaler before or after the AVR receiver? I'm running a samsung

up5000 to the dvdo VP30 , to the onkyo sr605 receiver, and then to a sony ruby which also includes a anamorphic V1000 lens.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17297221
> 
> 
> Hey guys,
> 
> 
> Is it best to have the scaler before or after the AVR receiver? I'm running a samsung
> 
> up5000 to the dvdo VP30 , to the onkyo sr605 receiver, and then to a sony ruby which also includes a anamorphic V1000 lens.



Usually after. Does your scaler have an audio only out as well as the video out? The reason I ask is that sometimes you may experience audio sync issues if running everything out of the AVR first then connecting the VP.


I'll use DVDo EDGE as an example:


You connect eveything to the VP, then run a video HDMI lead to the display and an audio only HDMI to the AVR. This keeps picture and sound in sync.


----------



## tbase1

I tried before and ran into audio issues with the audio cutting off, and it also did not pass through dts-hd and truehd, so when I set it up after I got all my audio formats back. Now my next concern is if it's better to run my video out of my samsung up5000 directly to the AVR and then to the projector or run it through the scaler after the avr. What would give me better 1080p PQ? I know if I do it this way I have to build a lens sled to go from scope to VC 16x9. But in the image PQ is not better bypass vs scaling then I'll keep the scaler in my system.


----------



## CAVX

If there is improvement to be made, the VP should handle that. Generally video processing (like that in an AVR) is bypassed once the signal is 1080p/24 as there is not too much more that can be done without a dedicated VP as you have.


Your VC lens does not need to be moved from the light path for CIH. It will be for CIW. So in the end, what are you trying to achieve? CIH or CIW?


So generally, it is: source > AVR > VP > Projector.


----------



## crazyboy1

that's great!


----------



## Kimwyn

my questions are:


1) if i buy a 2.35:1 screen will 2.35:1 movies take up the entire screen?

2) how would a 1.85/1.78 movie show on a 2.35:1 screen?

3) how would AR movies greater then 2.35:1 (i.e 2.40 or 2.39) show?


----------



## Nasty N8




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kimwyn* /forum/post/17359778
> 
> 
> my questions are:
> 
> 
> 1) if i buy a 2.35:1 screen will 2.35:1 movies take up the entire screen?
> 
> 2) how would a 1.85/1.78 movie show on a 2.35:1 screen?
> 
> 3) how would AR movies greater then 2.35:1 (i.e 2.40 or 2.39) show?



Really depends on your setup. How are you accomplishing the CIH? Zoom, Lens, scaler....


Zoom-You can fit any aspect however you want on the screen


Lens and scaler-1)yes 2.35 will fit perfect on the screen

2) 1.78 will be in the center of the screen with black on either side, 1.85 will also have slight black bars top and bottom(unless scale alittle zoom in for that aspect)

3)2.37,2.39,2.40... fit full width with small black bars top and bottom (unless scale alittle zoom in for that aspect then slight cut off the sides but fill the entire frame)


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kimwyn* /forum/post/17359778
> 
> 
> my questions are:
> 
> 
> 1) if i buy a 2.35:1 screen will 2.35:1 movies take up the entire screen?
> 
> 2) how would a 1.85/1.78 movie show on a 2.35:1 screen?
> 
> 3) how would AR movies greater then 2.35:1 (i.e 2.40 or 2.39) show?


 2.35:1 Constant Height Tutorial (with pictures).


----------



## Kimwyn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nasty N8* /forum/post/17360513
> 
> 
> Really depends on your setup. How are you accomplishing the CIH? Zoom, Lens, scaler....
> 
> 
> Zoom-You can fit any aspect however you want on the screen
> 
> 
> Lens and scaler-1)yes 2.35 will fit perfect on the screen
> 
> 2) 1.78 will be in the center of the screen with black on either side, 1.85 will also have slight black bars top and bottom(unless scale alittle zoom in for that aspect)
> 
> 3)2.37,2.39,2.40... fit full width with small black bars top and bottom (unless scale alittle zoom in for that aspect then slight cut off the sides but fill the entire frame)



which would be the more preferred way without having to buy an anamorphic lens?


----------



## tbase1

Hey Cavx,


I'm noticing some video noise in my image an was wondering if this could be related to the way I have my system setup or equipment setting. The below is my equipment setup.

samsung up5000, to onkyo sr605 rec., to vp30 scaler, to sony ruby, and out through a

v1000 lens. ( ALL HDMI ) I'll post my samsung, vp30, and ruby setting sometime today. I got to go take wife and mother in-law to airport.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17365571
> 
> 
> samsung up5000, to onkyo sr605 rec., to vp30 scaler, to sony ruby, and out through a
> 
> v1000 lens. ( ALL HDMI )



What happens when you go samsung up5000>vp30 scaler>onkyo sr605 rec>sony ruby>v1000 lens?


----------



## tbase1

I lose the true-hd and dts-hd audio, but the image improved a little. However, when I turned off the auto iris it went away.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17371551
> 
> 
> when I turned off the auto iris it went away.



So problem solved?


----------



## tbase1

yes......I also think my problem stemed from calibrating the iris to bright, so when i reduced the iris brightness I was able to go back to automatic iris.


----------



## tbase1

Should I build a sled or try to make my VC Lens fixed by using my vp30 scaler. I just got finish upgrading my firmware in my vp30. When I pass 1080p through my scaler to my ruby the picture looks great but my image does not fill the screen vertically. I know it's my lens set to VC that's causing this, so the question is how can I bypass 1080p and fill the screen on a scope film and not move my lens? 1.78 looks great by the way.


----------



## CAVX

Being a VC lens, your projector needs to be back as far as one would if zooming or so that the projectors native 16:9 image is edge to edge. When you turn the knobs to compress, the image will now fill your scope screen.


----------



## tbase1

would it be better to setup the lens (VC) for 16x9 media to view on a scope screen and use a sled to move the lens out of the way for scope movies? I had this setup great at one time going to the scaler 1080i, but when I bypassed the scaler playing around I found the image to be better in bypass then letting the scaler scale the image. I guess I'm going to have to deside if I want the lens in place all the time and use the scaler or use a sled an move the lens back and forth. The light overspill will take getting use to also if I go the sled route, but moving the lens will solve that.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17396710
> 
> 
> would it be better to setup the lens (VC) for 16x9 media to view on a scope screen and use a sled to move the lens out of the way for scope movies?



No. The light beam from the projector is 1.78:1. When compressed by the lens, the light is now 2.37:1, however the height is now reduced by 25% simply due to the fact that this lens is a VC, not a HE. If you move the lens for Scope, all your doing is the zoom method. The idea of emplyoing a lens is so that you can use the full panel for Scope and not throw 25% of the vertical rez off the screen. Does that make sense?



> Quote:
> I had this setup great at one time going to the scaler 1080i, but when I bypassed the scaler playing around I found the image to be better in bypass then letting the scaler scale the image. I guess I'm going to have to deside if I want the lens in place all the time and use the scaler or use a sled an move the lens back and forth. The light overspill will take getting use to also if I go the sled route, but moving the lens will solve that.



If your using a Scope screen, then the best way to do this is to set the lens for compression mode, fill the width of the Scope screen with image (full panel + VC lens) and simply scale the image for 16:9.


Otherwize lose the Scope screen and go back to a 16:9 screen and you can use full panel for both 16:9 and Scope.


----------



## tbase1

If your using a Scope screen, then the best way to do this is to set the lens for compression mode, fill the width of the Scope screen with image (full panel + VC lens) and simply scale the image for 16:9.


Otherwize lose the Scope screen and go back to a 16:9 screen and you can use full panel for both 16:9 and Scope.[/quote]



I have my screen and projector setup like this right now, however, my scaler is set to 2.35 display and screen, so I guess I need to change it to 16x9 screen and display and compress the image veritcally or 2.35 screen and 16x9 display?


----------



## tbase1




CAVX said:


> No. The light beam from the projector is 1.78:1. When compressed by the lens, the light is now 2.37:1, however the height is now reduced by 25% simply due to the fact that this lens is a VC, not a HE. If you move the lens for Scope, all your doing is the zoom method. The idea of emplyoing a lens is so that you can use the full panel for Scope and not throw 25% of the vertical rez off the screen. Does that make sense?
> 
> 
> I understand compressing the beam from 1.78 to 2.37.1 via the lens. The problem for me is when i go to 1080p bypass on the scaler with the lens in VC on a scope movie the image looks like it's scope on a scope screen. wow.... I might need to pick up a scaler that will accept 1080p and scaler it. Looks like I need to play a little bit longer. What the hell...i'm 50 today so I might as well have some fun.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17404749
> 
> 
> I might need to pick up a scaler that will accept 1080p and scaler it. Looks like I need to play a little bit longer. What the hell...i'm 50 today so I might as well have some fun.



Again, Happy Birthday. So maybe that is what you need to get yourself - a new scaler that does 1080/24P


----------



## tbase1

I have a chance to buy a isco 1.33x IIIL Lens would It work with a sony ruby or keep my prismasonic V1000 lens?


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17432473
> 
> 
> I have a chance to but a isco 1.33x IIIL Lens would It work with a sony ruby or keep my prismasonic V1000 lens?



Will work perfectly with that PJ. If you don't want it, send them to me, I might.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17432473
> 
> 
> I have a chance to buy a isco 1.33x IIIL Lens would It work with a sony ruby or keep my prismasonic V1000 lens?



Going from a VC to a HE will require you to change your throw as well.


----------



## tbase1

Due to this being a long throw how far should I move my ruby for a 8' wide scope screen?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17443534
> 
> 
> Due to this being a long throw how far should I move my ruby for a 8' wide scope screen?



There is two ways to do this:


1. If your room allows, simply get a larger Scope screen that is 33% wider than your current 16:9 screen.


2. Move the projector in closer (remember you will still need that Scope screen even if you end up reducing the height of the image).


The easiest way to work this out is


2a. Take a broom stick and mark two lines the same distance apart as your screen is high.


2b. Fire up the projector and ensure that the VC lens is not compressing and you might want to reduce the image size to the smallest size for this test.


2c. Start at your screen and move the stick forward until you then find the distance where the beam from the projector is now inside the two lines you marked on the stick.


2d. Mark that spot on the floor and measure that back to the projector. This is now the maximum disctance the projector needs to be away from the screen when using a HE lens with that sized screen height.


Post back and let me know how it works out.


----------



## tbase1

Oh well....I finally got around to setting up my isco 3L and my 4k....and all I have to say is WOW Right out of the box with no adjustments what so ever to the 4k and it looks pretty good. The below is my setup right now and scaler question.


samsung up5000 > onkyo sr605 > VP50 > panny 4K > isco 3L > 8' wide stewart videomatte 200 scope screen @ 17' from face of 3L to screen.


I built a lens sled, but reallly want a fix setup. My 16x9 to scope screen material fits great, however, my scope material is what I need to adjust to fit the screen with the lens on using the scaler. I would rather use the scaler instead of the zoom of the panny to fit the scope material to the scope screen....If you guys could help in anyway that would be great. I'm still playing so who knows I might have this within the hour. The 4K lens fits like a glove in the back of the 3L ( 1/2" from lens to lens ). I'll post some pic.'s before Cal. and after Cal. I also need to update the firmware of my vp50 so that I use 24fps.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17579465
> 
> 
> My 16x9 to scope screen material fits great, however, my scope material is what I need to adjust to fit the screen with the lens on using the scaler.



Tbase1, when you say needs adjustment, you need to know a few things:

1. Your image will not actually fit the Scope screen if the AR is 2.35:1, as there will always be some over shoot at the sides. This is because 1.78 x 1.33 = 2.3674 or 2.37 (rounded).

2. When you rock the "focus" dial on the lens, you're going to see the image width change quite a bit from one extreme to the other. As you tuner this you will the focus/defocus the lens. The trick is to focus the projector's lens first, then focus the anamorphic lens. Use that pattern I sent (I think I sent it to you?) to make this adjustment. You need to see both H and V lines in focus at the same time and in focus in both the centre and the edges at the same time. When this is done, the image should be 2.37:1.


----------



## tbase1

I did exactly that and all is good with 16x9 content, however, my problem is VC with scope material. When I go to 4x3 on the projector it fits, but was wondering if it would be better doing VC with the scaler?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbase1* /forum/post/17580557
> 
> 
> I did exactly that and all is good with 16x9 content, however, my problem is VC with scope material. When I go to 4x3 on the projector it fits, but was wondering if it would be better doing VC with the scaler?



You mean VS (Vertical Stretch)? I would say that a scaler will give a better result providig the scaler is not adding any unwanted artifacts. I saw evidence of 'noise' from a VP 50 once.


----------



## tbase1

my bad I meant VS?


----------



## studlygoorite

Holy crap, I want to switch to 2.40 from my 16X9 106" and was told to read through here but I must say I have been reading for hours and I still am just as confused as I was before. I have an Epson 6500 1080p Projector and have scaling capabilities with my Anthem Statement D2v pre amp or my iscan VP50pro scaler. I am ready to order a 133" 2.40 Screen and have the chance to get a Paramorph UH380 Lens at a good price but time is running out on that. My questions are;


If I put this lens in front of my projector it will, I think, stretch my 2.35 HD movie horizontally from my PS3 and then I would have to use a scaler to stretch the pic vertically to fill the screen.


I don't like black bars and hate a stretched pic even more unless it is still holds it's true AR. Do I really need the lens or is it needed so I do not lose any of my projectors res and light?


Most of my viewing would be HD Sports, gaming, porn and then blu ray movies from the PS3 so if I do get the lens, would flipping it back when not needed render my origional 16X9 AR for regular HD to the full height of the 2.40 screen?


Thanks, John


----------



## Steve Carr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *studlygoorite* /forum/post/17683675
> 
> 
> Holy crap, I want to switch to 2.40 from my 16X9 106" and was told to read through here but I must say I have been reading for hours and I still am just as confused as I was before. I have an Epson 6500 1080p Projector and have scaling capabilities with my Anthem Statement D2v pre amp or my iscan VP50pro scaler. I am ready to order a 133" 2.40 Screen and have the chance to get a Paramorph UH380 Lens at a good price but time is running out on that. My questions are;
> 
> 
> If I put this lens in front of my projector it will, I think, stretch my 2.35 HD movie horizontally from my PS3 and then I would have to use a scaler to stretch the pic vertically to fill the screen.
> 
> 
> I don't like black bars and hate a stretched pic even more unless it is still holds it's true AR. Do I really need the lens or is it needed so I do not lose any of my projectors res and light?
> 
> 
> Most of my viewing would be HD Sports, gaming, porn and then blu ray movies from the PS3 so if I do get the lens, would flipping it back when not needed render my origional 16X9 AR for regular HD to the full height of the 2.40 screen?
> 
> 
> Thanks, John



Hi John,


I'm also using a Panamorph UH380 and a scaler (DVDO Edge). If you can't get the lens you can ZOOM but you will NOT be using the Full resolution panel. You don't have to move the lens out of the way to get 16:9 with the scaler (your VP50pro) will do all the processing for you and vertical stretch so your PJ will just be the light source.... All the media you watch or play if it's 16:9 will be 2.35, 2.37 or 2.40:1 all depends on how you set up your screen.... with the lens in place you will have 33% increase in width.


TRUE CIH = LENS....


Steve


----------



## Steve Carr

FYI....


(16:9)-1.78 x (LENS)-33% = 2.3674 (round up) = 2.37 aspect ratio


Steve


----------



## studlygoorite




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steve Carr* /forum/post/17684123
> 
> 
> FYI....
> 
> 
> (16:9)-1.78 x (LENS)-33% = 2.3674 (round up) = 2.37 aspect ratio
> 
> 
> Steve





Thanks Steve,




Does this mean the 16:9 that turns into a 2.35 pic will have distorted (short and fat) people, will it be cropped off, or will the full 16:9 be there, just with black bars at the sides? I would have no problem moving the lens as my 2.40 movie watching is only 1% of my entertainment.


Also, by setting up the screen do you mean if I buy a 2.37 AR screen then the 16:9 material will fit perfect but then I would have to tinker with the scaling of a 2.40 AR movie to get it to fit the screen and visa versa?


Lastly, my first step would be to go and get that lens?


----------



## Steve Carr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *studlygoorite* /forum/post/17685048
> 
> 
> Thanks Steve,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does this mean the 16:9 that turns into a 2.35 pic will have distorted (short and fat) people, will it be cropped off, or will the full 16:9 be there, just with black bars at the sides? I would have no problem moving the lens as my 2.40 movie watching is only 1% of my entertainment.
> 
> 
> Also, by setting up the screen do you mean if I buy a 2.37 AR screen then the 16:9 material will fit perfect but then I would have to tinker with the scaling of a 2.40 AR movie to get it to fit the screen and visa versa?
> 
> 
> Lastly, my first step would be to go and get that lens?



Hey John,


If you are using the lens the image will be okay... either let your dvd player do the vertical stretch or your PJ or the scaler (vp50pro). Choose your (vp50pro).... and you'll be just fine...










Now, if you choose to have a 2.35 or 2.37 screen you will still have alittle bit of a black bar when watching 2.40 movies... at the top and bottom of the screen. Some people choose to have Masking on the screen and some people don't see it as an issue.


If you go with a 2.40 screen you will have some black bars on the side when viewing a smaller aspect ratio movie or game(s) you play either PS3 or 360. Some people choose to have Masking on the sides rather than top and bottom. Some people don't see it as an issue....


It's all up to you and what you want.... and how you like it to be....

once you go CINEMASCOPE you will not want to go back to 16:9 (HDTV).


Steve


----------



## studlygoorite




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steve Carr* /forum/post/17685579
> 
> 
> Hey John,
> 
> 
> If you are using the lens the image will be okay... either let your dvd player do the vertical stretch or your PJ or the scaler (vp50pro). Choose your (vp50pro).... and you'll be just fine...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, if you choose to have a 2.35 or 2.37 screen you will still have alittle bit of a black bar when watching 2.40 movies... at the top and bottom of the screen. Some people choose to have Masking on the screen and some people don't see it as an issue.
> 
> 
> If you go with a 2.40 screen you will have some black bars on the side when viewing a smaller aspect ratio movie or game(s) you play either PS3 or 360. Some people choose to have Masking on the sides rather than top and bottom. Some people don't see it as an issue....
> 
> 
> It's all up to you and what you want.... and how you like it to be....
> 
> once you go CINEMASCOPE you will not want to go back to 16:9 (HDTV).
> 
> 
> Steve




Thanks again Steve, I've ordred my lens and new screen. After looking at some of these CIH pics, I can't sleep, must have now! Feel like I'm on a first date.


----------



## rolette




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steve Carr* /forum/post/17684053
> 
> 
> TRUE CIH = LENS....



That's just silly. So if JVC came out with a native 2.35 projector, it wouldn't be "true" CIH?


A-lens, zoom and shrink are all different ways to achieve CIH. Each has a different set of trade-offs.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rolette* /forum/post/17688205
> 
> 
> That's just silly. So if JVC came out with a native 2.35 projector, it wouldn't be "true" CIH?
> 
> 
> A-lens, zoom and shrink are all different ways to achieve CIH. Each has a different set of trade-offs.



What his statement means is that you can project this (projector + lens) on a wall (with no Screen or 4 way masking) and the image will alway remain constant regardless of AR because ONLY a lens will allow you to use the FULL 1080 pixels for all ARs.


Zooming is 16:9 regardless and it just becomes a larger 16:9 image.


Shrink method loses vertical rez.


If I did not have a lens, I would take the shrink method over the zoom method.


----------



## Steve Carr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rolette* /forum/post/17688205
> 
> 
> That's just silly. So if JVC came out with a native 2.35 projector, it wouldn't be "true" CIH?
> 
> 
> A-lens, zoom and shrink are all different ways to achieve CIH. Each has a different set of trade-offs.



Hey rolette,


No, it's not silly at all... ZOOMING a native 16:9 PJ with 2.35 content with black bars is still 16:9 the black bars you see at the top and bottom of your screen or tv is not being used....


If JVC did come out with a NATIVE 2.35 PJ It would be a TRUE CIH no need for the Lens... But you still will have black bars on the sides if you view an image with a lower aspect ratio than 2.35.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17688975
> 
> 
> ONLY a lens will allow you to use the FULL 1080 pixels for all ARs.
> 
> 
> Zooming is 16:9 regardless and it just becomes a larger 16:9 image.
> 
> 
> Shrink method loses vertical rez.
> 
> 
> If I did not have a lens, I would take the shrink method over the zoom method.



I know that's right...


----------



## Bobby_M

I'm sure it's been discussed a million times but aside from using more of the projector's available light output, just what is the benefit of the expensive scaler + lense option? You're not really getting any source pixels back like you did on anamorphic DVD.


Is anyone aware of any progress being made in regard to doing anamorphic transfers to bluray so that the entire disc resolution is used for the 2.35 AR films? If not, what a shame. I know it's a niche market.


So, assuming there's no problem with black bar light spill and the projector is putting out enough light anyway, what's the downside to a optical zoom method of 2.35? That's what I'm doing now and it's just dandy. Of course, I always try to think of ways to improve the setup.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bobby_M* /forum/post/17694309
> 
> 
> I'm sure it's been discussed a million times but aside from using more of the projector's available light output, just what is the benefit of the expensive scaler + lense option? You're not really getting any source pixels back like you did on anamorphic DVD.



You watch the total picture not individual pixels, therefore the more pixels you an have in a given area, the better. Over 2M pixels when using the full panel Vs approx 1.5M pixels for zooming.



> Quote:
> Is anyone aware of any progress being made in regard to doing anamorphic transfers to bluray so that the entire disc resolution is used for the 2.35 AR films? If not, what a shame. I know it's a niche market.



None that I am aware of. I think there will be once more manufactures produce 21:9 (2560 x 1080) TVs.



> Quote:
> So, assuming there's no problem with black bar light spill and the projector is putting out enough light anyway, what's the downside to a optical zoom method of 2.35? That's what I'm doing now and it's just dandy. Of course, I always try to think of ways to improve the setup.



You know what they say about ASS-U-ME










The only true positive to the zoom method is 1:1 pixel mapping. If 21:9 does happen, Anamorphic titles will be 1:1 vertically so lens users will have the advantage.


----------



## studlygoorite

Anyone want to suggest how large I can go while still having a reasonably bright picture? I have an Epson 6500 1080p Projector, 1600 lumens, and am going to call on Tuesday for a new 2.40 screen, I have a 106" 16:9 screen now. I was going to go with a 133" 2.40 diagonal but am wondering if I should go larger so I don't want to upgrade to a larger screen say 3 years from now, my room is 20'X20'. Thanks John


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *studlygoorite* /forum/post/17711311
> 
> 
> Anyone want to suggest how large I can go while still having a reasonably bright picture?



Please define what your idea of a "bright picture" is.


----------



## studlygoorite




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17713580
> 
> 
> Please define what your idea of a "bright picture" is.



Not too dim. I don't have anything to measure it with. How about if I word it like this:


Is anyone using a screen larger than 133" diagonal with a projector that advertises 1600 lumens or less?


----------



## studlygoorite




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *studlygoorite* /forum/post/17716265
> 
> 
> Not too dim. I don't have anything to measure it with. How about if I word it like this:
> 
> 
> Is anyone using a screen larger than 133" diagonal with a projector that advertises 1600 lumens or less?



Found some good info. in another thread, thanks.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *studlygoorite* /forum/post/17716265
> 
> 
> Is anyone using a screen larger than 133" diagonal with a projector that advertises 1600 lumens or less?



Actually most of the "larger screen" enthusiasts here would have projectors way less than 1600 lumens.


----------



## studlygoorite




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/17749818
> 
> 
> Actually most of the "larger screen" enthusiasts here would have projectors way less than 1600 lumens.



Good to know, thanks CAVX.


----------



## CAVX

If my maths is correct, when I used my BenQ on that 150" screen, the FL was about 22. Cinemas run at 16 with +/4FL allowed.


----------



## klemsaba




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *studlygoorite* /forum/post/17716265
> 
> 
> Is anyone using a screen larger than 133" diagonal with a projector that advertises 1600 lumens or less?



I run my Sanyo Z4 on a 135" screen. It is 'rated' at 1000 lumens. I need a new lamp. It is really dim right now.


----------



## Bobby_M

Ok, I get it now. The practical limit to zoomed setups is when you start seeing projected pixel structure. If you can't see it at a size you're happy with, then there really is no reason to use a scaler + lens to use more of the panel's pixels. While it may be the ideal setup, I know for sure that I couldn't justify the cost to myself given how beautiful even the zoomed image is on a good bluray transfer. I finally watched Revenge of the Fallen and couldn't be happier with the PQ.


----------



## captainmaynard

That's awesome!


----------



## studlygoorite

So I just installed my 1st Scope screen and have a question. The screen is 142" 2.35.1 AR Black Diamond 1.4 gain. I also have the Panamorph UH380 Lens and when I put a blu ray on from the PS3 and slide the lens in place then I stretch the picture vertically with my Anthem Statement D2v all is good. When I play a game on my Xbox 360 I can also go in and stretch the picture, but lose some at the top so everything is not so short and fat. Now on to the satellite dishes, I have recorded some movies that had the black bars on top and bottom from Direct TV but when I go to stretch the picture to fill it out the picture just gets smaller, making the black bars larger. I am adjusting the same way I do for the PS3 and Xbox but it has an opposite affect. Anyone know what he heck? Maybe a setting in the Direct Receiver? It also does it with my Canadian Dish. Thanks, John


----------



## studlygoorite




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *studlygoorite* /forum/post/17944992
> 
> 
> So I just installed my 1st Scope screen and have a question. The screen is 142" 2.35.1 AR Black Diamond 1.4 gain. I also have the Panamorph UH380 Lens and when I put a blu ray on from the PS3 and slide the lens in place then I stretch the picture vertically with my Anthem Statement D2v all is good. When I play a game on my Xbox 360 I can also go in and stretch the picture, but lose some at the top so everything is not so short and fat. Now on to the satellite dishes, I have recorded some movies that had the black bars on top and bottom from Direct TV but when I go to stretch the picture to fill it out the picture just gets smaller, making the black bars larger. I am adjusting the same way I do for the PS3 and Xbox but it has an opposite affect. Anyone know what he heck? Maybe a setting in the Direct Receiver? It also does it with my Canadian Dish. Thanks, John



Found my answer in the Anthem thread, thanks.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *studlygoorite* /forum/post/17952968
> 
> 
> Found my answer in the Anthem thread, thanks.



You could have shared it here just in case someone elese has a simlar challenge.


----------



## studlygoorite




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18045108
> 
> 
> You could have shared it here just in case someone elese has a simlar challenge.



I had both of my satellite dishes Pan and Scanning I believe, I needed to change it so that a 480i picture would fill an entire 16X9 screen, stretched so people were short and fat. Then I had to set my Anthem Statement D2v to Anamorphic stretch and voila I had the ability to vertically stretch a 2.35 pic. If I had my satellites set so a 480i pic was 4X3 I could not vertically stretch a 2.35 pic as when I tried it would just get narrower.


----------



## studlygoorite

Can anyone tell me if there is a way other than a curved screen to minimize pincushion? Thanks


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *studlygoorite* /forum/post/18047931
> 
> 
> Can anyone tell me if there is a way other than a curved screen to minimize pincushion? Thanks



Long(er) throw ratio. Ground glass lenses.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/18048457
> 
> 
> Long(er) throw ratio. Ground glass lenses.



The idea of a slight curve to the vertical suface of the front lens has been discussed. Whilst we didn't really seem to agree exactly how the curve should be (convex most likely), we did agree that a ground lens in this fashion might only be suited for one particular throw, and that multiple interchangeable curved lenses would be required to cater for many throws.


Basically the design was to create a slight "progressive magification" with the peak of the said magnification at the centre of the image to offset the pincushion. The other way would be to provide slight progressive vertical compression to the ends of the image. Again, many elements would be required and the price would only increase the price if the anamorphic lens.


----------



## studlygoorite

Thanks people, another question if I may, when setting the vertical stretch how does one know that you are at the correct setting. Does, for example, 2.35 have a setting of 830 from the 1080 and 2.40 810? I ask because sometimes it seems that the people are stretched too much and look tall and thin. Or do you just adjust by sight? Thanks


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *studlygoorite* /forum/post/18050618
> 
> 
> Thanks people, another question if I may, when setting the vertical stretch how does one know that you are at the correct setting.



Basically the amount of Vertoical Stretch should match the amount of Horizontal Expansion of the lens. Typically anamorphic lenses for video are 1.33x, so you need to apply 33.3% VS to the image. This can be done with a VP or if your using the VS in a projector, then you just have to trust it is the right amount.


The only times you would not use 33.3% is if you had a lens like ISCO's 1.25x or 1.5x stretch. The 1.25x would require 25% VS (this is actually designed for a true 2K projector with a panel of 2048 x 1080) and the 1.5x would require both VS and HS.


----------



## studlygoorite




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18052001
> 
> 
> Basically the amount of Vertoical Stretch should match the amount of Horizontal Expansion of the lens. Typically anamorphic lenses for video are 1.33x, so you need to apply 33.3% VS to the image. This can be done with a VP or if your using the VS in a projector, then you just have to trust it is the right amount.
> 
> 
> The only times you would not use 33.3% is if you had a lens like ISCO's 1.25x or 1.5x stretch. The 1.25x would require 25% VS (this is actually designed for a true 2K projector with a panel of 2048 x 1080) and the 1.5x would require both VS and HS.




Would that be a setting of 720? Seems a little off. Thought I read somewhere around here that a 2.35 screen would be 830 or 810 and a 2.40 screen visa versa. Or was it that if a movie is in 2.35 then the setting should be 810 or 830?

I have a 142" 2.35 screen I just need to know when to stop stretching as I work my way down from 1080. Thanks


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *studlygoorite* /forum/post/18052853
> 
> 
> Would that be a setting of 720? Seems a little off. Thought I read somewhere around here that a 2.35 screen would be 830 or 810 and a 2.40 screen visa versa. Or was it that if a movie is in 2.35 then the setting should be 810 or 830?
> 
> I have a 142" 2.35 screen I just need to know when to stop stretching as I work my way down from 1080. Thanks



The same percentages works for 1080, 720 and 480 projectors.


1080 x 0.75 = 810 and 810 x 1.33* = 1080.

720 x 0.75 = 540 and 540 x 1.33* = 720.

480 x 0.75 = 360 and 360 x 1.33* = 480.


The 0.75 represents the portions of black bars or approx 25% of the vertical rez regardless of projector rez.


----------



## studlygoorite




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18056548
> 
> 
> The same percentages works for 1080, 720 and 480 projectors.
> 
> 
> 1080 x 0.75 = 810 and 810 x 1.33* = 1080.
> 
> 720 x 0.75 = 540 and 540 x 1.33* = 720.
> 
> 480 x 0.75 = 360 and 360 x 1.33* = 480.
> 
> 
> The 0.75 represents the portions of black bars or approx 25% of the vertical rez regardless of projector rez.



Ah ha, so 810 is my answer. Thanks


----------



## Ericsson

Interesting views on CIH


----------



## CAVX

Good find.


----------



## CAVX

Given that this thread is the FAQ for all things CIH, I thought it was the ideal place to discuss what is often asked about lenses the most, being

Lens Abberations. The thee abberations covered here are Chromatic, Astigmatism and Grid Distortion.


It should be noted that both images were generated from BD and projected with 1080 DLA technology. There is of course MPEG compression to consider as well as camera settings used and even the camera optics themselves, so the following is really an example as to what the differences are and should not be taken as difinitive.


The most offensive is of course Chromatic Abberations which are often seen as colour fringing on the edges of objects. With a HE lens, these lines are most commonly seen in vertcial lines (VC lenses tend to exhibit CA on horizontal lines) and particualry with high contrast lines (white on black and vise vera). With a non corrected lens, there should be little or no CA in the centre, however it worsens towards the edges of the image. As a result, it also tends to soften the image as well as bascially the light (white light is equally combined Red Green and Blue light) is spread apart by the defractive nature of the glass. Think of this like a mis-converged display. Generally you will see secondary colours like Cyan, Magenta and Yellow fringing the lines or edges.









In the case of the shot above, you can clearly see CA on the soup ladel.










It is not as obvious with the corrected lens. The term "corrected" means just that. It does not mean "eliminated" as that would require many more corrective elements. A typical CA corrected anamorphic lens will have 4 elements (two glass types boned together) to form two prisms or lenses. It may not even be possible to completely eliminate CA due to the many wave lengths of visible light.


Once CA is corrected for, another not so well known abbreation is Astigmatism which is basically a softening of the image towards the edges (note the fur on the rat). Prism based lenses are most prone to this as they can not be focused in both horizontal and vertical plains at the same time. Without correction, something has to give.


The last is Grid Distortion. This is where the image is pregressively stretched beyond the intended optical stretch of the lens. Even though the top image has been clipped back, you can see that the soup ladel is not quite 'round'. To measure GD, you must first project a grid and you will be able to measure the different size squares comparing centre to edges. It is possible to counter the effects by employing specially ground lenses.


----------



## CAVX

I am often asked what is the main difference between a cylindrical and prisms lens and why the price difference. Whilst assembling a cylindrical lens yesterday, I as able to capture some images that may help explain. The goal is for the lens to be "transaprent" so therefore what you want to see is both H and V lines in focus at the same time.









So in the above image, both H and V lines are in focus. Note the V lines are slightly thicker due to the 1.33x anamorphic stretch. This is acceptable due to the fact that this is an anamorphic lens and not a typical zoom lens.









The above image is what happens when the astigmatism adjustment is out. Note the V lines are blured which affects everything including the text. To capture this, I had to purposely de-focus the Anamorphic Lens. The projector's lens was made as sharp as possible first. At the normal seating distance, this is not as bad as the close up shows. If you were to "rock the focus" of the projector's lens, you would be able to find a compromise that makes both lines appear closer in sharpness, however that is not what I meant earlier by "transparent". So the idea is to have the source image (from the projector) as sharp as possible first, then adjust the Anamorphic Lens to maintain that sharpness. This way when you move the Anamorphic Lens out of the light path, the sharpness remains the same.


A Prism based Lens, without Astigmatism correction does this as prisms can only focus in one plain at one time. To correct this, optical compression would need to be applied to the vertical lines and this can be done with weak cylindrical lenses. The limitation of using a single corrective element is that there is ONLY 1 sweet spot, so whist it may improve the image over a range of throws, there is only ONE true point that the corrective element works 100%.









Cylindrcial lenses with continiously adjustable astigmatism correction on the other hand can be 'dialed' in perfectly at any throw in their range.


----------



## twitch

So if PJ outputs @ 16x9 which is subsequently stretched by AL to 2.35 to be projected onto 2.35 screen - how I am going to take advantage of 1.85 ratio offered by Carada's MMS ?

The 1.33; 1.78 and 2.35 ratios are self-obvious, the reason I ask.

As a side note, Mr. Bean's Holiday in 1.85 and The Sopranos in 1.78 appear in full screen on my plasma.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *twitch* /forum/post/18238894
> 
> 
> So if PJ outputs @ 16x9 which is subsequently stretched by AL to 2.35 to be projected onto 2.35 screen - how I am going to take advantage of 1.85 ratio offered by Carada's MMS ?
> 
> The 1.33; 1.78 and 2.35 ratios are self-obvious, the reason I ask.
> 
> As a side note, Mr. Bean's Holiday in 1.85 and The Sopranos in 1.78 appear in full screen on my plasma.



The 16:9 projector does output a rectangle of light of 1.78:1. The 1.33x Horizontal Expanding Anamorphic Lens will magnify that by 1.33x in the horizontal, so turning that 1.78:1 into 2.37:1.


There is just 4% difference between 1.78:1 and 1.85:1. If your not seeing a difference (should be slivers of black for the 1.85:1 program) on your plasma, then chances are the plasma has an overscan issue. Look for a 1:1 pixel map feature.


----------



## twitch




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18239478
> 
> 
> The 16:9 projector does output a rectangle of light of 1.78:1. The 1.33x Horizontal Expanding Anamorphic Lens will magnify that by 1.33x in the horizontal, so turning that 1.78:1 into 2.37:1.



If your playback material is in 1.78 and that is what the PJ outputs natively, why would you want to stretch it by engaging the AL ?

My original Q was about the benefits of having 1.85 ratio on the MMS since I can't think of a scenario where the PJ can be prompted to output in 1.85 to start with.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *twitch* /forum/post/18244983
> 
> 
> If your playback material is in 1.78 and that is what the PJ outputs natively, why would you want to stretch it by engaging the AL ?



If the image is 1.78:1, then you wouldn't. If it letterboxed, then you want to vertically stretch to rid the bars and then optically expand to restore the geometry.



> Quote:
> My original Q was about the benefits of having 1.85 ratio on the MMS since I can't think of a scenario where the PJ can be prompted to output in 1.85 to start with.



Everything on BD is CIW once it's AR exceeds 1.78:1, so even 1.85:1 is letterboxed. If the masking system is set to 1.78:1, then you either have small slivers top and bottom, or you apply a small amount of zoom and overscan the sides.


----------



## AudioZone




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ericsson* /forum/post/18091124
> 
> 
> Interesting views on CIH



Nice find!


----------



## killer1

Hi Tukkis,


What would happen and what should I do if I played a 2.40 movie on a 2.35 screen?


Thank you.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *killer1* /forum/post/18319711
> 
> 
> Hi Tukkis,
> 
> 
> What would happen and what should I do if I played a 2.40 movie on a 2.35 screen?
> 
> 
> Thank you.



I've not seen Tukkis on this site for some time.


The answer to your question is simply a matter of how the image is framed. If the image is framed perfectly top to bottom, then you get some overscan on the sides. If you frame the image perfect at the sides, you will see slivers of black bars at the top and bottom.


----------



## killer1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18319883
> 
> 
> I've not seen Tukkis on this site for some time.
> 
> 
> The answer to your question is simply a matter of how the image is framed. If the image is framed perfectly top to bottom, then you get some overscan on the sides. If you frame the image perfect at the sides, you will see slivers of black bars at the top and bottom.



Does it mean that if i frame the image perfect at the sides for 2.40:1 setting, i will see black bars at the side when watching a 2.35:1 ratio movie?


Thanks a million CAVX


----------



## CAVX

Well it should, however the letterboxing on video formats like DVD and BD are based on Constant Image Width once the AR exceeds 1.78:1.


----------



## Killroy

I need some feedback from the CIH experts here to see if my room is workable. My room is quite small, 10'2"wx15'dx8'h. I am currently using a 106" (52"x92") screen with a throw of about 12'. I can move the projector back to about 13'6" if I need to.


I was thinking about going with a 2.35:1 screen at about 130" diag (120"x51") and using the AVS1-R lens. For a 1.6 throw @92" wide puts me at 147". Is my math correct (is the math done with the 16:9 width or the scope width)? I keep reading that I could go as low as 1.4 but closer to 2.0 throw is better. Will my 1.6 throw be OK with this combo?


Thanks for any feedback.


----------



## CAVX

You will be better with a longer TR than a shorter for many reasons - including lens compatibility (unless you absolutely can use the ISCO III). Your TR is worked out from the 16:9 image width.


----------



## Killroy

Well I am limited by the small room and budget so the ISCO is out. My math shows that if I stay at 92" for the 16:9 then the best TR is 1.76. I guess I could go a bit smaller... Wait, what am I saying... Cannot go smaller.


So is 1.76 workable? Will the image suffer too much?


----------



## CAVX

Assumming you don't vignette, you'd be OK. Just FYI, that TR will not work with my MK3 or any other similar sized lens.


----------



## Killroy

Thanks. The only other question I have is this... is there any Horizontal shift possible with any of the lenses? I have two mounting positions. One is just a little off dead center so I have to shift right about 3-4". The other position is dead center but it's not optimal.


I am so begging the wife to get me a lens for my b-day.


----------



## CAVX

You can kind of fudge H-lens shift with rotation of the A-Lens. It is not as good as being 100% square though.


----------



## suki1987

All arrangements and facilities are what is needed for a full screen 2:35 AR. The only exception would be SD TV, if so, the 16x9 picture (which is required would be too big for the screen) and the background image vertically to fill the screen. As PJ rarely used for SDTV that I have a strong AR 2:35 (), all sources do not measure or target.


----------



## CAVX

Your not understanding the concept.


CIH will have the same height for all ARs. It may not use the full width for all ARs.


----------



## michaelscott73

Read through countless posts including the FAQ. If there are two parts to viewing true cinemascope, first being stretching the images height, then using a lens to fix the ratio, how are owners of the Panny 4000 not using a lens? I was under the assumption the projector takes care of the first part (without an external scaler) , but that you still would need a lens?


----------



## CAVX

The Zoom method does not scale or use a lens. The reality is that the "scope image" created using this method is just a larger 16:9 image.


----------



## michaelscott73

So panny owners still have the black bar overspill at top and bottom? And they still aren't using all pixels for the picture as you would with the scaling/lens method? Not sure I'm really understanding what the 4000 does that you can't do by using zoom on any other projector?


----------



## scottyb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *michaelscott73* /forum/post/18424689
> 
> 
> So panny owners still have the black bar overspill at top and bottom? And they still aren't using all pixels for the picture as you would with the scaling/lens method? Not sure I'm really understanding what the 4000 does that you can't do by using zoom on any other projector?



It just does it automaticly. One press of a button.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *michaelscott73* /forum/post/18424689
> 
> 
> So panny owners still have the black bar overspill at top and bottom? And they still aren't using all pixels for the picture as you would with the scaling/lens method? Not sure I'm really understanding what the 4000 does that you can't do by using zoom on any other projector?



Yes you simply spill the black bars off the top and bottom. Zooming does not allow the full use of the panel for Scope, so you get about 810 lines in this mode.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *scottyb* /forum/post/18424862
> 
> 
> It just does it automaticly. One press of a button.



The Panny offers an automated zoom that must be set up first, then it is a press of a button.


----------



## scottyb

Mark,


Could you be a little more picky.


----------



## CAVX

Just stating the facts.


----------



## michaelscott73

Thanks guys...guess now I have to research $2K vertical stretch projectors. If anyone has a link to a current list a link would be appreciated.


----------



## CAVX

$2K projectors with VS include the Panny 4000. Just be sure it offers both VS and HS as some only have VS.


----------



## michaelscott73

with both VS and HS I can use your lens, fixed in place, and just change settings on the projector, correct?


----------



## scottyb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/18425937
> 
> 
> The Panny offers an automated zoom that must be set up first, then it is a press of a button.
> 
> 
> 
> Just stating the facts.



Well,

You forgot to include you also have to press the "on" button before you program it for zooming. So this might take quite a while. You might as well buy a lens.


C'mon, Just stating the facts....


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *scottyb* /forum/post/18429457
> 
> 
> You might as well buy a lens.



And so I did


----------



## AlfredoG4

If I have my Panny 4000, what do I need to use

2.35? Just the screen? Or something else


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AlfredoG4* /forum/post/18579327
> 
> 
> If I have my Panny 4000, what do I need to use
> 
> 2.35? Just the screen? Or something else



You have the choice to either zoom the image or buy an anamorphic lens.


----------



## AlfredoG4

wouldn't that leave me with those black bars? is there any way to remove them?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AlfredoG4* /forum/post/18580679
> 
> 
> wouldn't that leave me with those black bars? is there any way to remove them?



Yes you get the bars due to the nature of the format preserving the OAR of the film. If you zoom, you simply shoot them above and below the screen.


This of course means that you project 25% of the vertical rez resulting in 810 vertical pixels on screen.


You want all 1080 pixels on screen, you need to employ an anamorphic lens. You then use Zoom 1 mode for the Scaling.


----------



## crittertoo

thanks CAVX for all your valued answer. Q -


MKIII fitted on the projector for a 2:35. Vertical stretch on the pj or some scaler (mode 1) will get me a 2:35 image on a 2:35 screen.


If i want the 4:3 and 16:9 materials with the correct aspect ratio without moving the MKIII off the PJ, I would need to horizontal stretch (mode 2) the image right? With the horizon stretch, black bars would appear on the right and left side on the 2:35 screen...am I correct?


thanks


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *crittertoo* /forum/post/18614774
> 
> 
> thanks CAVX for all your valued answer. Q -
> 
> 
> MKIII fitted on the projector for a 2:35. Vertical stretch on the pj or some scaler (mode 1) will get me a 2:35 image on a 2:35 screen.
> 
> 
> If i want the 4:3 and 16:9 materials with the correct aspect ratio without moving the MKIII off the PJ, I would need to horizontal stretch (mode 2) the image right? With the horizon stretch, black bars would appear on the right and left side on the 2:35 screen...am I correct?
> 
> 
> thanks



No you need to use 4 x 3 mode. BD players horizontally squeeze 4 x 3 discs so they are compatible with 16:9 displays.









The anamorphic lens provides the horizontal stretch. You need to apply either vertical stretch (Scope) or horizontal squeeze. The projector mode to apply (as you can see in the image) is 4 x 3. If you use a wide mode, the image will be stretched by both the projector and then the A-Lens, so resulting in incorrect geometry.


----------



## crittertoo

thanks for the response CAVX. For the 4:3 and 16:9 to obtain the correct geometry on a 2:35 screen with the anamorphic lens in place, do I have to apply the vertical squeeze on the PJ/scaler? (i will leave the BP to scale 4:3 to 16:9)



thanks....


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *crittertoo* /forum/post/18615006
> 
> 
> thanks for the response CAVX. For the 4:3 and 16:9 to obtain the correct geometry on a 2:35 screen with the anamorphic lens in place, do I have to apply the vertical squeeze on the PJ/scaler? (i will leave the BP to scale 4:3 to 16:9)
> 
> 
> 
> thanks....



No, just horizontal squeeze.


----------



## CAVX

I found this whilst buying some BDs and thought it was both cool and a little bit funny given the recent move to 3D.


----------



## BillFree

I have the following system and want to make sure I'm setting it up properly.


Sony Bravia VPL-AW10 projector

OPPO BDP-83-SE Blu-ray

Screen 4'x8' white, fixed. (Black diamond II 1.6 2:35 fixed screen in future)

Panamorphic UV200 ATV (lens,sled,motor,remote) system

Faroudja DVP5000 (formerly used with my Sony 1292Q CRT system) not connected.


The displayed 16:9 picture is great without lens in place. When in place picture is great with 33% more color and brighter,VC with no black bars.


Will connecting my Faroudja DVP5000 improve picture if so how do I connect it? I have read so much on this forum trying to see what can apply to my system that I'm dizzy. Any suggestions would be apprecated. This forum is excellent. My distance from projector to screen is 11'.


Bill


----------



## CAVX

Your source connects to the processor and then the processor connects to the projector. The processor should improve the image as well as give you easier control over aspect ratio control.


----------



## BillFree

My system setup uses a single HDMI cable. The Faroudja processor will require new cables from OPPO bluray to Faroudja then to projector. Is there a HDMI conversion adapter I can use from the Faroudja (GBR)connectors?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BillFree* /forum/post/19368034
> 
> 
> My system setup uses a single HDMI cable. The Faroudja processor will require new cables from OPPO bluray to Faroudja then to projector. Is there a HDMI conversion adapter I can use from the Faroudja (GBR)connectors?



So your saying that the Faoudja does not have HDMI in, HDMI out, or both? If it does not support HDMI, then you may be forced to use YPbPr. The question is, will YPbPr (component) pass 1080P?


----------



## MikeWojcik

Just had my RS25 calibrated - wow, what a difference.


What was also amazing was the negative impact my prismasonic 5000R lens had on ANSI contrast ratio - so much so I removed it and am back to zooming.


Would like to get back to using a lens but need much less impact on the contrast ratio.


Any recommendations?


Thanks

Mike


----------



## CAVX

Why didn't you have the projector calibrated with the lens in the light path?


----------



## MikeWojcik

The difference was measured pre-calibration - with and without the lens.


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MikeWojcik* /forum/post/19371838
> 
> 
> Any recommendations?



Better lens.


----------



## MikeWojcik




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/19375985
> 
> 
> Better lens.



Is a Panamorph 480 a better lens or does one need to move to a cylindrical lens (e.g. ISCO, Schneider) to achieve viewably better results?


----------



## GetGray

I can't speak to Panamorphs evolvng line. My understanding is the 480 addressed some issues with the previous model. I am biased but I believe you would find few who would not say the image will be better through a high end ground *glass* lens vs. prisims.


----------



## prismasonic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MikeWojcik* /forum/post/19371838
> 
> 
> Just had my RS25 calibrated - wow, what a difference.
> 
> 
> What was also amazing was the negative impact my prismasonic 5000R lens had on ANSI contrast ratio - so much so I removed it and am back to zooming.
> 
> 
> Would like to get back to using a lens but need much less impact on the contrast ratio.
> 
> 
> Any recommendations?
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Mike



First I would carefully clean all the optics surfaces with some solvent. If there is some grease, it will certainly make the contrast bad.


Then if you make measurements, please use the zoomed picture as a reference for the lens setup. I would like to know the result, since the ansi contrast should not much change with the lens


----------



## klpham71

I am new to projectors, scope screen and such although gained much knowledge reading from the forum. I am still in a steep slope in my learning curve. We have a few plasma in the house but this is my new projector endeavor.


Question: Can I buy a screen (scope that is), a projector and the anamorphic lens and set up/install myself? I am rather handy but again, a total newbie in projector/calibrator set up. Would I be better off having professionals to perform all that task? We live in rather rural midwest, at least a 50 miles to the nearest "city" installer.


Thanks for reading my question.

Keith.


----------



## joplass

Can any projector do 2.35?


----------



## GetGray





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *klpham71* /forum/post/19419737
> 
> 
> I am new to projectors, scope screen and such although gained much knowledge reading from the forum. I am still in a steep slope in my learning curve. We have a few plasma in the house but this is my new projector endeavor.
> 
> 
> Question: Can I buy a screen (scope that is), a projector and the anamorphic lens and set up/install myself? I am rather handy but again, a total newbie in projector/calibrator set up. Would I be better off having professionals to perform all that task? We live in rather rural midwest, at least a 50 miles to the nearest "city" installer.
> 
> 
> Thanks for reading my question.
> 
> Keith.



IMO anyone who is pretty "handy" can install the stuff and set it up. In my experience, sometime enthusiasts do a better job than installers becasue they have all the time in the world to get it right, and they tend to obsess about the details. It's not rocket science to install one, again, if you are pretty good at things like that.


As for calibration, that is different, as it takes some detailed knowledge, some expereince, and special equipment. On the other hand the enthusiast versions of Calman can get you going pretty well.


Cheers,

Scott


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *joplass* /forum/post/19420603
> 
> 
> Can any projector do 2.35?



Tecnically yes, any 1.78 (16:9) projector can be used in a scope setup.


But, depending on the projector you may need an anamorphic lens, and a scaler to make it happen. Some projectors have the scaler built in, some have enough "zoom" range that you can just zoom the picture larger until the 2.35 subset of the 2.35 source image fills a 2.35 screen.


----------



## mikemax68

I'm in the process of setting up a dedicated, light controlled HT room. The room is roughly 22x13. I'd like to go scope and go big. We'll be viewing mostly movies and sports - roughly 50/50 mix between 2.35 and 1.78 content. No SD content.


I'm about to preorder a JVC RS40. I'd like to go with a large (140-146 inch), relatively bright scope screen - maybe a Carada 1.4 BW or a studiotek 130.


My question - do you think I can pull off the above using zoom for scope and obtain good results, particularly from a brightness perspective? Anyone out there doing zoom to a 140-150 inch scope screen with a projector with similar light output to the RS40?


I'd like to do the above and consider the lens upgrade a year or two down the road as budget allows. If zoom is impractical for my setup, I'll just go with a large 16:9 screen and upgrade both screen and lens together down the road. Any help would be greatly appreciated!


I can set up my throw anywhere from 15 to 20 feet or so.


----------



## joplass




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/19422044
> 
> 
> Tecnically yes, any 1.78 (16:9) projector can be used in a scope setup.
> 
> 
> But, depending on the projector you may need an anamorphic lens, and a scaler to make it happen. Some projectors have the scaler built in, some have enough "zoom" range that you can just zoom the picture larger until the 2.35 subset of the 2.35 source image fills a 2.35 screen.



Do you have any idea if the Sanyo PLV-Z5 can do it?


----------



## Sideofpotatos

Sorry to add to the heap of noob questions, I'll try and keep it simple.


This winter I expect to be doing a custom HT room and will be going to a PJ setup. I am having a heck of a time trying to decide if I should go with a 2.35 constant height screen/PJ or a 1.78 screen/PJ. The use will be essentially all movies (95% blu ray and 5% dvd). I will probably be spending $2500-4000 for the PJ and will be looking into DIY curved screen but need much education here still.


Is that enough info that some of you experienced folks would be willing to offer any advice?


----------



## Mike_WI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sideofpotatos* /forum/post/19436581
> 
> 
> Sorry to add to the heap of noob questions, I'll try and keep it simple.
> 
> 
> This winter I expect to be doing a custom HT room and will be going to a PJ setup. I am having a heck of a time trying to decide if I should go with a 2.35 constant height screen/PJ or a 1.78 screen/PJ. The use will be essentially all movies (95% blu ray and 5% dvd). I will probably be spending $2500-4000 for the PJ and will be looking into DIY curved screen but need much education here still.
> 
> 
> Is that enough info that some of you experienced folks would be willing to offer any advice?



My simple answer is go 2.35:1 (or 2.37, 2.39, 2.40:1).

You can see my HT link in sig for my long thought process.


I'm helping a friend build a HT now and he is going with 16:9 for optimization more kids shows (although many are 2.35:1) and TV.


The best is 2.40(-ish):1 with masking (eg Stewart, Carada, etc), but that is a much higher budget -- or DIY masking.


Good luck.


Mike


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sideofpotatos* /forum/post/19436581
> 
> 
> I will probably be spending $2500-4000 for the PJ and will be looking into DIY curved screen but need much education here still.



Unless you plan to use an anamorphic lens, you don't want a curved screen as they are used to correct pincushion which is a byproduct of anamorphic lenses. If you don't intent to use one and still go with a curved screen, you will introduce barrel distortion to your images.


----------



## Sideofpotatos




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mike_WI* /forum/post/19436601
> 
> 
> My simple answer is go 2.35:1 (or 2.37, 2.39, 2.40:1).
> 
> You can see my HT link in sig for my long thought process.
> 
> 
> I'm helping a friend build a HT now and he is going with 16:9 for optimization more kids shows (although many are 2.35:1) and TV.
> 
> 
> The best is 2.40(-ish):1 with masking (eg Stewart, Carada, etc), but that is a much higher budget -- or DIY masking.
> 
> 
> Good luck.
> 
> 
> Mike



So I know many movies are 2.35:1 but there are still some out there that are 1.78:1 (avatar is the first one that comes to mind). In the event of one of these sources (assuming I go with the 2.35:1 setup) are there special parameter or adjustments I would need to make or can a PJ just display the source material in whatever its native ratio is?


Thanks for the recommendation as well.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19437292
> 
> 
> Unless you plan to use an anamorphic lens, you don't want a curved screen as they are used to correct pincushion which is a byproduct of anamorphic lenses. If you don't intent to use one and still go with a curved screen, you will introduce barrel distortion to your images.



Let me really expose my naivete on this subject matter... Is there any reason I would want to use an anamorphic lens for a 2.35:1 setup used almost exclusively for movies?


Thank you for the heads up what curved is actually for. It's a relief because flat will be far easier to make and install!


----------



## Mike_WI

The simplest thing to do is get a 16:9 screen, no a-lens.


If...
*Screen = 16:9*

Movie - 16:9 - fits "perfectly"

Movie - 2.35:1 - black bars top/bottom


If...
*Screen = 2.35:1*

Movie - 16:9 - black bars on sides

Movie - 2.35:1 -

A) Zoom to fit, or

B) V-stretch (in projector or other) and H-stretch with anamorphic lens



I'm not sure if that was helpful or not and one of the gurus here may give a better summary.


It might be good if you could find people with different setups and observe them to see what you like.


Mike


**EDIT**

Also, consider PM'ing warrenP and ask him if there are any good examples of a 2.35:1 vs. 16:9 HT setup in his AVS DVD series "HT Revealed" .

It was created to help people with HT planning by looking at how others did it.


----------



## Sideofpotatos




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mike_WI* /forum/post/19440417
> 
> 
> The simplest thing to do is get a 16:9 screen, no a-lens.
> 
> 
> If...
> *Screen = 16:9*
> 
> Movie - 16:9 - fits "perfectly"
> 
> Movie - 2.35:1 - black bars top/bottom
> 
> 
> If...
> *Screen = 2.35:1*
> 
> Movie - 16:9 - black bars on sides
> 
> Movie - 2.35:1 -
> 
> A) Zoom to fit, or
> 
> B) V-stretch (in projector or other) and H-stretch with anamorphic lens
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if that was helpful or not and one of the gurus here may give a better summary.
> 
> 
> It might be good if you could find people with different setups and observe them to see what you like.
> 
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> **EDIT**
> 
> Also, consider PM'ing warrenP and ask him if there are any good examples of a 2.35:1 vs. 16:9 HT setup in his AVS DVD series "HT Revealed" .
> 
> It was created to help people with HT planning by looking at how others did it.



Ok, great link, I'll happily look into Warren's findings. One quick question regarding your post. Here is what I understand from my 16x9 tv display (seems to match how a 16x9 screen/PJ performs based on what you said)
*Screen = 16:9*

Movie - 16:9 - fits "perfectly"

Movie - 2.35:1 - black bars top/bottom

Just how I expected. But is the reverse not true if I was set up for 2.35:1? That is does 2.35:1 source material fit "perfectly" on the screen and 16x9 material will be displayed as the same height but black bars on the sides without having to change anything? If that is true I don't feel that bars on the sides for the occasional 16x9 source would be distracting or less desirable than black bars across the top and bottom of the vast majority of movies if I went with a 16x9 screen.


----------



## Mike_WI

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Sideofpotatos* 
Ok, great link, I'll happily look into Warren's findings. One quick question regarding your post. Here is what I understand from my 16x9 tv display (seems to match how a 16x9 screen/PJ performs based on what you said)
*Screen = 16:9*

Movie - 16:9 - fits "perfectly"

Movie - 2.35:1 - black bars top/bottom

Just how I expected. But is the reverse not true if I was set up for 2.35:1? That is does 2.35:1 source material fit "perfectly" on the screen and 16x9 material will be displayed as the same height but black bars on the sides without having to change anything? If that is true I don't feel that bars on the sides for the occasional 16x9 source would be distracting or less desirable than black bars across the top and bottom of the vast majority of movies if I went with a 16x9 screen.
Yes.

Just like I said.

What is not "distracting" now without a screen may be distracting later as you fine tune and perfection-ize things -- or not.

Check out some real HT setups and see what you think.


You can agonize forever about it in forums (as I did) or just see some examples and "get it" and decide the tradeoffs for yourself.


Mike


----------



## Nasty N8

You have a grasp on it. With a 2.40 screen you need one of 2 things to happen to make it work.


Zoom-16/9 fills The center of the screen then you would "zoom" the image out to make the 2.40 image fill the screen width pushing the bars off the top and bottom of the screen.


Lens-Lens out 16/9 fills center of the screen. 2.40 image needs to be scaled digitally to fill the black bar area with image (think tall skinny 16/9 image) then it is stretched out width wise via lens to fill the whole 2.40 screen and restoring image shape.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sideofpotatos* /forum/post/19439834
> 
> 
> Let me really expose my naivete on this subject matter... Is there any reason I would want to use an anamorphic lens for a 2.35:1 setup used almost exclusively for movies?



HDTV and BD are 1.78:1 using 1920 x 1080 pixels. Most block buster movies are CinemaScope and when transferred to BD are presented as a letterbox (black bars top and bottom). This means that about 810 of the 1080 vertical pixels are used for the movie and the remaining 270 (based on 810) are wasted on black bars. Your image is also 75% of a 16:9 image.


So in CIH, we present our Scope films using the FULL 1920 x 1080 pixels on the panel.


It is a TWO step process:

1. We vertically stretch the image to get rid of the black bars and

2. We optically expand the image to restore the geometry.


The end result is a projected image that is some 78% larger than the previous letterboxed image and now use the FULL panel of the projector, not 75% of it.


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sideofpotatos* /forum/post/19441107
> 
> 
> I don't feel that bars on the sides for the occasional 16x9 source would be distracting or less desirable than black bars across the top and bottom of the vast majority of movies if I went with a 16x9 screen.



If you do find that back bars on the sides (16:9 image inside 2.35:1 screen) become distracting, it is 100 times easier to mask that area than it would be to try and mask the black bars top/bottom (2.35:1 image inside 16:9 screen). Which is just another plus for a CIH setup in my opinion.


-Sean


----------



## Sideofpotatos




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19443499
> 
> 
> HDTV and BD are 1.78:1 using 1920 x 1080 pixels. Most block buster movies are CinemaScope and when transferred to BD are presented as a letterbox (black bars top and bottom). This means that about 810 of the 1080 vertical pixels are used for the movie and the remaining 270 (based on 810) are wasted on black bars. Your image is also 75% of a 16:9 image.
> 
> 
> So in CIH, we present our Scope films using the FULL 1920 x 1080 pixels on the panel.
> 
> 
> It is a TWO step process:
> 
> 1. We vertically stretch the image to get rid of the black bars and
> 
> 2. We optically expand the image to restore the geometry.
> 
> 
> The end result is a projected image that is some 78% larger than the previous letterboxed image and now use the FULL panel of the projector, not 75% of it.



Thank you Mike, nasty, sean, and CAVX for taking the time to help me out. You certainly have given me some good pointers and I feel like I now have some useful info to figure out which direction I should move in.


If I could ask one question CAVX about your post above. I never thought of the pixels being unused but that makes a lot of sense and I really like looking at it from that angle. So in a sense when a BD says it comes in "anamorphic widescreen" or 2.35:1 or whatever, the actual viewable picture might be that ratio but what is actually encoded on the the disk is going to be a 16x9 (1.78:1) with preinstalled black bars as part of the native incoming aspect ratio, right? In the solution you mention of the vertical stretch and then expanding to restore geometry, is this basically like a "zoom fit" that is governed by keeping geometry the same?


In either case is there some kind of post signal processing needed to maintain the original resolution if stretching has occurred or is original resolution somehow maintained despite the stretch?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sideofpotatos* /forum/post/19453571
> 
> 
> Thank you Mike, nasty, sean, and CAVX for taking the time to help me out. You certainly have given me some good pointers and I feel like I now have some useful info to figure out which direction I should move in.
> 
> 
> If I could ask one question CAVX about your post above. I never thought of the pixels being unused but that makes a lot of sense and I really like looking at it from that angle. So in a sense when a BD says it comes in "anamorphic widescreen" or 2.35:1 or whatever, the actual viewable picture might be that ratio but what is actually encoded on the the disk is going to be a 16x9 (1.78:1) with preinstalled black bars as part of the native incoming aspect ratio, right? In the solution you mention of the vertical stretch and then expanding to restore geometry, is this basically like a "zoom fit" that is governed by keeping geometry the same?
> 
> 
> In either case is there some kind of post signal processing needed to maintain the original resolution if stretching has occurred or is original resolution somehow maintained despite the stretch?



Blu-ray disc is a native 16:9 format made up of 1920 x 1080 pixles. If the studio wants to store a Scope film on the format, the current way is to letter box the image. They reduce the height to fit in the width. The remaining space top and bottom is filled in (hard encoded) with black that should be below video black or PC16.


Vertically Stretching the image keeps the horizontal rez at 1:1, however manipulates the vertical rez and this can be seen when using a 1:1 pixel mapped test pattern. However, this will not be visible when watching motion pictures and why it works for us using a lens.


----------



## Sideofpotatos




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19457002
> 
> 
> Blu-ray disc is a native 16:9 format made up of 1920 x 1080 pixles. If the studio wants to store a Scope film on the format, the current way is to letter box the image. They reduce the height to fit in the width. The remaining space top and bottom is filled in (hard encoded) with black that should be below video black or PC16.
> 
> 
> Vertically Stretching the image keeps the horizontal rez at 1:1, however manipulates the vertical rez and this can be seen when using a 1:1 pixel mapped test pattern. However, this will not be visible when watching motion pictures and why it works for us using a lens.



Thank you Mark, you have been a huge help!


----------



## CAVX

Your welcome


----------



## 12nrow

Is this right


I have 2.35:1 screen and have been zooming , bought a lens and have installed it , everything looked good , so was ready to to test out , put in a 2.35:1 aspect movie and still had black barson top and bottom in the 16x9 mode , switched to letterbox and the bars went away and image fits the screen. is this correct. The manual for the projector says the software is built in for the a-lens. I don't know if this is right, before installing the lens it said to center the image, how do you center an image on a 2.35:1 screen before installing lens.


----------



## SteveHorn

Others here can answer your questions, but you need to tell us the projector and lens brands and models.


----------



## GetGray

Quote:

Originally Posted by *12nrow* 
Is this right


I have 2.35:1 screen and have been zooming , bought a lens and have installed it , everything looked good , so was ready to to test out , put in a 2.35:1 aspect movie and still had black barson top and bottom in the 16x9 mode , switched to letterbox and the bars went away and image fits the screen. is this correct. The manual for the projector says the software is built in for the a-lens. I don't know if this is right, before installing the lens it said to center the image, how do you center an image on a 2.35:1 screen before installing lens.
To center the 16:9 image: Use a plum bob with a bright colored string. Measure and find the center of your screen on top of your frame. Use a piece of tape and tape the string to the top of your screen in the measured centerpoint. Withthe plumb bob's string hanging, you now have the perfect centerpoint marked. Be sure the bottom of the string isn't "dragging" on the bottom frame face (if your screen isn't plumb).


Now, display a grid type test pattern in 16:9 mode (no lens). The "overscan" pattern on my DVD (see sig) will suffice, but if the PJ has a built in test pattern grid (many do), that's usually the best. FInd the center of the test pattern, align that center image with the string. Image is now centered. Proceed to adjust the lens.


HTH,

Scott


----------



## 12nrow

thanks guys,


sold my old projector that i was zooming with and since i already had the screen , carada 112 inch 2.35:1 , went with the runco Ls-5 and there a-lens ,throw is 17'1" , the manual is not to clear on what mode to be in when viewing 2.35:1 movies , by trial and error i can remove the top and bottom bars by using the letterbox mode , is this the proper method for viewing 2.35:1 movies on this projector.


Thanks a bunch


----------



## mijotter

My screen size will be 112" diagonal for cinescope(103" wide) and masked to 88" for 16:9 using the CIH of 43" The projector i'll be using will be the Panny AE8000. For using the cinescope, about how tall of black letterbox bars can I expect on the top and bottom? So I can plan for trim and whatnot, Thanks.


----------



## mijotter

Anyone?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mijotter*  /t/554901/2-35-constant-height-faq/600#post_23198269
> 
> 
> My screen size will be 112" diagonal for cinescope(103" wide) and masked to 88" for 16:9 using the CIH of 43" The projector i'll be using will be the Panny AE8000. For using the cinescope, about how tall of black letterbox bars can I expect on the top and bottom? So I can plan for trim and whatnot, Thanks.



What lens are you using? If you use an A-Lens (and leave it in the light path) , then you switch between the ZOOM1 (?) and 4 x 3 modes. If you are removing the lens, then you use 16:9 for when the A-Lens is removed.

If you zoom, then you switch between 16:9 and 16:9s.


Scope method pending, you may see slivers of back top and bottom for 2.40:1 films.

Did that answer your question?


----------



## mijotter

Not using an anamorphic lense. Just the AE8000 lens shift and memory to switch between the ratios. But I know that since the ae8000 is a 16:9 native projector going cinescope will produce letterboxing you just mess with the vertical zoom and what not to the put those black bars off the screen so 100% of the screen is covered by the picture. So was wondering how big those black letterbox bars are on the top and bottom. Plan on doing the standard 2" trim and painting the wall black. Will the black bars go past the 2" trim on to the black painted wall. And if so, will you be able to tell there are black letterbox bars on the wall? Thanks.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mijotter*  /t/554901/2-35-constant-height-faq/630#post_23202799
> 
> 
> So was wondering how big those black letterbox bars are on the top and bottom.



The black bars represent 25% (12.5% top and 12.5 bottom%) of the image height. The larger the image, the larger the black bars.


----------



## mnj1987

Has anyone used a sony 50es with an anamorphic lens?


Good results?


----------



## GetGray

Jason just installed a Schneider/Isco XL in his theater. You can ask him:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1463750/the-crazy-home-theater-rebuild-thread/0_100


----------



## DrZaus




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray*  /t/554901/2-35-constant-height-faq/630#post_23343232
> 
> 
> Jason just installed a Schneider/Isco XL in his theater. You can ask him:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/t/1463750/the-crazy-home-theater-rebuild-thread/0_100



Isco or TechTT does everything by email.. no phone number to call.?


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DrZaus*  /t/554901/2-35-constant-height-faq/630#post_23389669
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray*  /t/554901/2-35-constant-height-faq/630#post_23343232
> 
> 
> Jason just installed a Schneider/Isco XL in his theater. You can ask him:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/t/1463750/the-crazy-home-theater-rebuild-thread/0_100
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isco or TechTT does everything by email.. no phone number to call.?
Click to expand...

I just don't put it on the website to keep down on telemarketers. We are a specialty company in a high end niche market. Just reach out to me via email and I'll happily provide all the contact nos. Scott at techht dut com.


----------

