# Zooming Vs Lens



## D'ultimate

I'm doing research in order to to get a CIH in a 14' x 24' room. In doing research for all the things I would need/want, I see a lot of banter about anamorphic lens and its benefits and some claiming that zooming could achieve similar results, especially with newer 1080p projectors. Even so I haven't seen any real in depth comparisons with pictures and such like I've seen in other "vs" thread.


Is there anyone that is capable of providing an accurate analysis and/or comparison weighing the advantages and disadvantages of the two. I think the time is right for such a comparison because of the transition away from 720p projectors towards 1080p projectors.


Agree? Disagree? Opinions?


----------



## CAVX

My $0.02 worth. If you think of the image as a total and made from X number of pixels you might accept the zoom method, but if you crunch the numbers, then you soon realize the zooming is a really only getting a feel for the new wider image.


The new 1080 projectors have 1080 vertical pixels. Why throw away about 270 of them?


Also when you zoom, the pixels expand in both directions, where with the lens, they only expand (for a HE lens) in one direction.


Your image will be superior when using the full panel Vs the zoom method...


Mark


----------



## McCall

There is little point in a vs. thread because the is really only one way to be convinced and that is to SEE the difference. it is obvious.

That is not to say that the zoom method is not perfectly OK if you are happy with it.


The reasons you can find in many many threads in this particular forum, better projector panel use being the main one, but the end result is what counts.


----------



## Jason Turk

Where are you located D'Ultimate? If you happen to be near me I can setup a demo for you to view.


----------



## VTPete

Ok, I'm willing to play 'counterpoint' to your 'point' if you promise not to shoot me for being the messenger.


I'm simply finding that the zoomed out picture looks better. And, in the HTB thread, I've posted photos of both. I urge others to point me to similar shots taken by others.


As I've mentioned now in several different threads, my RS1 is set up 14 feet back from a 111 inch wide screen. At that length, it's about in the middle of it's zoom range.


When I zoom the picture out and fill the full screen, the picture is brighter and crisper than when I use the 'vertical digital stretch and horizontal optical stretch' method of CIH. (Although both look very good!)


Look, I can't explain it... but I've shown it to several people and they all agree. (And the camera agrees as well.)


The pixels are bigger, yes... but they're still so small you can not see them. That issue is moot.


There's less of the panel being used, yes... but zooming out gives me an efficiency boost to the RS1 that increases it's brightness (relatively speaking.)


The zoomout method has no chromatic aberrations, pincushioning or other optical side-effects, but honestly, those things are seldom noticable.


The zoomout method requires you to (ugg) zoom out and usually adjust at least your vertical shift. The lens method is definitely cooler and easier to implement on an as-needed basis.


The zoomout method saves you at least the cost of the anamorphic lens.


My opinion? Be careful about your projector choice and mounting location...

But, it seems like you can always buy the projector and try the zoomout method. Then, feel free to "move up" to a lens if you're so inclined!


-Pete


P.S. I'm looking for some better explainations of what I'm seeing in my tests, so if anyone has thoughts...


----------



## Jason Turk

Technically that is what you should find...not using a lens is a better picture. Why? Well first off no matter how good an anamorphic lens you use, it is still another lens going into the light path. Optics, regardless of quality, will always add issues to an image. Use a cheaper lens and this becomes even more apparent. Secondly, you essentially have to "create" information. If you take a BluRay 2.35:1 disc, once you setup the vertical stretch to fill the full height, you are making up about 33% more information that technically isn't there. So technically, that is part of the reason it may look better.


But, the reason so many go with a full setup, is that you are able to maximize light output, pixel resolution (allowing greater screen sizes at closer distances) and simpler functioning (no zooming needed). As a bonus, with a horizontal expansion lens you can also achieve a wider image than with the projector alone.


----------



## Health Nut




> Quote:
> The zoomout method has no chromatic aberrations, pincushioning or other optical side-effects, but honestly, those things are seldom noticable.
> 
> 
> The zoomout method saves you at least the cost of the anamorphic lens.



30% loss of ANSI contrast from the added lens is nothing to sneeze at either...


I have an ISCO III, but I'd prefer not to lose 30% ANSI contrast...


we really need projector companies to do something... having one lens, such as an anamporphic lens at the stop position... perhaps automated 'zoom' feature, etc... I really wish we'd have more progress in this area... Certainly, if we had a 4K projector, we could carve out a 1920 x 2538 portion and not need a second lens and its associated image degradation...


----------



## dj7675

Jason,


The light output is really what I am concerned about. In real world experience, can you tell the difference in brightness with a lens vs zooming? When I zoom the 2.35 image, brightness still looks good, but wouldn't want it any dimmer. Do you think I would see a difference in brightness by using a lens like the UH380 so all pixels are on the screen?


Darin


----------



## Jason Turk

Sure thing...this is ballpark.


If you have a 1920x1080 1000 lumen projector (for simple math). If you zoon, you use only 1920x817 resolution, which is ~25% less resolution, thus 25% less light output. If you use a lens, you will not lose that 25%, but you will lose ballpark 10% from adding an additional optic element (not avoidable). So essentially you can expect about 15% additional light output overall with a lens.


Again, these are generalizations (but essentially close to the real results).


----------



## D'ultimate

Jason. I live in Atlanta but I'm currently in Florida.



> Quote:
> I'm simply finding that the zoomed out picture looks better. And, in the HTB thread, I've posted photos of both.



I'm not sure if its the same posters that I keep seeing that are posting the positive effects of zooming (I'll try to pay more attention) but it seems to me that there are quite a few.


I still have gotten what all the terms mean and how to calculate all of them but this 30% ANSI contrast loss....what does that mean in terms of me looking at the screen. What will I see or not see with more or less ANSI, or Lumens for that matter?


----------



## jorsan

Jason, from one of your posts I understand that zooming the picture will makes you loose about 10% of resoluton/light comparing with the use of lens but .... what about using a higher contrast screen, this could solve part the problem?


----------



## VTPete




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *D'ultimate* /forum/post/11681310
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if its the same posters that I keep seeing that are posting the positive effects of zooming (I'll try to pay more attention) but it seems to me that there are quite a few.



It's probably just me. I think I'm posting too much on the topic! But, that's only because a) I have an anamorphic lens and b) I SO much want to use it!


----------



## coffeeguy57




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dj7675* /forum/post/11681021
> 
> 
> Jason,
> 
> 
> The light output is really what I am concerned about. In real world experience, can you tell the difference in brightness with a lens vs zooming? When I zoom the 2.35 image, brightness still looks good, but wouldn't want it any dimmer. Do you think I would see a difference in brightness by using a lens like the UH380 so all pixels are on the screen?
> 
> 
> Darin



I have just jumped in to CIH with a lens. I started with a 1.78 106" screen and manually masked to 2.35. I usually sit 10.5 feet in my first row. I left the masks in place for 1.78 and 2.35. Zooming out at this distance looked outstanding plenty bright and no sde with my ax100 but the 1.78 picture was a little small so I wanted a bigger screen.


I went to a 9' wide 235 screen. When I zoomed out to fill this new screen i noticed a substantial difference in brightness between 178 an 235. I also started to notice sde at 235.


Now with my U85 in place my picture is brighter and more vibrant when the picture fills 9'







. The sde is non existant with the lens in place


I do have some barrel distortion with this lens but it is small and i dont notice it when i watch films but i know it is there and may try HE to see if i can live with that.


----------



## video_bit_bucket

I do not think this can be decided except on a per install basis.


Projector SDE varies even within same resolution devices (EG 720 to 720 PJ), seeing SDE is not the same thing as loss of detail, but to most is an issue.


Source resolution is not the same thing as projector resolution. A 480i (SD DVD) scaled image can look different on 720 vs 1080 but the 1080 can not have more detail, it was never there. This also goes to the issue of how much of the vertical panel resolution is used by the respective methods.


Video processing used will impact perceived image quality, processing is different for the two methods so there is another variable.


Different PJ zooms have different impact on light output and contrast depending on lens design. The lens method eliminates this, but so would a PJ on a track moving closer and farther away from the screen, which would not use the zoom function either.


Different PJ zooms have different impacts on image qualities other than brightness and contrast.


I do not really see how perceived contrast and black levels can be the same for a 16x9 and 2.35 screen in the same room if the PJ output lumens remains the same. If you hit a screen with 700 lumens and the rooms returns 2% of that to the front wall (with the screen on it) the reflected lumens per sq/in is the same for either screen but the starting FL on the 16/9 is higher (at least with the zoom method) so the impact on CR and BL would not be the same. This completely ignores how our brains perceive these qualities non linear perception, thresholds, eye iris responding to secondary light, that is not coming from the screen to name a few.


So if you zoom you will looses some lumens and gain some contrast going from 16/9 to 2.35. If you use a lens you will gain lumens and loose contrast (I am not sure that I have ever see it said if the 33% penalty using a lens is was comparing scope to 16x9 or lens to zoom) but how much contrast you loose will be heavily impacted by the room.


Zoom or lens will have different impacts on different PJ and VP issues/artifacts.


I think you can say the lens will always be more convenient, brighter, more forgiving, more expensive. Zoom will always be lower cost, and depending on the all important eye of the beholder just as satisfactory to some if not many.


----------



## Graham Johnson

I understand totally the reasons you would choose to use a lens. Problem is, unless you want to spend 4K on a good one. IMHO you are better off not bothering.


The cheaper lenses I have seen so far have way too much colour fringing and geometry distortion to use. There is also the decrease in contrast they all seem to exhibit. Then there is the issue of buying a VP50 for another 2K to stretch the height.


The main issue in scaling a lens or using zooming of the pic. Is that in a 2.35 movie, those 275 extra lines you lose from a 1080 panel PJ dont exist in the source in any case!


CIH via lens is very much like upscaling a DVD. Nice, but no where near ideal and with a very high price.


It is not a bang for your buck upgrade IMO


----------



## Jack Gilvey

Great thread. With 1080p projectors and non-anamorphic 1080p scope sources (and hence no gain in source resolution w/ lens), it's apparent that some thought needs to go into lens use, carefully weighing any drawbacks.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Health Nut* /forum/post/11680973
> 
> 
> 30% loss of ANSI contrast from the added lens is nothing to sneeze at either...
> 
> 
> I have an ISCO III, but I'd prefer not to lose 30% ANSI contrast...
> 
> 
> we really need projector companies to do something... having one lens, such as an anamporphic lens at the stop position... perhaps automated 'zoom' feature, etc... I really wish we'd have more progress in this area... Certainly, if we had a 4K projector, we could carve out a 1920 x 2538 portion and not need a second lens and its associated image degradation...



The best solution is a 2.35 panel,next a 4K panel and use only what you need,third a built in lens although there will still be more lens elements thus some loss of ANSI and light,a good anamorphic and high ANSI projectoir like a three chip DLP,then a high quality anamorphic and a poor ANSI projector,then a poor ANSI projector and poor anamorphic.Just my two cents.


I've not had a lot of use of mine yet but I have visible pixel structure on both sides of my screen with lens engaged way more than great ANSI and almost no CA... it can be done. So far I just sit there with a stupid look on my face.


----------



## Jason Turk




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jorsan* /forum/post/11682617
> 
> 
> Jason, from one of your posts I understand that zooming the picture will makes you loose about 10% of resoluton/light comparing with the use of lens but .... what about using a higher contrast screen, this could solve part the problem?



Not really. Light loss can only be countered by a higher gain screen (to make up the light loss). A Higher Contrast screen, which would be a gray screen, would help just that...contrast.


----------



## D'ultimate




> Quote:
> So if you zoom you will looses some lumens and gain some contrast going from 16/9 to 2.35. If you use a lens you will gain lumens and loose contrast (I am not sure that I have ever see it said if the 33% penalty using a lens is was comparing scope to 16x9 or lens to zoom) but how much contrast you loose will be heavily impacted by the room.



What is lumens exactly and how could one make up for the loss of lumens with the zoom method?


Also I don't understand the big deal with the loss of pixels using the zoom method if you're only zooming to get rid of the black bars. Yes you're not using "all" the pixels but the "picture" is still compromised of all the pixels before and after, is it not?


This forum is not moving too fast so I do have another question. If one were so inclined to move the projector back and forth, approximately how much movement would be involved in doing so and is that really any different from having to move the lens in and out of place in a anamorphic setup?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *D'ultimate* /forum/post/11687957
> 
> 
> What is lumens exactly and how could one make up for the loss of lumens with the zoom method?
> 
> 
> Also I don't understand the big deal with the loss of pixels using the zoom method if you're only zooming to get rid of the black bars. Yes you're not using "all" the pixels but the "picture" is still compromised of all the pixels before and after, is it not?
> 
> 
> This forum is not moving too fast so I do have another question. If one were so inclined to move the projector back and forth, approximately how much movement would be involved in doing so and is that really any different from having to move the lens in and out of place in a anamorphic setup?



2 answers needed here -


1. The image is simply denser when made from the full panel instead of 75%. One could argue the point forever, but as we watch images made up of pixels, the more the merrier I think










2. Moving a lens (even manually) is way easier then moving a projector. Once the projector and lens is aligned, the lens moves in and out of the light path as required, but physically moving a projector would suggest screen alignment almost every time...


Mark


----------



## D'ultimate

I get the more dense thing. Are you really loosing 25% of the panel zooming though? It seems to me that there is some loss somewhere, maybe 10% with a lens, and a gain of maybe some things like a CA, pincushioning etc...whereas with zooming you loose some pixels which some claim affect the pictures and others don't.


I think we need some picture comparisons asap. VTPete, you haven't got a new camera yet?











> Quote:
> If you have a 1920x1080 1000 lumen projector (for simple math). If you zoon, you use only 1920x817 resolution, which is ~25% less resolution, thus 25% less light output. If you use a lens, you will not lose that 25%, but you will lose ballpark 10% from adding an additional optic element (not avoidable). So essentially you can expect about 15% additional light output overall with a lens.



Couldn't some of this be counteracted with a high gain screen? (Or whatever method is used to gain light output with projectors)


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *D'ultimate* /forum/post/11688401
> 
> 
> I get the more dense thing. Are you really loosing 25% of the panel zooming though?



25% lost vertically, also something to consider is the fact that the pixels are being enlarged both horizontally as well as vertically when you zoom...


Mark


----------



## R Harkness

I'm in the "should I zoom or use lens?" mode right now (before getting my projector). Because I might like to have a variable image size. It would be nice to be able to

see the difference between zooming and using a lens, without spending the thousands of dollars first for the lens. Sigh.


----------



## VTPete




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *D'ultimate* /forum/post/11688401
> 
> 
> I think we need some picture comparisons asap. VTPete, you haven't got a new camera yet?



Ha ha, I actually have access to my Wife's amazing, expensive and complex cameras. The problem is the last time she found it set with the white balance turned off, and everything else messed with, I got a talkin' to. My Sony DSC70, on the other hand is mine for the goofing with.


I'm totally willing and able to take more shots and post them, but without someone else doing the same thing, it's not a very scientific project!


Also, I don't want to come across as taking one side or the other since (as pointed out earlier), so much depends upon your projector, the placement, the zoom settings, your anamorphic lens, etc.


----------



## Jason Turk




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/11689416
> 
> 
> I'm in the "should I zoom or use lens?" mode right now (before getting my projector). Because I might like to have a variable image size. It would be nice to be able to
> 
> see the difference between zooming and using a lens, without spending the thousands of dollars first for the lens. Sigh.



I'm less than a 3 hour drive from you...let me know when you want to come down and I can demo them all for you.









I'll also have VW60's next week which as I recall was a contender for you.


----------



## pocoloco

This issue is very simple.


If:

- you don't mind the "hassle" of zooming and refocusing between aspect ratios.

- and you don't see pixel structure...


zooming will result in the best image quality and the benefits will far outweigh the benefits of a anamorphic lens system. This is especially true if you have a 1080p pj.


Why? Because the best lens is no lens. The very best anamorphic lenses cannot improve the picture. It's more a matter of not harming the existing image fidelity.


Now if you want an automated experience, full rez, and have the cash... then get high grade optics and go for it. But getting cheaper anamorphic lenses... trust me you are better off zooming.


I'm in the middle of a move back to chicago but once everything is setup, I'm very interested in hosting a blind test event to demonstrate the real world impressions of lens vs no-lens.


----------



## Tony S

Thanks VTPete for your very informative posts in the HTB thread. Wish I had read your results at an earlier date. It would have saved me some anxiety.









Presently I'm "zooming" to an 8' wide screen for 2.35 content and find the JVC is lighting up my screen just fine. I am in fact, using a neutral grey filter, which will be removed as lumens on the new pj drop. PJ is at 16' from the screen, Seating is at 11'. So far I've only watched s dvd content, but there is hd on the way.

Unless I obtained a dramatic increase in pq with the addition of a lens/scaler, I feel that there is no reason to change. Certainly not for an increase in lumens, which is not needed in my set up.

Tony


----------



## pocoloco

Brightness gains with an anamorphic lens are way overblown and negligible. You'll have way more brightness control by using the pj's iris settings, lamps modes or ND filters if you're really that concerned about equal ft-lamberts across aspect ratios.


It's only true benefit is full vertical resolution.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jason Turk* /forum/post/11689673
> 
> 
> I'm less than a 3 hour drive from you...let me know when you want to come down and I can demo them all for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll also have VW60's next week which as I recall was a contender for you.



Much obliged for the offer. I have certainly been known to take loooong drives

to investigate possible purchases.


----------



## Jason Turk

Sounds good. Let me know if you want and I can have the ISCO III, Panamorph UH380 and Prismasonic H-FE1500 all ready to go.


----------



## McCall




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *D'ultimate* /forum/post/11687957
> 
> 
> What is lumens exactly and how could one make up for the loss of lumens with the zoom method?
> 
> 
> Also I don't understand the big deal with the loss of pixels using the zoom method if you're only zooming to get rid of the black bars. Yes you're not using "all" the pixels but the "picture" is still compromised of all the pixels before and after, is it not?
> 
> 
> This forum is not moving too fast so I do have another question. If one were so inclined to move the projector back and forth, approximately how much movement would be involved in doing so and is that really any different from having to move the lens in and out of place in a anamorphic setup?



You do understand don't you that if you use a lens you also first vertically stretch your image so that your projector is now using all the pixels for the picture and NONE for projecting black bars right? that is where the increase in pixels, or LOSS of pixels when zooming comes in. This just gives you a better picture in addition to being the proper size for the screen.


----------



## D'ultimate

I had forgotten about that McCall.


Would those black bars need to be compensated for when getting a 235:1 screen if a person was going to use the zoom method. I'm imagining that a zoom method would move the black bars into the border.


As you guys can see I clearly don't have all the facts down. I'm just trying to learn.


----------



## bgosselin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jason Turk* /forum/post/11690337
> 
> 
> Sounds good. Let me know if you want and I can have the ISCO III, Panamorph UH380 and Prismasonic H-FE1500 all ready to go.



Jason have you ever mesured how each lens solutions impact ANSI and lumens?


My guess is the ISCO 3 is probably the more efficient but is the H-FE1500 the worst performer because of it's 3 glass design?


----------



## bgosselin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jason Turk* /forum/post/11681148
> 
> 
> Sure thing...this is ballpark.
> 
> 
> If you have a 1920x1080 1000 lumen projector (for simple math). If you zoon, you use only 1920x817 resolution, which is ~25% less resolution, thus 25% less light output. If you use a lens, you will not lose that 25%, but you will lose ballpark 10% from adding an additional optic element (not avoidable). So essentially you can expect about 15% additional light output overall with a lens.
> 
> 
> Again, these are generalizations (but essentially close to the real results).




Should it be calculated the other way around?


Using the zoom method you use 1920x817=1 568 680 pixels

Using the lens you have 1920x1080=2 073 600 pixels


2 073 600/1 568 680 = 1.32 so 32% increased brightness over the zoom method?


----------



## jorsan

Jason, you mention that: " Light loss can only be countered by a higher gain screen (to make up the light loss)", so if I go from gain 1.0 to 1.3 screen could I compensate the lost of light? is this the best solution to not use lenses and just digital processing?. Thanks

__________________


Light loss can only be countered by a higher gain screen (to make up the light loss). A Higher Contrast screen, which would be a gray screen, would help just that...contrast.

__________________


----------



## McCall




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *D'ultimate* /forum/post/11690650
> 
> 
> I had forgotten about that McCall.
> 
> 
> Would those black bars need to be compensated for when getting a 235:1 screen if a person was going to use the zoom method. I'm imagining that a zoom method would move the black bars into the border.
> 
> 
> As you guys can see I clearly don't have all the facts down. I'm just trying to learn.



Yes that is exactly the difference. with Zoom you are still projecting 25% that is just black bars and you zoom them off your screen and onto the wall or whatever is beyond the screen good to have a Black velvet or other black wall for that.

With the Lens you FIRST vertically stretch the image using scaling in either your projector, DVD player or a separate scaler. THEN you use the lens to either expand the image horizontally if it is a HE lens or you use a VC lens to compress the image back to the prestretched size but now using all the pixels for the image not for black bars.


----------



## klemsaba




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pocoloco* /forum/post/11689740
> 
> 
> Now if you want an automated experience, full rez, and have the cash... then get high grade optics and go for it. But getting cheaper anamorphic lenses... trust me you are better off zooming.



Sorry, I must respectfully disagree.


You don't need a $3000 lens to make an impact. You don't need a $2000 processor to make an impact. You don't need all the expensive gear to make an impact.


I started off with the zoom method for a year. It was perfectly acceptable and visitors were amazed. Zooming and repositioning the image was a pain though, especially for family members. Finally the 'black bars' could be seen outside the screen area during dark scenes.


When I put together my DIY prism based lens and used my Z4 to scale the image vertically my theater changed. Did the image improve using the lens? Not really. Do I have some CA? Yes, but not much and certainly you can't tell during movies. Do I have some barrel distortion? Yes, but again, I don't watch test patterns. The real benefit is ease of use and coolness factor. Visitors are still amazed. My wife and kids can easily watch scope movies now (press a button on the remote and slide the lens in place) and I don't notice those black bars because they aren't there any longer.


Not everyone can afford to drive a Mercedes. Some of us have to drive Fords. It still gets me to work and more importantly back home to watch my scope movies!


----------



## Health Nut

Zooming sounds better to me in most regards. If you have enough black velvet above and below the screen it would hide the overscanned black bars. Besides, the vertical stretch doesn't add resolution, it adds interpolation, and some associated light. I'd rather have 30% more contrast from just using one lens.... If only a projector company would automate this or do something!!!!


----------



## radical68




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Health Nut* /forum/post/11697861
> 
> 
> Zooming sounds better to me in most regards. If you have enough black velvet above and below the screen it would hide the overscanned black bars. Besides, the vertical stretch doesn't add resolution, it adds interpolation, and some associated light. I'd rather have 30% more contrast from just using one lens.... If only a projector company would automate this or do something!!!!



Benq W9000 and Sony VW-60 has this option built in their PJ no need for an external scaler


----------



## Health Nut

I have an ISCO 3... I'd prefer not to... nice lens, but automated zoom and more progress towards eliminating 2 lenses and the associated degradation would be great. 30% losss of ANSI contrast is nothing to sneeze at...



> Quote:
> Benq W9000 and Sony VW-60 has this option built in their PJ no need for an external scaler



They have vertical stretch capability... Nothing to do with some sort of automated zoom.... We need projectors that you could program a zoom point... then all you have to do is hit a button and it would zoom to a precise location..


----------



## Jones_Rush

Question for those who use zoom:

How many times do you think you can change the zoom knob, before you do some damage ?, I mean, the zoom mechanism wasn't built for constant play, especially with today's constructions which are pretty cheap.


I'm not even sure that if you ruin the zoom it's under warranty, because it's not normal wear and tear, you caused it.


----------



## D'ultimate

You caused it by using it for its intended function....zooming?


----------



## podopple

Can't seem to find a right answer for this. Can you leave the lense in place and use electronic scaling to correct the AR for 16/9, 4/3 etc?


----------



## Health Nut




> Quote:
> I'm not even sure that if you ruin the zoom it's under warranty ...



Where did that come from? I find that you even suggested that strange. If something breaks under warranty, it gets fixed, period.


Point is that a simple one button custom zoom point would be very helpful for automating 2.35 zoom. So easy and simple... projector companies should offer such an easily provided feature...


----------



## rombullterrier




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *podopple* /forum/post/11708775
> 
> 
> Can't seem to find a right answer for this. Can you leave the lense in place and use electronic scaling to correct the AR for 16/9, 4/3 etc?



Yes, it works great, and many people do it that way. You can search this forum and find threads debating the finer points of leaving lens in place vs. removing for 16:9.


----------



## radical68




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Health Nut* /forum/post/11705552
> 
> 
> I have an ISCO 3... I'd prefer not to... nice lens, but automated zoom and more progress towards eliminating 2 lenses and the associated degradation would be great. 30% losss of ANSI contrast is nothing to sneeze at...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have vertical stretch capability... Nothing to do with some sort of automated zoom.... We need projectors that you could program a zoom point... then all you have to do is hit a button and it would zoom to a precise location..



Wow, i thought the latest motorised zoom PJ had this feature, to memory position this? Like with different gamma colorsettings?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *radical68* /forum/post/11709469
> 
> 
> Wow, i thought the latest motorised zoom PJ had this feature, to memory position this? Like with different gamma colorsettings?



Actually my very first projector (an old Sanyo native 4 x 3) had a motorized zoom that would normally retract every time I powered down, but I found a setting that allowed it to lock in the desired position. It didn't do quite what your chasing for zoom though...


Mark


----------



## CINERAMAX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *D'ultimate* /forum/post/11681310
> 
> 
> Jason. I live in Atlanta but I'm currently in Florida.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if its the same posters that I keep seeing that are posting the positive effects of zooming (I'll try to pay more attention) but it seems to me that there are quite a few.
> 
> 
> I still have gotten what all the terms mean and how to calculate all of them but this 30% ANSI contrast loss....what does that mean in terms of me looking at the screen. What will I see or not see with more or less ANSI, or Lumens for that matter?



Recently while gawking at the most gorgeous projector at CEDIA: the Lighting Reference with 5k on/off and real xenon bulb, shown in the best multimedia demo this year (The Tiki-Tiki room award went to the booth designed by Mike Levi and George Walter of DPI), I had a chance to experience this first hand.


Is 30% ANSI C drop noticeable? It definetely was, there. When the isco 3 slid in front of the 16 x 9 image (that was projecting a graphic of Red Curtains) the pop got sucked out of the curtains.


I posted in another thread that the effect was the visual equivalent of the sudden silence after "the collective scream of 25,000 souls being sucked into oblivion", "not minute nuance". Afterwards one is left beffudled wondering "what the hell did just happen"?


Servo lens is the way of the future, minolta makes such lenses now for digital cinema Barco, and NEC.


The problem with servo lens is that it will only work on very large theaters closer to 30 feet. Otherwise the pictures will be too small. It will be very problematic to develop the screen servo zoom, focus, and shift for 18 foot long throws. It would be a logistical nightmare and not a good business proposition to develop lens suites to accomodate most home environments, with every room having varying complexions.


----------



## radical68




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/11709485
> 
> 
> Actually my very first projector (an old Sanyo native 4 x 3) had a motorized zoom that would normally retract every time I powered down, but I found a setting that allowed it to lock in the desired position. It didn't do quite what your chasing for zoom though...
> 
> 
> Mark



I'll try zooming just for starters. (Just to get the feel of it)

First new 2.35:1 screen then a new 1080P PJ with VC stretch.Isco3 is way to expensive










Is the pinchushion effect much on a flat screen with PJ like VW50-60 with your lens?

I'm affraid i need a much brither PJ like Optoma HD-81 LV for good brightness to a 125" 2.35:1 screen. At least this PJ you can turn down the ansi lumens if it gets to bright VS the others you can't














VW-60 or Benq W9000 it's hard to choose right


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *radical68* /forum/post/11709520
> 
> 
> I'll try zooming just for starters. (Just to get the feel of it)
> 
> First new 2.35:1 screen then a new 1080P PJ with VC stretch.Isco3 is way to expensive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the pinchushion effect much on a flat screen with PJ like VW50-60 with your lens?
> 
> I'm affraid i need a much brither PJ like Optoma HD-81 LV for good brightness to a 125" 2.35:1 screen. At least this PJ you can turn down the ansi lumens if it gets to bright VS the others you can't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VW-60 or Benq W9000 it's hard to choose right



Like with all anamorphic HE lenses, the pincushion will vary depending on the Throw Ratio. Tests show that at the extreme short end (1.3:1), the pincushion is severe enough to require a curved screen, but at the top end (2.5:1), there is no need to curve the screen and the amount of pincushion is so small, it is hardly noticeable.


Personally, I would go the Benq...


Mark


----------



## Jones_Rush




> Quote:
> Where did that come from? I find that you even suggested that strange. If something breaks under warranty, it gets fixed, period.



Don't be so sure. A friend of mine tried to get his projector serviced under warranty, the HDMI socket broke, they did not agree to fix it without money, because they said he was not careful (the truth is he WAS careful, but the projector had only 1 HDMI sockets, and he had two sources, so he switched between them almost every day for months, until it broke from wear). They can say you were not careful with the zoom. Anywhere on the projector where the user can touch, is problematic, warranty wise.


----------



## Health Nut

Zooming is internal... If it breaks, it is the motor that controlls it... That woul be under warranty... HDMI connector is external. some of these HDMI cables are very heavy and I can see the torque that these heavy cables place on the HDMI slot... HMDI physical connector sucks... the design sucks all the way around. Wish we could just start over with a new design...



All I know is I wish someone would do SOMETHING about having to take a 30% loss in ANSI contrast, that is way too much... I wonder if I can get rid of my ISCO 3 and switch to zooming with the C3X 1080...


----------



## Craig Peer

I've said it before and I'll say it again - zooming on a dedicted 2.35:1 screen looks better to me than my two experiments with anamorphic lenses ( ISCO III's not withstanding - never owned one ).


----------



## Health Nut

I sort of rushed the whole anamorphic thing... Maybe if I had it over I would have gone with zoom... I have the ISCO 3 and you lose 30% ANSI contrast.... The easiest thing I can think of would be for a projector company to simply allow a custom zoom settings... would be very simple to implement.



> Quote:
> Servo lens is the way of the future, minolta makes such lenses now for digital cinema Barco, and NEC.
> 
> 
> The problem with servo lens is that it will only work on very large theaters closer to 30 feet. Otherwise the pictures will be too small. It will be very problematic to develop the screen servo zoom, focus, and shift for 18 foot long throws. It would be a logistical nightmare and not a good business proposition to develop lens suites to accomodate most home environments, with every room having varying complexions.



I welcome any improvement... 30% ANSI Contrast is too much to lose....


----------



## VTPete

Ok folks,


I'm going out on a limb here and showing you my stuff.







I'd love it if others would join the challenge and post their results.


Below you'll see a composite photo that I made. The top is the frame being displayed using the zoom method. The bottom makes use of the Home Theater Brother's lens. These are shots taken from my theater using my RS1.


To really show the difference, I'm uploading a much higher resolution version of this photo to a public posting site. In it, you can zoom in and (barely) see the slight color shift in the stars off to the right side of the screen. (I never noticed this until I took a photo and zoomed in, by the way.) These pictures where taken with my camera on a fixed setting.


You be the judge!!!

http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/...88791149127968


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *VTPete* /forum/post/11680267
> 
> 
> 
> The zoomout method requires you to (ugg) zoom out and usually adjust at least your vertical shift.



Can you explain why you have to adjust the lens shift as well?


As I picture it, you've got a 16:9 image that fits top/bottom to the screen. Then you want to switch to 2:35:1 via zoom mode. When you put in a 2:35:1 movie the "black bars" should be the same size above and below the image. When you start zooming out, I would presume the image expands equally in all directions until the top/bottom of the 2:35:1 image meets the top/bottom of the height of your screen.


Why wouldn't this be the case? I know some projectors zoom in and out keeping either the bottom or top of the image stationary. Is the JVC one of those projectors?


I'm considering either a lens or the zoom method, and with the upcoming RS2 and it's motorized zoom, that makes the zoom method more appealing.

But it would be an added pain if I _also_ needed to manually adjust the lens shift as well, which would seem to negate some of the benefits of the motorized zoom in the first place.


Thanks,


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *VTPete* /forum/post/11716565
> 
> 
> Ok folks,
> 
> 
> I'm going out on a limb here and showing you my stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd love it if others would join the challenge and post their results.
> 
> 
> Below you'll see a composite photo that I made. The top is the frame being displayed using the zoom method. The bottom makes use of the Home Theater Brother's lens. These are shots taken from my theater using my RS1.
> 
> 
> ..............
> 
> 
> You be the judge!!!
> 
> http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/...88791149127968



Well screenshots are always a gamble with this stuff. But, presuming you used the same exposure for both, the "un-zoomed" image does indeed appear to be brighter.


I also notice the stars on the right hand side are both sharper and brighter - more contrast against the black background - than the anamorphic lens shots. FWIW.


Did you use a tri-pod for those shots, I hope? If not then any blurring in the second shot could be due to your movement rather than the anamorphic lens.


----------



## D'ultimate




> Quote:
> But, presuming you used the same exposure for both, the "un-zoomed" image does indeed appear to be brighter.
> 
> 
> I also notice the stars on the right hand side are both sharper and brighter - more contrast against the black background - than the anamorphic lens shots.



You must have eagle eyes. Other than the brightness of the stars the image looks the exact same.


I would say its a good argument for zooming though, instead of using the Brothers lens I guess, since you don't seem to be really losing anything by not having it.


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *VTPete* /forum/post/11716565
> 
> 
> Ok folks,
> 
> You be the judge!!!



Not to be critical but don't mislead folks with generalizations made from photos of an anamorphic lens made from trophy prisms (sorry guys). The Isco lenses retail for $6k, are optical ground glass photographic quality lenses. The prisms in your test are made from are cast acrylic and are right out of the DIY forum. Well put together for what it is, but it's still what it is. I'm a believer in "you get what you pay for" most of the time.


My point is if "judging", judge the lens itself, not quality anamorphics in general. Comparing zooming vs non-zooming in general, the deck is stacked if using a low end lens vs a high resolution PJ. If JVC ( and pretty much every major PJ manufacturer at CEDIA including Sony, Sim2, & DP) agreed zooming was superior, they wouldn't have just stuck a $4000-$6000 Schneiders and Isco's plus motorized transports in front of their flagships at CEDIA. Instad they would have showed how much better the no cost method of zooming worked in lieu of the need for that fancy lens setup.


If you want crisp focus, no artifacts, and the advantages of a good anamorphic, it's going to cost some. Just like a high end camera lens.


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Health Nut* /forum/post/11716538
> 
> 
> I have the ISCO 3 and you lose 30% ANSI contrast....



How are you measuring a 30% loss in ANSI? If you want ANSI, you have the wrong PJ anyway


----------



## D'ultimate

Maybe someone with an ISCO or Panamorph can post some comparisons shots.


Nevertheless your pics are much appreciated VTPete.


----------



## VTPete




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/11717210
> 
> 
> If JVC ( and pretty much every major PJ manufacturer at CEDIA including Sony, Sim2, & DP) agreed zooming was superior, they wouldn't have just stuck a $4000-$6000 Schneiders and Isco's plus motorized transports in front of their flagships at CEDIA. Instad they would have showed how much better the no cost method of zooming worked in lieu of the need for that fancy lens setup.



If you would like to send me one of these fancy-schmancy trophy pieces, I'll take some photos using it. Otherwise, your statement is an opinion, not a fact and you've done nothing to move your argument forward. I suggest you take some 'with and without' photos yourself _instad_ of speculating on the logic of projector companies.


----------



## pocoloco




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *klemsaba* /forum/post/11695827
> 
> 
> Sorry, I must respectfully disagree.
> 
> 
> You don't need a $3000 lens to make an impact. You don't need a $2000 processor to make an impact. You don't need all the expensive gear to make an impact.
> 
> 
> I started off with the zoom method for a year. It was perfectly acceptable and visitors were amazed. Zooming and repositioning the image was a pain though, especially for family members. Finally the 'black bars' could be seen outside the screen area during dark scenes.
> 
> 
> When I put together my DIY prism based lens and used my Z4 to scale the image vertically my theater changed. Did the image improve using the lens? Not really. Do I have some CA? Yes, but not much and certainly you can't tell during movies. Do I have some barrel distortion? Yes, but again, I don't watch test patterns. The real benefit is ease of use and coolness factor. Visitors are still amazed. My wife and kids can easily watch scope movies now (press a button on the remote and slide the lens in place) and I don't notice those black bars because they aren't there any longer.
> 
> 
> Not everyone can afford to drive a Mercedes. Some of us have to drive Fords. It still gets me to work and more importantly back home to watch my scope movies!



Funny... I don't think we're disagreeing. I'm just saying that *PQ-wise*, zooming is going to provide much better results than using cheap optics.


How one values absolute PQ vs. convenience and cool factor is a whole other issue and is completely up to preference.


----------



## VTPete




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/11716695
> 
> 
> Did you use a tri-pod for those shots, I hope? If not then any blurring in the second shot could be due to your movement rather than the anamorphic lens.



Yup, and a 10 second timer to make sure there was no wobble.


----------



## VTPete




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/11716599
> 
> 
> Can you explain why you have to adjust the lens shift as well?
> 
> 
> As I picture it, you've got a 16:9 image that fits top/bottom to the screen. Then you want to switch to 2:35:1 via zoom mode. When you put in a 2:35:1 movie the "black bars" should be the same size above and below the image. When you start zooming out, I would presume the image expands equally in all directions until the top/bottom of the 2:35:1 image meets the top/bottom of the height of your screen.
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't this be the case? I know some projectors zoom in and out keeping either the bottom or top of the image stationary. Is the JVC one of those projectors?
> 
> 
> I'm considering either a lens or the zoom method, and with the upcoming RS2 and it's motorized zoom, that makes the zoom method more appealing.
> 
> But it would be an added pain if I _also_ needed to manually adjust the lens shift as well, which would seem to negate some of the benefits of the motorized zoom in the first place.
> 
> 
> Thanks,



Honestly, the optics of how JVC is able to implement lens shift without creating keystone effects is beyond me... yet I'm guessing it's related to the fact that I need to use both vertical lens shift and zoom-out. So, while I can't explain it, I can tell you that it's the case.


My last Sanyo had motorized focus, lens shift and zoom. I guess I took those capabilities for granted and I DO miss them. But, (off topic), I'd trade the better picture quality any day for the lost of motorized features.


----------



## klemsaba




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/11716599
> 
> 
> Can you explain why you have to adjust the lens shift as well?
> 
> 
> As I picture it, you've got a 16:9 image that fits top/bottom to the screen. Then you want to switch to 2:35:1 via zoom mode. When you put in a 2:35:1 movie the "black bars" should be the same size above and below the image. When you start zooming out, I would presume the image expands equally in all directions until the top/bottom of the 2:35:1 image meets the top/bottom of the height of your screen.
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't this be the case?



That will only happen if the projector is dead center of the screen. With my setup, the projector is actually lined up with the top of the screen. I use the lens shift to move it down. So when i zoomed I also had to shift the lens as well. My setup doesn't allow for a perfectly aligned projector. Thank you Sanyo for your wonderful lens shift!


----------



## klemsaba




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pocoloco* /forum/post/11718137
> 
> 
> Funny... I don't think we're disagreeing. I'm just saying that *PQ-wise*, zooming is going to provide much better results than using cheap optics.
> 
> 
> How one values absolute PQ vs. convenience and cool factor is a whole other issue and is completely up to preference.



Well I guess it just depends on how well everything is calibrated. With my setup, zooming was no better than using my cheap optics. I will give the edge to using the prisms because with the zoom method the black bars were still visible during dark scenes. Sure, there are ways to minimize it, but it isn't practical for me.


Anyway, PQ is totally subjective and one person can't prove that A looks better than B. If zooming works for you that's great. I too was a proponent of zooming when I started off. If I hadn't got a great deal on my AR coated prisms, I would still be zooming and happily enjoying my scope movies.


And really, we're all here to enjoy movies on our scope screens. How we get there doesn't matter.


----------



## klemsaba




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *VTPete* /forum/post/11716565
> 
> 
> Ok folks,
> 
> 
> I'm going out on a limb here and showing you my stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd love it if others would join the challenge and post their results.
> 
> 
> Below you'll see a composite photo that I made. The top is the frame being displayed using the zoom method. The bottom makes use of the Home Theater Brother's lens. These are shots taken from my theater using my RS1.



They both look pretty good to me. While the top one does look brighter (barely), it also looks like the white level is a tad higher and missing some detail on the Star Destroyer. It wouldn't be obvious with the movie playing though.


----------



## klemsaba




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *D'ultimate* /forum/post/11717080
> 
> 
> You must have eagle eyes. Other than the brightness of the stars the image looks the exact same.
> 
> 
> I would say its a good argument for zooming though, instead of using the Brothers lens I guess, since you don't seem to be really losing anything by not having it.



One thing you could be loosing is convenience. Reaching up to zoom the image out and shift the lens around to fit the screen could be a pain in the rear depending on the setup. I guess that just depends on how fancy the projector is.










When I was zooming, I was able to dial the image in about 10 - 15 seconds. No big deal when it was just me and my family. But it was always kind of stupid looking when guests were watching me reach up to position the image around.


My next project is to motorize my DIY prism lens.


----------



## Tony S

Thanks for posting these, VTPete.

To my eyes (which are not golden) The primary dif is that the stars are more clearly defined in the zoomed photo. I'm not able to see a great deal of difference in detail on the starship in either shot.

I think that if I had to vote, I would go with the zoomed image.

Tony


----------



## D'ultimate




> Quote:
> When I was zooming, I was able to dial the image in about 10 - 15 seconds. No big deal when it was just me and my family. But it was always kind of stupid looking when guests were watching me reach up to position the image around.



Don't some of the newer projector have motorized zoom that can be done using the remote? What else would be involved? Lens shifting is not motorized I assume but is it always necessary?


----------



## dj7675

It would be interesting for someone that has a UH380 or a prismasonic FE1500 to do a screen shot with the lens in place vs zooming and comment on what they actually see as well as post screenshots. I am currently using an RS1 and have black velvet on the entire wall the screen is on. Picture looks great, but not sure if I want to keep up with adjusting it every time.... We watch about 50/50 2.35 movies vs 16:9 HD TV. It would be much appreciated if someone with one of the more popular lenses could take a screen shot with a lens vs without.


Darin


----------



## klemsaba




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *D'ultimate* /forum/post/11721196
> 
> 
> Don't some of the newer projector have motorized zoom that can be done using the remote? What else would be involved? Lens shifting is not motorized I assume but is it always necessary?



Lens shift is only necessary if your projector isn't perfectly aligned and centered with the screen.


----------



## GreyWiz

For the price of some of these projectors and the price of high end lens, I thik I'd put two projectors side by side....one zoomed and one not if I was really worried about breaking it.


I think I'll try zoom method and use the lens money for a new projector later.


----------



## Craig Peer




> Quote:
> Thanks for posting these, VTPete.
> 
> To my eyes (which are not golden) The primary dif is that the stars are more clearly defined in the zoomed photo. I'm not able to see a great deal of difference in detail on the starship in either shot.
> 
> I think that if I had to vote, I would go with the zoomed image.
> 
> Tony




That is the problem I had with both Panamorph and Prismasonic lenses - the picture wasn't as sharp with a lens and even under the best conditions - there was some distortion that bothered me. I'm much happier using the zooming method.


----------



## danstone




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Craig Peer* /forum/post/11733751
> 
> 
> That is the problem I had with both Panamorph and Prismasonic lenses - the picture wasn't as sharp with a lens and even under the best conditions - there was some distortion that bothered me. I'm much happier using the zooming method.



Greg Rogers also said similar things, in a posting here at AVS quite some time ago, regarding his feelings about using anamorphic lenses (increasing distortion, losing sharpness, etc.). I don't have the time right now to spend searching for his exact post/quote, but I do recall him mentioning that he would like to start a thread topic to discuss the merits and drawbacks of such lenses.


Perhaps he will see this thread, and jump into the discussion. His views are always welcome, in my opinion, and I usually learn quite a bit from his postings due to his vast experience on video/projectors.


----------



## AstroCat

I've used the zoom method for many years and have always been very happy with the results. Just my 2cents.


----------



## Laserfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *VTPete* /forum/post/11716565
> 
> 
> I'm going out on a limb here and showing you my stuff. You be the judge!!!



Many thanks VTPete for your photo. The result is clear!







My first 2.35 setup will be sans pricey lens!


----------



## dj7675

I too appreciate VTPete's screenshots. It is very interesting. I am still hoping someone with a Prismasonic FE1500 or Panamorph UH380, 1080P Source, and a 1080P projector can post some screenshots. I'm thinking of either one of those lenses and am certain they would have a lot fewer issues than the HTB lens, but it would be interesting to see the tradeoff.


Darin


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Laserfan* /forum/post/11737055
> 
> 
> Many thanks VTPete for your photo. The result is clear!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My first 2.35 setup will be sans pricey lens!



The result may be clear for sans not pricey lens. I'd take a shot of a real lens for you guys and show the difference but I've got mine down right now. I'm going to a meet this weekend where one is setup correctly on a Sim2 HT5000 on a 14' screen with the best lens properly setup by a top calibrator. If I can impose, I'll try to get some shots of that setup. But don't let a single user's experience with the lowest possible priced plastic lens make anyone's "results clear"







. I think vpetes input is great, too. More info the better, but I recommend keeping it in context of what it's showing. It's not showing anything about a "pricey lens". Unless you think that's a pricey lens, (it's not). In lieu of anything else, somewhere at the beginning of this subforum, maybe in the archives, Alan Gouger posted a "shootout" of the current lenses at the time. It showed who did what pretty well. The differences were significant. Gotta run, no time to hunt for it. Cheers, Scott


----------



## Craig Peer




> Quote:
> The result may be clear for sans not pricey lens. I'd take a shot of a real lens for you guys and show the difference but I've got mine down right now. I'm going to a meet this weekend where one is setup correctly on a Sim2 HT5000 on a 14' screen with the best lens properly setup by a top calibrator. If I can impose, I'll try to get some shots of that setup. But don't let a single user's experience with the lowest possible priced plastic lens make anyone's "results clear" . I think vpetes input is great, too. More info the better, but I recommend keeping it in context of what it's showing. It's not showing anything about a "pricey lens". Unless you think that's a pricey lens, (it's not). In lieu of anything else, somewhere at the beginning of this subforum, maybe in the archives, Alan Gouger posted a "shootout" of the current lenses at the time. It showed who did what pretty well. The differences were significant. Gotta run, no time to hunt for it. Cheers, Scott



If you can afford it ( especially with an AVS powerbuy ) get a lens and try it. You might like the pluses more than the being distracted by the minuses. That's what I did. Sent the first lens back under the money back if not happy time period. 2nd lens ( with a then new H79 projector ) was eventually sold here on the classified ads. You don't have to take anyone's word - try one out yourself.


----------



## prismasonic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Craig Peer* /forum/post/11733751
> 
> 
> That is the problem I had with both Panamorph and Prismasonic lenses - the picture wasn't as sharp with a lens and even under the best conditions - there was some distortion that bothered me. I'm much happier using the zooming method.




I quicly checked from our database that you bought our lens in 2004. Since then we have released 4 new more advanced models, and the optical performance is now in totally different level, even if I think that it was pretty good already then. Now our top model has 5 optical elements having corrections against both CA and astigmatism.


I would kindly recommend you to try the lens again. You will be surprised.


.. One could also judge that LCD's are useless by getting a reference from years ago.


----------



## VTPete

Prismasonic,


I volunteer to do testing if you send me a lens!










-Pete (from VT)


----------



## prismasonic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *VTPete* /forum/post/11741756
> 
> 
> Prismasonic,
> 
> 
> I volunteer to do testing if you send me a lens!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Pete (from VT)




pm sent


----------



## Craig Peer




> Quote:
> I quicly checked from our database that you bought our lens in 2004. Since then we have released 4 new more advanced models, and the optical performance is now in totally different level, even if I think that it was pretty good already then. Now our top model has 5 optical elements having corrections against both CA and astigmatism.
> 
> 
> I would kindly recommend you to try the lens again. You will be surprised.



That is very good to know. Truthfully, your lens was pretty damn good. Perhaps my throw and the fact that the H79 had a recessed lens made it a not optimal projector for a lens to begin with. Personally I'm happier just zooming these days. But each person should at least try an anamorphic lens - if they can afford it.


----------



## johnovox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Health Nut* /forum/post/11680973
> 
> 
> 30% loss of ANSI contrast from the added lens is nothing to sneeze at either...
> 
> 
> I have an ISCO III, but I'd prefer not to lose 30% ANSI contrast...
> 
> 
> we really need projector companies to do something... having one lens, such as an anamporphic lens at the stop position... perhaps automated 'zoom' feature, etc... I really wish we'd have more progress in this area... Certainly, if we had a 4K projector, we could carve out a 1920 x 2538 portion and not need a second lens and its associated image degradation...



HealthNut - part of me is itching to upgrade my external lens to something along the line of an ISCO III on the theory that (as espoused by many on the board) it is a good investment - projectors may improve but it is unlikely the ISCO III will be superceded. However, that may be the case if we can get a projector that can do native 1920 X 2538. For now, I plan to keep my good VC lens and wait.


----------



## Laserfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/11737312
> 
> 
> The result may be clear for sans not pricey lens. I'd take a shot of a real lens for you guys and show the difference... Alan Gouger posted a "shootout" of the current lenses at the time. It showed who did what pretty well. The differences were significant. Gotta run, no time to hunt for it.



We look forward to your comparison, but *my* point was simply that my first setup will not include a lens, period. Worth a try first, without buying & rigging a lens setup...


----------



## dj7675




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/11737312
> 
> 
> The result may be clear for sans not pricey lens. I'd take a shot of a real lens for you guys and show the difference but I've got mine down right now. I'm going to a meet this weekend where one is setup correctly on a Sim2 HT5000 on a 14' screen with the best lens properly setup by a top calibrator. If I can impose, I'll try to get some shots of that setup. But don't let a single user's experience with the lowest possible priced plastic lens make anyone's "results clear"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . I think vpetes input is great, too. More info the better, but I recommend keeping it in context of what it's showing. It's not showing anything about a "pricey lens". Unless you think that's a pricey lens, (it's not). In lieu of anything else, somewhere at the beginning of this subforum, maybe in the archives, Alan Gouger posted a "shootout" of the current lenses at the time. It showed who did what pretty well. The differences were significant. Gotta run, no time to hunt for it. Cheers, Scott



I really look forward to you photos if you are able to take some.


Darin


----------



## radical68

I also volunteer to do a good testing if you send me a lens!


----------



## prismasonic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *radical68* /forum/post/11746476
> 
> 
> I also volunteer to do a good testing if you send me a lens!



There is now a good deal at AVS to get one own. You will NOT be disappointed


----------



## Health Nut

There was a thread here somewhere that measured even the best lenses to incur a 30% loss of ANSI contrast... I don't think this has anything to do with lens quality so much as just the simple fact of adding another air/lens interface.


In any case, zooming is appealing in the sense that you are not adding interpolation nor losing ANSI contrast.... and it is FREE. Really, the only thing is seems you might be gettign from anamorphic is more light output... For me, if I get a Sim C3X 1080, I'd like to go to zooming, but maybe I might not have enough throw distance? I'm only going to be at about 1.6 throw. Not sure if zooming requires more throw or the opposite?


Think of how easy it would be to have a projector company allow for a programmed zoom point. Hit a button on a remote and it just zooms to the proper point. If I had to manually zoom for a 2.35 movie... well, I might still go that route, and I already have an ISCO3. To me its all about the best performance, nothing else. Feel free to comment, but adding interpolation and losing a significant amount of ANSI contrast is a big negative...


I only have 1.65 throw available and the min throw to the C3X 1080 is about 1.6... would I be able to zoom?


----------



## Riddick

no you won't be able to zoom because 1.6 is the max zoom position.


----------



## usualsuspects

I hate to jump into this fray but here is my take on it. In my system scope content is significantly better using the Pearl + UH380 lens vs zoomed. It is not subtle, and it is not increased light output that explains it. Lensed + low mode looks much better than zoomed plus high mode (so it is not lumens). The only theory that explains the increase in image quality I see is due to vertical scaling by my Lumagen HDQ - more pixels in the same image area (interpolated). People can make any theoretical arguments they want about why a lens is bad, but seeing is believing. I got the UH380 and M380 sled on pre-buy, and I could easily sell these for at least what I paid for them, and perhaps make a profit. I keep the lens and sled because they work.


----------



## GVajda

Here is another perspective. You get the best image when you match the source content to the native resolution of the projector. With the current cost of scope lenses, I suggest using two projectors. A 1920x1080 for 2:35 and a 1280x720 for 16:9 format. You will loose a litle resolution in 16:9 mode but the additional cost of a second 720P projector is as cost effective as a good scope lens. Some manufacturers should consider offering an optimized 2:35 1920x817 projector. Any thoughts?


----------



## davdev

I have a question for the zoomers:


How do you handle subtitles when they are outside the main picture area? I have seen solutions to these with a lens, but not with a zoom.


Also, I do not yet have HD-DVD or Blu-Ray, I was wondering if the subtitle in the black bars issue occurs with those as well, or just some DVD's


----------



## fisher191




> Quote:
> davdev
> 
> 
> How do you handle subtitles when they are outside the main picture area? I have seen solutions to these with a lens, but not with a zoom.



The same methods used for a lens should work for zooming. The idea is to get the subtitles from the black bar area into the picture.


Both the zoom and lens approach put the same number of content pixels onto the screen, but the lens uses more projector pixels.


----------



## Health Nut

Either way, if you are going to an anamorphic lens, I can't recommend the Cineslide enough, it is an awesome piece of equipment...


----------



## doctorevil

Wow, just when I thought I had it all figured out, I read this to confuse me again...just in time for me to fret over the decision on weather to pull the trigger on the current prismasonic deal. I had my email typed out waiting to hit "send".


Thanks for the differnt views...I think? At least it does get me thinking.


----------



## VTPete

All,


I just received and installed Prismasonic's H-FE1500R lens in my home theater!


With luck, I'll find some time this week to do a write-up on my experience with the lens and how it compares to the zoom method with regards to image quality.


I assume folks are interested!


I'll be using standard definition DVDs for this test since I don't have vertical stretch capabilities for hi-def. If there's something particular you're interested in me trying out, please let me know.


-Pete


P.S. This will mean that I'm going to sell my HTB lens if you're interested.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fisher191* /forum/post/11807028
> 
> 
> The same methods used for a lens should work for zooming.
> 
> 
> The idea is to get the subtitles from the black bar area into the picture.



Not if you want to have geometry correct images.

I have documented the use of the Samsung HD950 to relocate the subtitles, but I found that whist it separates the bit map (subtitles) from the image, it also vertically stretches the image behind the subtitles, so the zoom method would result in tall, thin images.



> Quote:
> Both the zoom and lens approach put the same number of content pixels onto the screen, but the lens uses more projector pixels.



And what you watch is an image created by projector pixels, not source pixels, so the more the better...


Mark


----------



## timmyotule




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *VTPete* /forum/post/11976355
> 
> 
> I'll be using standard definition DVDs for this test since I don't have vertical stretch capabilities for hi-def. If there's something particular you're interested in me trying out, please let me know.



Very interested to here the results Pete! I got in on the power buy of that lens but it is currently backordered. It will be great to hear how it compares to the HTB lens and zooming.


Looking forward to some comparisons.


----------



## scottyb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *VTPete* /forum/post/11976355
> 
> 
> All,
> 
> 
> I just received and installed Prismasonic's H-FE1500R lens in my home theater!
> 
> 
> With luck, I'll find some time this week to do a write-up on my experience with the lens and how it compares to the zoom method with regards to image quality.
> 
> 
> I assume folks are interested!
> 
> 
> I'll be using standard definition DVDs for this test since I don't have vertical stretch capabilities for hi-def. If there's something particular you're interested in me trying out, please let me know.
> 
> 
> -Pete
> 
> 
> P.S. This will mean that I'm going to sell my HTB lens if you're interested.



This week??? How about today


----------



## VTPete

Well, I'm a bit busy these days, but I have got it set up and I can tell you that:


a: Setup was a breeze and the motorized pass/stretch works just fine. (When my wife saw it, she said, "oh, weird, I think I'm going to be sick." It's a neat effect, watching the screen stretch.)

b: Focus indeed does not seem to be an issue with the front element in place.

c: Pincushioning is minimal. (My projector is set back at 14 feet with a 111 wide screen.)

d: Chromatic aberration is exceptionally small. My right side has a bit more than my left. I had to literally walk up to the screen to within 18 inches to make sure I could even see it.


Photos will take longer...


----------



## scottyb

That's a really great start. Thanks!!

How do you think it compares to zooming?


Scott


----------



## fisher191




> Quote:
> Quote:
> 
> Originally Posted by fisher191
> 
> The same methods used for a lens should work for zooming.
> 
> 
> The idea is to get the subtitles from the black bar area into the picture.
> 
> 
> Not if you want to have geometry correct images.
> 
> I have documented the use of the Samsung HD950 to relocate the subtitles, but I found that whist it separates the bit map (subtitles) from the image, it also vertically stretches the image behind the subtitles, so the zoom method would result in tall, thin images.



Hi Mark, I am not sure I understand what you are saying here. I would have thought any method that repositions subtitles from the black bar into the picture area would produce the same result. The exception would be if a non-stretched subtitle was placed onto a stretched image or vice versa.




> Quote:
> Quote:
> 
> Both the zoom and lens approach put the same number of content pixels onto the screen, but the lens uses more projector pixels.
> 
> 
> And what you watch is an image created by projector pixels, not source pixels, so the more the better...



I think that is open to debate. There are no more content pixels available from the source when the image is stretched, so it has to be scaled. The zoom method is 1:1 when HD content is used with a 1080 projector.


Worse, the image has to be upscaled. Downscaling works pretty well (see posts about 1080 vs 720 projectors showing HD material). Upscaling is not so good (see posts re watching SD material on HD hardware).


I think the main (only?) benefit of a lens is brightness. With the new 1080 projectors about to become available (e.g. Epson TW2000) it is going to be more difficult to justify a lens and the PQ issues it brings.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fisher191* /forum/post/12005336
> 
> 
> Hi Mark, I am not sure I understand what you are saying here. I would have thought any method that repositions subtitles from the black bar into the picture area would produce the same result. The exception would be if a non-stretched subtitle was placed onto a stretched image or vice versa.



If I had not got into CIH, I would have never understood the need for EZ-View and actually I don't understand it outside of CIH - there is no purpose for it. The subtitles that are done by the studio for the DVD are a bitmap laid over the video. This player has the ability to separate those layers.


We almost need a CIH "myth busters" section as the thruth is, these are not actually repositioned, but rather the picture behind it is vertically stretched, so as the image becomes tall and thin, the subtitles (which don't actually change BTW) that were in the black bars are now appearing in the active picture.


The anamorphic lens optically stretches the image to restore the geometry, so the picture is once again geometry correct, but the subtitles are also stretched making them look fatter like the difference between Arial and Verdana in the font styles where the now optically stretched font are easier to read as they are slightly wider.


But you can't use this feature to shift the subtitles for the zoom method, as this function changes the geometry, so you have no bars to zoom anyway...



> Quote:
> I think that is open to debate. There are no more content pixels available from the source when the image is stretched, so it has to be scaled. The zoom method is 1:1 when HD content is used with a 1080 projector.



But you only using 75% of the vertical rez to make the image when you zoom and the pixels making the image are increase by 25% in both directions when zooming.


When you use a lens, yes you do stretch the pixels by 33% in the horizontal direction, but your image is made up of 100% of the panel, so will be more dense especially in the vertical direction...



> Quote:
> Worse, the image has to be upscaled. Downscaling works pretty well (see posts about 1080 vs 720 projectors showing HD material). Upscaling is not so good (see posts re watching SD material on HD hardware).
> 
> 
> I think the main (only?) benefit of a lens is brightness. With the new 1080 projectors about to become available (e.g. Epson TW2000) it is going to be more difficult to justify a lens and the PQ issues it brings.



Whist you could sit and debate the theory for an eternity, the big question is - have you seen a 1080 projector in a CIH set up?


I had a doubt too before seeing it for myself...


Mark


----------



## Kelvin1965S

I have a thought as to why a lens solution might look better: When you zoom (like I do at present







) the 'black' bars are still putting out some light even if your screen is masked, this might degrade contrast slightly (more so if the screen is 16:9 unmasked) as it lightens the screen surround slightly. When you use a lens, all the light is used in the image, so no unneccesary brightening of the room. I also think the denser pixel structure has alot to do with it...when I watch the occasional 16:9 film on my AE1000, I have to zoom back to min to fit it on my screen. The picture looks more 'solid' even when it is being upscaled from 576p PAL DVD. I use an ND4 filter for 16:9 and an ND2 for zoomed 2.35:1 so it isn't brightness.


Now the question: I have worked out (from the Prismasonic calculator) that if I use one of their HE lenses I will have 4" of overlap off the sides of my screen. I can't move the PJ any further forward as it is on a shelf at the back of the room and I can't fit a wider screen now (the wife would kill me anyway!). If I don't quite open the lens to the full x1.33 but to approx x1.29 then it will fit, but I will have _very_ slightly vertically stretched picture. Do you guys think that this would be noticable on a 110" wide screen? The HE option means I can have my PJ at minimum zoom and get maximum contrast. If I got a VC lens then I still need quite a bit of zoom and therefore will lose a little contrast. Am I overanalysing this or would the HE option be better, even if I slightly mess up the geometry?


PS. HE lenses seem easier to get over here in the UK.


----------



## fisher191




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/12006415
> 
> 
> If I had not got into CIH, I would have never understood the need for EZ-View and actually I don't understand it outside of CIH - there is no purpose for it. The subtitles that are done by the studio for the DVD are a bitmap laid over the video. This player has the ability to separate those layers.
> 
> 
> We almost need a CIH "myth busters" section as the thruth is, these are not actually repositioned, but rather the picture behind it is vertically stretched, so as the image becomes tall and thin, the subtitles (which don't actually change BTW) that were in the black bars are now appearing in the active picture.
> 
> 
> The anamorphic lens optically stretches the image to restore the geometry, so the picture is once again geometry correct, but the subtitles are also stretched making them look fatter like the difference between Arial and Verdana in the font styles where the now optically stretched font are easier to read as they are slightly wider.
> 
> 
> But you can't use this feature to shift the subtitles for the zoom method, as this function changes the geometry, so you have no bars to zoom anyway...




I think I get the idea (could be wrong - it wouldn't be the first time







) that the subtitles are not embedded into the image (stored separately or layered). This would allow for repositioning them and using alternate language subtitles. What I don't get is why this wouldn't work for zooming - unless the specific process you refer to is part of the image stretching process.


Do you have a link to what you are referring to?





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/12006415
> 
> 
> ......making the image are increase by 25% in both directions when zooming.



Only the height (vertical aspect) of the pixel is changed for both lens and zoom. The image is not stretched horizontally by the scaler nor compressed horizontally by the lens. Both methods produce an image 1920 projector pixels wide using 1920 source pixels.


Zooming displays 817 source pixels vertically using 817 projector pixels. Lens displays 817 source pixels using 1080 projector pixels.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/12006415
> 
> 
> When you use a lens, yes you do stretch the pixels by 33% in the horizontal direction, but your image is made up of 100% of the panel, so will be more dense especially in the vertical direction...



Agreed (assuming you mean vertical not horizontal). The image is produced from 817 vertical source pixels but is displayed with 1080 projector pixels. This will make it brighter and screen door will be less. You also won't have to deal with the black bars.


But, the pixels have been degraded by the process; scaling artifacts, CA, contrast loss, pincuision, etc.


For the majority of people with older mid-range projectors (like me) I believe a lens will make for a subjectively better picture; mainly because the image is brighter. But I also believe that the new moderatley priced (sub US$3,500), higher contrast (10,000:1+), brighter (500 lumen+ calibrated) projectors will change this.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/12006415
> 
> 
> Whist you could sit and debate the theory for an eternity, the big question is - have you seen a 1080 projector in a CIH set up?
> 
> 
> I had a doubt too before seeing it for myself...
> 
> 
> Mark



Agreed. This is about people being happy with what they see.


But I do like a bit of theory to support subjective viewing







. So, assuming you sit far enough away from the screen not to see screen door, how does (can) a lens make an image better apart from making it brighter?


----------



## LilGator

Subs are simple using the zoom method, all you would need to do is fashion a DIY piece of laminate the size of the standard available area for subtitles, and hang it from the bottom of the screen for the subs to project on to. Then, set it aside in the closet for non-sub movies.


----------



## tubaprde

Does anyone know a good way to make a pj mount that has a track for cih setup? Thanks .


----------



## fisher191




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/12006415
> 
> 
> If I had not got into CIH, I would have never understood the need for EZ-View and actually I don't understand it outside of CIH - there is no purpose for it. The subtitles that are done by the studio for the DVD are a bitmap laid over the video. This player has the ability to separate those layers.
> 
> 
> We almost need a CIH "myth busters" section as the thruth is, these are not actually repositioned, but rather the picture behind it is vertically stretched, so as the image becomes tall and thin, the subtitles (which don't actually change BTW) that were in the black bars are now appearing in the active picture.
> 
> 
> The anamorphic lens optically stretches the image to restore the geometry, so the picture is once again geometry correct, but the subtitles are also stretched making them look fatter like the difference between Arial and Verdana in the font styles where the now optically stretched font are easier to read as they are slightly wider.
> 
> 
> But you can't use this feature to shift the subtitles for the zoom method, as this function changes the geometry, so you have no bars to zoom anyway..



OK, I am getting this now. The scaler (or DVD player) stretches the image but leaves the subtitles in the same place (which was the black bar area but now contains a stretched picture).


The geometry of the image is then restored by the lens, distorting the subtitles (squishing them).


Is it correct that this means you need a scaler or DVD player that supports this feature? I assume no projector could do this because it is only sent a combined image (picture and subtitles).


----------



## VTPete

Hi All,


I'm uploading some very large test images to an image server to share with everyone as a result of trying out my new Prismasonic H-FE1500R. Keep your eyes opened for my write-up.


I love the ease of use the Prismasonic offers and have found that it only creates the smallest of optical artifacts... but I'll write more about that under another thread.


With regards to using the lens VS zooming, I have to stick with my earlier statements that, gosh darn it, zooming my RS1 just plain looks great. Honestly, the difference is negligible within the tolerances of my testing equipment (my eyeballs and a pocket digital camera.) If anything, the zooming method has a slight leg up with regards to image quality. But, it just plain sucks when it comes to set-up. The tweaking of the zoom, vertical and horizontal shift is wearing me down... and probably the RS1's gears as well.


Take a look at these shots... sorry the camera stand wasn't quite straight! I, as usual, turned off all automatic settings on my camera and set it for a fixed exposure at (a digital) 400 ASA with a 10 second timer. There's quite a bit of digital noise in these images... again, my apologies.


Personally, I like the image quality zooming gives me, but I'd prefer to have remote controlled stretch capability rather than manually tweaking my projector.


----------



## Steve Dodds

Some of us have projectors which don't zoom far enough to use the zoom method.


Would anyone care to hazard a guess on the damage to brightness and resolution of electronically scaling the 16:9 image instead.


In other words you set your DVD player to 4:3 Letterbox, which horizontally stretches the image and places black bars above and below, then set your projector to vertically stretch this image.


With my setup this results in a 16:9 image in the middle of my 2.35 screen, at the same height. Since I have two DVD players, all I need to do is press one button to change inputs on the projector.


But I guess many pixels are being thrown away, which can't be good for resolution or brightness.


I imagine sending your projector a native image might have the same effect.


----------



## tubaprde




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steve Dodds* /forum/post/12042039
> 
> 
> Some of us have projectors which don't zoom far enough to use the zoom method.
> 
> 
> Would anyone care to hazard a guess on the damage to brightness and resolution of electronically scaling the 16:9 image instead.
> 
> 
> In other words you set your DVD player to 4:3 Letterbox, which horizontally stretches the image and places black bars above and below, then set your projector to vertically stretch this image.
> 
> 
> With my setup this results in a 16:9 image in the middle of my 2.35 screen, at the same height. Since I have two DVD players, all I need to do is press one button to change inputs on the projector.
> 
> 
> But I guess many pixels are being thrown away, which can't be good for resolution or brightness.
> 
> 
> I imagine sending your projector a native image might have the same effect.





I see what you're saying but did you see my post a few up? Why not make a track for the pj if it doesnt have enough zoom, like my pj. Does anyone have experience doing this?


----------



## Steve Dodds

I'm lazy.


----------



## tubaprde




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steve Dodds* /forum/post/12043079
> 
> 
> I'm lazy.



Haha. Yeah, I was thinking it would be a lot of work. Plus i've gotta find a runner that is strong enough for a pj to hang down from it. Then make sure that the wires dont pull out of the pj when moving along the runners...Has anyone done this?


----------



## video_bit_bucket

Been thinking of a tracked PJ. A pair of garage door rails with a trolly built between that the PJ mounts to is the best idea I have had.


----------



## Bilderspiele

I use my own method to move my pj in the proper position. Up is for 2.35:1 and down for 16:9


----------



## CAVX

That looks like something from War Of The Worlds










Mark


----------



## R Harkness

Hey folks,


I'm considering a set up where I move the anamorphic lens in and out of the way.

And I'm considering doing this with a Prismasonic lens (I know, even though they have passthrough option, just humour me). If I did this, would I have to re-focus when the lens is moved in and out of the light path? If so, what anamorphic lenses are there were you don't have to re-focus as the lens moves in and out of the light path?


Thanks.


----------



## R Harkness

Anyone?


----------



## Bilderspiele




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/12075614
> 
> 
> That looks like something from War Of The Worlds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark



Indeed, may be I was inspired after watching that movie










But it works very well. In the lower position and zoom to small picture, I have an 16:9 frame: 170 x 94 cm. In upper position hanging it into the hook, zooming in maximum, I have a fantastic 224 x 94 cm scope picture and it's possible in that position to fineadjust upper and lower boarder of the picture. It tooks only seconds to switch between both position. It was even possible to adjust 2.2:1 for 2001 A SPACE ODYSSEY in the upper position with adjusting zoom and position.


----------



## usualsuspects




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/12086164
> 
> 
> I'm considering a set up where I move the anamorphic lens in and out of the way. And I'm considering doing this with a Prismasonic lens (I know, even though they have passthrough option, just humour me). If I did this, would I have to re-focus when the lens is moved in and out of the light path? If so, what anamorphic lenses are there were you don't have to re-focus as the lens moves in and out of the light path?



HE Lenses that don't require refocus on lens out movement: Panamorph UH380 / ISCO III, may be others. Not sure on the Prismasonic - I know there were focus issues between stretch/pass that were supposedly corrected by the FE element, but I assume (I know, bad thing to do) that if you move the lens out of the light path, that FE element is gone, so focus issues are back? Perhaps that is a bad assumption - depending on "what direction" the FE element corrects for - it might be ok. Best to ask Prismasonic.


----------



## CAVX

If your going to move the Prismasonic out of the light path, then you can not use the FE as it optically compresses the image (both Horizontally and Vertically) by about 5%, so you won't have a true CIH...


Mark


----------



## bgosselin

I install my new prismasonic yesterday. It's actually an old model the 1200 but with the front element.


First I want to point out that the lens doesn't affect brightness that much.


I measure 112 lux at the screen with my Sharp (Iris close and lamp low) 111 lux with the lens.


I measure 296 lux at the screen with Iris open and lamp set at low. 287 lux with the lens in place. So less then 5 %. I imagine that the newer model are even better. Don't know about contrast ANSI. I haven't measure it.


I still need to play with it so I get a better result. But so far I'm please with the lens CA (almost none) and sharpness.


----------



## CAVX

So are you still going to move it, or simply use the pass mode?


Mark


----------



## bgosselin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/12104049
> 
> 
> So are you still going to move it, or simply use the pass mode?
> 
> 
> Mark



Are you asking me? I sure will keep the lens. I love the effect of it. Zooming it is just to much work. I didn't like refocusing between both mode. Now that is not necessary anymore.


Bruno


----------



## VTPete

Amen to the "too much work" statement!


Of course, back to the point of this thread... zooming vs lens... Has anyone else done comparisons between the two resulting image qualities? I've love to know if others are finding results similar to mine.


-Pete

(Still looking for a good vertical stretch option for my (@*#$ RS1)


----------



## thuway

yeah I'm surprised this thread is buried so deep here. i woudla thought it would have been 500 pages by now.


----------



## D'ultimate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *VTPete* /forum/post/12108192
> 
> 
> Amen to the "too much work" statement!
> 
> 
> Of course, back to the point of this thread... zooming vs lens... Has anyone else done comparisons between the two resulting image qualities? I've love to know if others are finding results similar to mine.
> 
> 
> -Pete
> 
> (Still looking for a good vertical stretch option for my (@*#$ RS1)



VTPete what was your definitive conclusion on the zooming vs lens option? I mean other than the convenience was there a real difference?


----------



## thuway

I think someone with a scaler needs to send VPete one on loaner







- if only that PS3 would do Vertical Stretch. I know those little cell chips are more than capable of it.


----------



## Craig Peer




> Quote:
> Of course, back to the point of this thread... zooming vs lens... Has anyone else done comparisons between the two resulting image qualities? I've love to know if others are finding results similar to mine.



Only with my previous H79 and a Prismasonic lens. With my current dVision 1080p I'm happy zooming on a slightly bigger 2.35:1 screen.


----------



## VTPete

Hi Everyone,


I found a Key Digital HDMI4x1 (the old model) on "open box" sale for $399, so I snatched it up. That should handle the vertical stretch for my PS3 and according to what I've read, it shouldn't add any degradation of image quality. THEN, I'll be able to try my lenses with a stretched hi-def signal! UPS ground, however, will take a week to get the thing to me.


D'Ultimate asked what my conclusion is so far. Here ya go:


In my case, which includes a PS3, a handmade 111 inch wide painted 'scope screen, and an RS1 mounted at 14 feet from the screen in a 100% light controlled room, I've found that zooming out provides a better picture quality than using a lens.


When I zoom out, the picture is slightly brighter, has slightly better shadow detail, zero chromatic aberration and zero pin cushioning. This is true for both the Prismasonic and the HTB lens, although the Prismasonic obviously has a leg up on the less expensive HTB lens.


But wait, there's more.


So, if the picture quality is better, why the *#[email protected]! am I spending hard earned bucks on the HDMI4x1 when I know the quality isn't as good? It's simply a matter of degrees of quality VS ease of use.


I don't notice ANY of those optical downgrades in actual use. I only notice them when I take before and after photos, or walk right up to the screen to inspect individual pixels. You know, single white vertical lines on black backgrounds. So, I never swear and curse at the image quality, but I DO swear and curse every time I say to my wife, "Hang on, I'm going to go set up the theater for cinemascope" and I proceed to adjust the RS1's crappy zoom, and lens shift settings. (I swear those gears are made out of Playdoh.)


The bottom line is that if a person wants to get into CIH, you don't need to start with a lens and scaler. You can start by zooming and then decided to move to the lens and scaler (or just lens if you have a modern projector, DOH) later.


Of course, I can't help but to wonder what would happen if I were to test "optimal" conditions with my RS1. IE, compare zooming at a projector distance of 14 feet, VS using the lens at (say) 10 feet. This would enable me to use the widest angle setting on my RS1 for each case maximizing light output. Unfortunately, I built my ceiling mount before I put up the ceiling and to move my projector forward would a) be a crappy construction job and b) put the projector in FRONT of my chairs... and since this is a basement with a ceiling height of barely seven feet, that's not really an option.


I have no doubt that OTHER projector set-ups will have a different outcome because you're lighting up all of the pixels on your projector's panel and not getting the light boost from zooming out. This is not me waffling to make people happy, I honestly believe it. That's why I'm so interested in getting other people's pictures posted.


-VTPete


P.S. Spiderman 3 stunk


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *VTPete* /forum/post/12159341
> 
> 
> So, I never swear and curse at the image quality, but I DO swear and curse every time I say to my wife, "Hang on, I'm going to go set up the theater for cinemascope" and I proceed to adjust the RS1's crappy zoom, and lens shift settings. (I swear those gears are made out of Playdoh.)



Oh no. You're killin' me.


I've decided I want a variable image size with 4 way masking so this will entail using the zoom/image shift of my projector. I'd originally planned on the RS1 but now I'm looking at the new JVC RS2. My idea is to have the projector behind me, several feet above my head. (Actually, I'm planning on having a cabinet built with a lifting device, so the projector/cabinet is hidden behind the viewing sofa and rises up when needed for use).


One good thing is the RS2 has a remote control, powered zoom, so at least that can be done from the couch.


BUT...the idiots have left the lens shift manual. And I'm likely to still have to adjust the lens shift. Is it really that bad? What's the deal...is it just imprecise? Hard to get at? I can't even spot the lens shift dials in pictures of the JVC.


I'm trying to figure out just how much of a headache this could be. I've been employing some borrowed projectors behind my sofa and so far I don't mind doing the zoom/lens shift thing.


----------



## scottyb

The Black Pearl is probably a comparable projector and has power zoom and lens shift.

I do the zooming and it's pretty easy. I just leave it in 16:9 mode when done in case the Mrs wants to watch something when I'm not there and all the info is still on screen.



scott


----------



## VTPete

Rich,


Sorry, man. There are many reasons why I have a touch of buyer's remorse about the RS1... all related to CIH. As Scotty's pointed out the Sony does a better job at this stuff.


The two lens shift knobs on the RS1 feel like they (seriously) connect via a loose plastic worm gear. IE, you move it a bit, and then the plastic peices grab on and move the lens. It's a very loose set-up... so loose that if you grab the front of the lens to (manually) adjust the focus or zoom, you often move the lens shift a touch. And, a touch is all it takes to make the image no longer project onto your frame or so perfectly.


It's a frickin' pain in the butt.


Yet, the image quality on the RS1 is really spectacular in my eyes.


----------



## R Harkness

Thanks










I just can't believe they would make a "higher end" version and go to the trouble of putting power zoom WITHOUT power lens shift. I could throttle whoever at JVC makes these type of decisions.


Sigh. The thing is I want to build my HT around the image I want, and at this point I like the JVC the best.


I have considered the Sony Black Pearl but after demoing it twice I haven't been overly enthusiastic with what I saw, vs the JVC.


----------



## smitty




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/12161223
> 
> 
> I just can't believe they would make a "higher end" version and go to the trouble of putting power zoom WITHOUT power lens shift. I could throttle whoever at JVC makes these type of decisions.
> 
> 
> Sigh. The thing is I want to build my HT around the image I want, and at this point I like the JVC the best.
> 
> 
> I have considered the Sony Black Pearl but after demoing it twice I haven't been overly enthusiastic with what I saw, vs the JVC.



Rich, IMO, the hassle of dealing with the lens shift knobs is a little overstated. It's true that the buttons are a little loosey-goosey and imprecise, but the black velvet borders we all have around our screens reduces the need for absolute precision. Who cares if the image overlaps an inch on each side on a 122" wide screen or whatever? And it typically only takes me 10 seconds to make the adjustment if I switch aspect ratios, or maybe up to 20 seconds if I'm being picky (or have had too much to drink







).


I also kind of chuckle a little when I see in this thread and others how much of a pain it is to do manual lens shift, zoom, etc. I keep hearing in my head the lyric from that old 60's song entitled "In The Year 2525 . . ."


"In the year 5555

Your arms hangin' limp at your sides

Your legs got nothin' to do

Some machine's doin' that for you"











I think the image on the RS1 is worth plus 100 points, and the fact that the lens shift/focus is manual and a little loose is worth minus 5 points. But that's my $.02. YMMV.


----------



## R Harkness

thanks smitty.


I've got to see the RS1 again and try out those lens shift controls for myself.


Just going CIH would make things easier on me. But it's so hard to give up the luxury I've enjoyed in zooming the image on my wall. Lots of times I might have a 16:9 image of around 100" diag. But other times it's great to go much bigger. Like last night I watched North By Northwest HUGE, something like 106" wide or so and it was awesomely cinematic, especially when they were hanging off Mnt. Rushmore. If I stayed with a CIH system I could never go that big when I wanted to with 1:85:1/16:9 content. So I'm looking at buying a really big Carada Masquerade masking system that will allow me to alter the image height/size to taste, with automatic curtains with pre-sets for the side masking. 2:35:1 will be wider than 16:9 images so I'll still enjoy that effect.


That is, if I can get all this to work...


----------



## fillydee

I am going to order my projector very soon and have been debating on the AX200 or the Epson HC720. I am torn on which to buy. The AX200 has the built in scaling and an extra HDMI. The Epson may have better QC and probably a less noisy image based on their last years offerings. But the one thing that may give the leg up to the Epson is that the lens shift is broken into two seperate vertical and horizontal controls. I will more than likely be zooming for my 2.35 picture for quite a while in the begining as I won't have the cash for a lens. Do you think the shift (zoom and reposition) from 16:9 to 2.35 will be much easier on the Epson as the horizontal position should remain constant? I have never had a projector w/ lens shift, but I always heard fine control of the image is a bit clumsey and requires quite a bit of tweaking. The joystick control of the AX200 seems like it may require a bit more work. Can any of you zoomers chime in. Thx.


----------



## mmmkam

I have the AX100 and I am currently using the zoom method (still havnt gotten around to building my DIY lens yet







) Its a pain to adjust the image position when zooming, but I dont think seperating the axis would make it much better. Its really just a pain that you have to do an adjustment, the adjustment itself is very easy. I love my AX100 and would highly recommend the AX100\\AX200.


----------



## R Harkness

Hmm, I'm not really finding it a pain to adjust the lens shift/zoom as it is on a borrowed Sony projector. It has two dials - one for vertical one for horizontal lens shift. When I zoom out for a larger or smaller image on my wall I have to reach behind me (it's behind me on a stand) and slightly adjust the picture position. Doesn't seem much of a hassle. But I'm wondering if the JVC lens shift is _that much worse_ as to make it a total pain.


Also, I may be also using an anamorphic lens of some sort and I'm not sure how trying to adjust the lens shift manually will be complicated (or not) with a lens introduced.


----------



## VTPete

Rich,

Ok, maybe I exaggerated a bit when it comes to how much of a pain it is. It doesn't take long at all. It's not tough or tricky. I guess I'm spoiled by my previous Sanyo that had power everything, focus, zoom and lens shift.

Long live the PLV60-HT.

-Pete


----------



## taffman

I use the zoom on my Panasonic 700 to project 2.35:1 movies. I have what I believe is an excellent solution to 2.35:1 without the need for expensive anamorphic lenses, vertical scalers, and mechanical sleds. I have my projector mounted on a rear shelf so that I can easily turn the zoom ring. The projector is about 20ft away from a 87 ins wide 16:9 screen. I have installed a DIY 3-way power masking system - two moveable side panels and one moveable top panel - the bottom masking panel is fixed. When I want to project 2.35:1, I zoom out so that the bottom of the 2.35:1 picture meets the top edge of my bottom masking panel. This takes the picture width out to about 108 ins. I then power out the side masking panels and power down the top masking panel so that the 2.35:1 picture is perfectly framed, and the grey bars are totally absorbed by the wide masking panels. So I do not have to adjust the lens shift at all, and because I am operating the projector ao far from the screen I find there is absolutely no change in focus, so I do not have to adjust focus either. Just a twist of the zoom ring and that's it!The resulting scope picture is awesome. I suspect that the black masking panels surounding the picture do more for visible picture impact than any $6000.00 scope lens. I really doubt that a scope lens would improve the picture at all. My experience of scope lenses on film projectors is that they always compromise sharpness and contrast. Less glass is always better!


----------



## CAVX

And just imagine how much better the image would look at full panel rez










Mark


----------



## Health Nut

Actually, now that I have the C3X 1080 projector on the way (I have the 1.3-1.7 lens) I will be able to try zooming and see the effect of ISCO 3 vs zooming.... Looking forward to it...


----------



## CAVX

That will be interesting, but please, please make sure that your ISCO III is focused correctly before posting










Mark


----------



## Nedtsc

Zooming won't work for me because I needed a larger image than zooming can provide in my max throw distance, stretching the image is the only way.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nedtsc* /forum/post/12284621
> 
> 
> stretching the image is the only way.



Agreed, stretching the image *is* the only way...


Mark


----------



## Health Nut

Your not increasing the native res though... Interpolation and added brightness. The good thing is the C3X 1080 will have so much lumens, it will not be a factor. How wonderful would it be if the studios got off their ass and did anamorphic 2.35? In either case, I'll easily be able to compare... Anyone in the SF Bay area interested in coming over to experience D-BOX quest seating and the new C3X 1080 is welcome... Probably have it hanging next Friday hopefully...


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Health Nut* /forum/post/12284963
> 
> 
> Your not increasing the native res though...



Wow how many times have we been down that road?


We don't watch the rez off a disc, but rather the pixels (combined to make an image) from our projectors - and the more pixels the better the image - regardless of source rez










Mark


----------



## Health Nut

all tradeoffs...


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Health Nut* /forum/post/12285868
> 
> 
> all tradeoffs...



I agree on a software perspective, but we all know that the whole industry is still based around 16:9 technology, so no true anamorphic titles (though I found one HD DVD that said "Anamorphic 2.35:1" the other day - I bet it is still just standard LB format when you play it) any time soon...


Mark


----------



## taffman

_We don't watch the rez off a disc, but rather the pixels (combined to make an image) from our projectors - and the more pixels the better the image - regardless of source rez_


Well if that is true , enlarging a still picture onto bigger and bigger sheets of paper should improve the resolution, which of course it does not.


I think the real question here is whether or not anamorphic lenses, scalers, and sleds really buy any worthwhile improvement in 2.35:1 image, which can be otherwise acheived just by zooming and adding a good masking system to block out the grey bars. Brightness gain is not a good enough reason to go the anamorhphic route, you can acheive the same thing (and more) by going from econo mode to normal brightness on the projector lamp. Convenience _may_ be a factor in favor of anamorphic, although you have to be pretty lazy to object to getting up and doing a one time adjustment of the zoom ring at the beginning of the movie. Resolution is the only possible advantage that anamorphic lenses _may_ have over zooming, but as has already been pointed out, just like upscaling DVD's, you cannot create what is not there. And working against anamorphic lenses are the unavoidable loss in contrast and image sharpness introduced by the lens itself.

Which leaves the question , what are you really getting for a $5000.00 - $8000.00 investment in anamorphic lens set up?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/12286107
> 
> 
> 
> Well if that is true , enlarging a still picture onto bigger and bigger sheets of paper should improve the resolution, which of course it does not.



Interesting comments from one that zooms the image and throws away at least 25% of the panel in the process At any given image height, a CIH system using an anamorphic lens does not change the vertical rez of the image, it maintains it for all ARs.


If the projection system is 720 for 1.78:1, it will be so for 2.37:1 and the results just get better with 1080 projection and HD sources.


Some points to consider with a 720 projector and zooming -


1. The pixels have increased in size in both directions - therefore they may become visible at a given seating distance.


2. The number of vertical pixels drops from 720 back to 540. This combined with the size increase would be like dropping from 720 back to a 480 device in a 16:9 set up - lucky your Panny has "smooth screen".


You've also mentioned the "scaler". Your Panny does two modes of scaling without an external VP.


As for your other comments, it is highly likely that you have not seen a CIH set up...


Mark


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/12285378
> 
> 
> 
> We don't watch the rez off a disc, but rather the pixels (combined to make an image) from our projectors - and the more pixels the better the image - regardless of source rez
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark



I can't agree with that sweeping statement, Mark.


That's not to say that I wouldn't end up enjoying the use of an anamorphic lens with a high-res display over zooming a lower res display. But...


...as a veteran of the flat panel wars, I and many others who have been monitoring digital displays for years have found it is often the opposite: upscaling lower res sources to higher res native pixel displays has often been more problematic than beneficial. It depends on the quality of the scaling (among other things).


It has been a long time observation of the very busy flat panel forum that it was for the longest time hard to find an HD res panel (either 720p or the newer 1080p) that looked as good with SD sources as an ED plasma (whose native res closely matched the SD native res). It was rare to non-existent for me to find an HD-res panel that looks as crisp, smooth, solid and artifact-free with regular DVDs as it looks on my 5 year old Panasonic plasma. Which in fact is why, after much evaluation, I bought an ED plasma over all the HD panels I could have bought instead.


The blame for this has always been put on the problems of upscaling lower res source information to a higher native res device, and the inherent problems of doing so.


At this point, though, scalers across the board _have_ gotten much better to be sure, both from upscaling DVD players/HD-DVD/Blu Ray and within the displays. So it's not as bad as it use to be, and we can enjoy SD images on a display whose native pixel count makes visible pixels a non-issue. Certainly an advantage that way.


Still...even with all the advancements, in terms of image stability, crispness, and smoothness with SD sources, my ED plasma hangs with the best higher-res displays of similar size, if not outdoing most of them.


Given scaling issues (not to even bring in adding a lens issues) it doesn't make sense to say "the more pixels the better the image - regardless of source rez" because it's far from always being true.


----------



## GetGray

1st post Troll to stir the brew?


----------



## Graham Johnson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/12286525
> 
> 
> , my ED plasma hangs with the best higher-res displays of similar size, if not outdoing most of them.
> 
> 
> it doesn't make sense to say "the more pixels the better the image - regardless of source rez" because it's far from always being true.



This is one statement I can agree with.


My Hitachi ED plasma has for all intents and purposes a much better and sharper picture than my 1080p plasma if your viewing distance eliminates the pixel view on the ED


In fact sometimes a coarser pixel display can appear sharper than a fine pixel pitch display. For this reason alone it may be a zoomed picture can actually appear sharper than a 2.35 stretched version.


----------



## CAVX

The zoomers are so missing the point. Yes the anamorphic lens does optically stretch the pixels, but does so in just one direction - horizontally. Zooming magfinies the pixles in both directions - vertical and horizontal - as well reduces the active number of pixels on the screen use to make the image - from 100% down to 75%.


If you like the image quality of the 16:9 image, then the 237 image (using a lens and lens type pending) will have the same look, just wider. This whole myth of the image suddenly getting soft and dull is not true at all...


Mark


----------



## rombullterrier




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/12286107
> 
> 
> _although you have to be pretty lazy to object to getting up and doing a one time adjustment of the zoom ring at the beginning of the movie.
> _


_


that would be me_


----------



## rombullterrier




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LJG* /forum/post/12289731
> 
> 
> How does 16:9 HD sports look displayed 2.35 with lens in place, just wondering?



This will drive some crazy, but it looks great to me.


----------



## Djorre

To give my twocents..


I'm currently still convicted to the zoom until I get my lens up and working. The fact I dropped one of my just finished, prototype prisms yesterday wasn't very helpfull to this....










But since the zoom is limited on the PJ (wich really is a rather old 4/3 data type I picked up second handed) I can only zoom out to get the 16/9 image to vertically fill the screen. The scope image I get is, for now, letterboxed in that same 16/9 area. (in some of the pics on my blog in the signature you can see the overscan)


So in order to fill the right sized scope image on my screen, I have to use a lens, due to room size and long throw PJ.


Djorre.


----------



## pocoloco

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you can't make out the pixel structure and don't mind the "hassle" of zooming and lenshift, then zooming will give you the best PQ because the best lens is no lens.


I've been zooming for a long time but I'm no lens hater. I actually have an optoma BXAL133 lens and motorized sled on order (UH380 OEM). A new pj required me to use a lens. I have my fingers crossed cause I have dumped 2 previous panamorphs before but I'm hoping the UH380 won't let me down. If I end up not liking this lens and returning it, then my personal mantra will be it's better not to have constant height than to use a lens. Crazy huh... we'll see.


----------



## Health Nut

Yes, you need to acknowledge the tradefoffs, pros and cons of each method... Ideally, Projector manufacturers should adress this issue, perhaps having a dual purpose (rotating lens) at the stop position. In any case, it is quite true that adding an additional lens decreases ANSI contrast, sharpness...


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Health Nut* /forum/post/12291677
> 
> 
> In any case, it is quite true that adding an additional lens decreases ANSI contrast, sharpness...



Try cleaning the dust off the lens










Mark


----------



## Anthony1

My theater is currently being remodeled, so I have my projector boxed away temporarily, but when I get things hooked back up in the next couple of weeks, I'm going to try doing this zoom thing. I can't believe I never knew about this till now. I have a MitsHD1000u projector, and I recently got a Optoma HD3000 scaler, and was going to get an anamorphic lens, but once I found out about the prices for a decent anamorphic lens, I started to rethink everything. Now the idea of just zooming, is a very attractive option. I do have a couple of basic questions:


1. Right now, my projector is mounted about 18.5' away from the screen. I'm using zero zoom at the moment. Will I have enough available zoom to do this from this distance?


2. I just bought this Optoma HD3000 scaler, and was intending to use it in conjunction with an anamorphic lens. If I go the zooming route, will the Optoma HD3000 help me in any way? The MitsHD1000u doesn't have vertical stretch.


3. How man inches of black velvet do people typically need to really hide the black bars? My current 16:9 screen is 126" diagonal.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Anthony1* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 2. I just bought this Optoma HD3000 scaler, and was intending to use it in conjunction with an anamorphic lens. If I go the zooming route, will the Optoma HD3000 help me in any way? The MitsHD1000u doesn't have vertical stretch.



You don't need or want vertical stretch if your zooming...


Mark


----------



## 70MM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Anthony1* /forum/post/12324962
> 
> 
> My theater is currently being remodeled, so I have my projector boxed away temporarily, but when I get things hooked back up in the next couple of weeks, I'm going to try doing this zoom thing. I can't believe I never knew about this till now. I have a MitsHD1000u projector, and I recently got a Optoma HD3000 scaler, and was going to get an anamorphic lens, but once I found out about the prices for a decent anamorphic lens, I started to rethink everything. Now the idea of just zooming, is a very attractive option. I do have a couple of basic questions:
> 
> 
> 1. Right now, my projector is mounted about 18.5' away from the screen. I'm using zero zoom at the moment. Will I have enough available zoom to do this from this distance?
> 
> 
> 2. I just bought this Optoma HD3000 scaler, and was intending to use it in conjunction with an anamorphic lens. If I go the zooming route, will the Optoma HD3000 help me in any way? The MitsHD1000u doesn't have vertical stretch.
> 
> 
> 3. How man inches of black velvet do people typically need to really hide the black bars? My current 16:9 screen is 126" diagonal.



First check that your Mitsubishi doesnt have top/bottom & left & right shutters?

Most Mitsubishi projectors do have this and you can use the memory to stop those shutters at the edge of the grey bars on 2.35 dvd's. The black basking then can be just a couple of inches wide on all four sides, as the shutters block out all light depending on where you set them.


Thats how I do mine,,, Wait 10 mins though as there will be the usual ones that will tell you its "no good" and you need to spend big money to do it correctly, they always do! There are two schools of thought on this and zooming if set up well works just as good, but get ready for the others to tell you not


----------



## VTPete

All,

To my knowledge, I've been the only person who's been willing to post screen shots comparing zooming to using a lens. I'm waiting patiently for others who are passionate about this topic to post their evidence on the subject.


I've been playing with zooming VS lens for a couple of months now. I have an RS1 situated at 14 feet from my 111 inch 2.36:1 screen. That (luckily for me) happens to be just the right distance to be able to project a 16:9 image, or to zoom out and project a 2:40:1 image. At my seating distance of roughly 11 feet (or even much closer), the pixel structure of the image is completely hidden regardless of technique I'm using to enlarge the image.


I have a Prismasonic FE1500R in front of the light path of my RS1 and it's on a swivel mount that allows me to move it completely out of the way if I choose. I also now have a Key Digital HDMI4x1 that will vertically stretch 1080i signals for me.


I primarily watch standard DVDs and Blu Ray movies from my PS3. We actually shut off the cable TV coming to our house a few months ago since we seldom watch network TV any longer.


All of that terribly boring background material is just to let you know that I have tried things both ways and that I'm speaking from experience.


Zooming my RS1 gives me a better image quality than using the Prismasonic lens. It's close, but a clear win for the zooming camp. The picture is brighter, has better shadow detail, displays the maximum precision of resolution that the source material can provide, and suffers from zero chromatic aberration or pin cushioning.


Mark, of course you are right that if you light up more of the projector's pixels, your image will be brighter than if you had not done that. No one can argue against that. In my case, however, zooming out the RS1 gives me a brightness boost from the increased efficiency of the wider zoom setting. Sure, that's not really a fair comparison because if I had compared the brightness increase that I'd get by lighting up all the panels pixels at the wider zoom setting, it would be even brighter yet. But, I can't do that in my case because of where I have to have the projector mounted.


So, here I sit, saying that zooming provides a better image quality (for me, for my situation) than using an anamorphic lens and guess what? On a daily basis, I use the freaking lens to view 'scope movies! When I'm not viewing scope movies, I use the "pass" mode of the lens! WHAT GIVES? Am I insane?


No, I'm not insane. The honest truth is that had I not taken before and after photographs, I would have never known which image quality was better. It's THAT CLOSE. So, with image quality no longer being a factor, it comes down to which one is easier for me to use on a daily basis. And, for me, it's clearly the one that requires no work on my part.


So, for everyone who feels "their way is better", I urge you to do the equivalent of a blind test with your equipment set up in the way it would be on a daily basis. Post the results! Let's see them!


For anyone who's new to this topic and wondering if they should spent major bucks on an anamorphic lens, I say relax. Try zooming first. If you like it, you've saved some cash. If you don't, you can always invest in more equipment later.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *VTPete* /forum/post/12325543
> 
> 
> Try zooming first. If you like it, you've saved some cash. If you don't, you can always invest in more equipment later.



Good post, well done. If you are new to all of this, then I do say that zooming is a good way to find out for your self if you will really enjoy going down this path...


Mark


----------



## scottyb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *VTPete* /forum/post/12325543
> 
> 
> All,
> 
> To my knowledge, I've been the only person who's been willing to post screen shots comparing zooming to using a lens. I'm waiting patiently for others who are passionate about this topic to post their evidence on the subject.
> 
> 
> I've been playing with zooming VS lens for a couple of months now. I have an RS1 situated at 14 feet from my 111 inch 2.36:1 screen. That (luckily for me) happens to be just the right distance to be able to project a 16:9 image, or to zoom out and project a 2:40:1 image. At my seating distance of roughly 11 feet (or even much closer), the pixel structure of the image is completely hidden regardless of technique I'm using to enlarge the image.
> 
> 
> I have a Prismasonic FE1500R in front of the light path of my RS1 and it's on a swivel mount that allows me to move it completely out of the way if I choose. I also now have a Key Digital HDMI4x1 that will vertically stretch 1080i signals for me.
> 
> 
> I primarily watch standard DVDs and Blu Ray movies from my PS3. We actually shut off the cable TV coming to our house a few months ago since we seldom watch network TV any longer.
> 
> 
> All of that terribly boring background material is just to let you know that I have tried things both ways and that I'm speaking from experience.
> 
> 
> Zooming my RS1 gives me a better image quality than using the Prismasonic lens. It's close, but a clear win for the zooming camp. The picture is brighter, has better shadow detail, displays the maximum precision of resolution that the source material can provide, and suffers from zero chromatic aberration or pin cushioning.
> 
> 
> Mark, of course you are right that if you light up more of the projector's pixels, your image will be brighter than if you had not done that. No one can argue against that. In my case, however, zooming out the RS1 gives me a brightness boost from the increased efficiency of the wider zoom setting. Sure, that's not really a fair comparison because if I had compared the brightness increase that I'd get by lighting up all the panels pixels at the wider zoom setting, it would be even brighter yet. But, I can't do that in my case because of where I have to have the projector mounted.
> 
> 
> So, here I sit, saying that zooming provides a better image quality (for me, for my situation) than using an anamorphic lens and guess what? On a daily basis, I use the freaking lens to view 'scope movies! When I'm not viewing scope movies, I use the "pass" mode of the lens! WHAT GIVES? Am I insane?
> 
> 
> No, I'm not insane. The honest truth is that had I not taken before and after photographs, I would have never known which image quality was better. It's THAT CLOSE. So, with image quality no longer being a factor, it comes down to which one is easier for me to use on a daily basis. And, for me, it's clearly the one that requires no work on my part.
> 
> 
> So, for everyone who feels "their way is better", I urge you to do the equivalent of a blind test with your equipment set up in the way it would be on a daily basis. Post the results! Let's see them!
> 
> 
> For anyone who's new to this topic and wondering if they should spent major bucks on an anamorphic lens, I say relax. Try zooming first. If you like it, you've saved some cash. If you don't, you can always invest in more equipment later.



One of the best, balanced post's I've read on AVS for a long time!!

It should be a sticky so as to end the "my way is better than yours" arguments.


Scott


----------



## R Harkness

*VTPete,*


Terrific post!


I can't believe how close your set-up is to my intended set-up for my new projection system.


I wish to use the JVC projector (RS2 likely) at about 13' 6" throw distance (that's as far as I can put it from my screen). I will be sitting 11 1/2' from the screen. I have also been interested in that Prismasonic FE1500R anamorphic lens!


However, as I've written before on this forum, at this point I'm interested in a variable image size using the projector zoom with 4 way masking. I like the ability to have a HUGE or not-so-huge image as I desire. But given my throw distance I'm trying to figure out if I'll need an anamorphic lens or not to achieve the image width I want when I want BIG.


And I'm hoping you could help me with this. I need to know how wide an image the JVC can project from a certain distance (I know there is a calculator for this, but I've heard that those calculators working from manufacturer specs aren't always super accurate, so I'm looking for some

hands-on results).


1. How wide an image can you get from the JVC fully zoomed out, from your projection distance?


even better if you can tell me:


2. *How wide an image can you get from 13 feet 6 inches throw distance, with the JVC fully zoomed out?*


That could really help me decide (especially as I have to plan now if I'm going to use an anamorphic lens).


Thanks.


----------



## usualsuspects




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *VTPete* /forum/post/12325543
> 
> 
> To my knowledge, I've been the only person who's been willing to post screen shots comparing zooming to using a lens. I'm waiting patiently for others who are passionate about this topic to post their evidence on the subject.



VTPete,


I think it is great that you are willing to go "against the conventional wisdom" and say what works best for you, and let the chips fall where they may. I feel the same way in that I went a different route from most people in many areas because after empirical testing it was clear that for me, in my room with my equipment, I got better results in various areas by doing things in a different way. I completely understand the "pride of ownership" albatross that seems to hang over so many people - the "my way is best". I always try to be careful in my posts and not fall into that trap, perhaps I don't always succeed. The last thing I want to do is to get into adversarial situations with anyone, the whole point of the forums is for enthusiasts to share their knowledge and practical experience in a helpful way.


My setup is Constant Area. After many trials and tribulations that is the system I decided to go with. My projector has enough zoom range that I could do a zoom only setup. I have compared zoomed scope vs lensed scope many times on my system, and lensed always wins. Brightness does not explain the quality increase, lensed + low mode looks better than zoomed + high. The best explanation that I can come up with is that the quality increase is due to "pixel density". The lensed version looks more solid and real than the zoomed version to my eyes. I have been through many different pieces of equipment in my theater, and I have no qualms about dumping something and trying something else - I have done this many times. I keep the lens and sled and scaler because they are worth it to me.


The problem with giving advice to people is that this is all apples vs oranges. Few people have exactly the same mix of equipment / screen / seating distance / equipment settings not to mention personal preferences. It seems impossible to give recommendations to anyone about anything, but we try anyway.


I don't do screen shots for these reasons: my camera is not the best, I don't own a tri-pod, I am not willing to take the time to learn how to take good screen shots, and most importantly to me: screen shots seem to have far more to do with the camera and image processing than what is on the screen.


----------



## Brad Horstkotte




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/12289633
> 
> 
> The zoomers are so missing the point. Yes the anamorphic lens does optically stretch the pixels, but does so in just one direction - horizontally. Zooming magnifies the pixels in both directions - vertical and horizontal...



An HE lens expands horizontally, and the projector or scaler "stretch mode" expands vertically, so you're still stretching in both directions like with zoom, right?


(Of course your point about using all the panel's pixels still applies to the lens approach and not zooming)


----------



## VTPete




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/12326248
> 
> *VTPete,*
> 
> 1. How wide an image can you get from the JVC fully zoomed out, from your projection distance?
> 
> 
> even better if you can tell me:
> 
> 
> 2. *How wide an image can you get from 13 feet 6 inches throw distance, with the JVC fully zoomed out?*



Rich,

When I get home I'll do some measuring for you. Stay tuned.

(Edit: Followed up with a PM... My projector turns out to be a full foot further back than Rich's)

-Pete


----------



## R Harkness

VTPete,


Thanks. You da man.


----------



## [email protected]




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *usualsuspects* /forum/post/12327475
> 
> 
> VTPete,
> 
> 
> I think it is great that you are willing to go "against the conventional wisdom" and say what works best for you, and let the chips fall where they may. I feel the same way in that I went a different route from most people in many areas because after empirical testing it was clear that for me, in my room with my equipment, I got better results in various areas by doing things in a different way. I completely understand the "pride of ownership" albatross that seems to hang over so many people - the "my way is best". I always try to be careful in my posts and not fall into that trap, perhaps I don't always succeed. The last thing I want to do is to get into adversarial situations with anyone, the whole point of the forums is for enthusiasts to share their knowledge and practical experience in a helpful way.
> 
> 
> My setup is Constant Area. After many trials and tribulations that is the system I decided to go with. My projector has enough zoom range that I could do a zoom only setup. I have compared zoomed scope vs lensed scope many times on my system, and lensed always wins. Brightness does not explain the quality increase, lensed + low mode looks better than zoomed + high. The best explanation that I can come up with is that the quality increase is due to "pixel density". The lensed version looks more solid and real than the zoomed version to my eyes. I have been through many different pieces of equipment in my theater, and I have no qualms about dumping something and trying something else - I have done this many times. I keep the lens and sled and scaler because they are worth it to me.
> 
> 
> The problem with giving advice to people is that this is all apples vs oranges. Few people have exactly the same mix of equipment / screen / seating distance / equipment settings not to mention personal preferences. It seems impossible to give recommendations to anyone about anything, but we try anyway.
> 
> 
> I don't do screen shots for these reasons: my camera is not the best, I don't own a tri-pod, I am not willing to take the time to learn how to take good screen shots, and most importantly to me: screen shots seem to have far more to do with the camera and image processing than what is on the screen.



Yip, I agree.


----------



## Laserfan

I had to laugh at Sound & Vision's "Doing Widescreen Right" (which btw completely missed the "zooming" option) wherein they said about one lens system: "At $2,995, it gives those of us with limited funds a way to get into the 2.35:1 club..." Three grand??? I'm not gonna pay that for my pj for heaven's sake!


It's wonderful isn't it that projector technology has advanced to where zooming can be so spectacular, and give some of us with (truly) limited funds a way to have a Cinemascope theater to-be-proud of.


Still, I do admire the purists who lens/sled/scale/curve their theaters to the wonderment of the rest of us.


----------



## Health Nut

Purists? A purist might be considered the zoomer: but not using interpolation or a second lens, thereby achieving max ANSI contrast and sharpness. Again, each has its tradeoffs: I just hope that studios and projector manufacturers adress 2.35 anamorphic and come up with better solutions.


----------



## pocoloco

Okay folks, my UH380 came in and I had a chance to evaluate it vs. zooming. To give some background, this is my 4th anamorphic lens (3 panamorphs and 1 prismasonic). I've ditched all 3 prior lenses because I was not happy with the PQ so I've been zooming for the last few years.


Overall, my stance that zooming provides better PQ still holds. Using a throw of 2.1x with the UH380, the lens actually performed very well... great focus, hardly any CA, and very very slight pincushion. I was impressed! BUT, the lens introduced a slight softening of the image and slight reduction in contrast/pop. I could easily pick this out 10/10 times in an A-B test. I then zoomed for the heck of it and as expected, the image was fine.


If my new projector had lens shift, I would continue zooming. But since it does not, the UH380 is acceptable enough for me to continue using it.


----------



## 70MM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pocoloco* /forum/post/12335663
> 
> 
> Okay folks, my UH380 came in and I had a chance to evaluate it vs. zooming. To give some background, this is my 4th anamorphic lens (3 panamorphs and 1 prismasonic). I've ditched all 3 prior lenses because I was not happy with the PQ so I've been zooming for the last few years.
> 
> 
> Overall, my stance that zooming provides better PQ still holds. Using a throw of 2.1x with the UH380, the lens actually performed very well... great focus, hardly any CA, and very very slight pincushion. I was impressed! BUT, the lens introduced a slight softening of the image and slight reduction in contrast/pop. I could easily pick this out 10/10 times in an A-B test. I then zoomed for the heck of it and as expected, the image was fine.
> 
> 
> If my new projector had lens shift, I would continue zooming. But since it does not, the UH380 is acceptable enough for me to continue using it.



Great nice to hear this!

Well we just need lots more projectors like the Mitsubishi HC6000 with auto zoom, focus and lenshift in all directions. Since it also has blanking shutters that remove the grey bars and masks the image edges perfectly black, you dont need extra wide black masking! Yes things are improving all the time, us guys that like to zoom just need to encourage all the other projector manufacturers to do the same!


----------



## McCall

This whole subject is so obviously in the eye of the beholder. There is no doubt whatsoever that my image with the UH380 is so much better, clearer, brighter crisper, than the image just zoomed with my Optoma H77.

It is pointless to say this is better, that is better. It is what is best for each person in their set up with their equipment.


I think those that are gung ho on certain things here are that way because they have something that to them is great and they want others to have something great too.

I know I feel bad for those that spend time and money on this and end up with mediocre results, even when they are Okay with those results.


Anyway, each has to make his or her own decision on what is best looking, trouble is most can't afford a lens just to try out the difference, and there is no place to go and have a look at the two options, especially since everyones room and equipment is different.


----------



## pocoloco




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *McCall* /forum/post/12336478
> 
> 
> This whole subject is so obviously in the eye of the beholder. There is no doubt whatsoever that my image with the UH380 is so much better, clearer, brighter crisper, than the image just zoomed with my Optoma H77.
> 
> It is pointless to say this is better, that is better. It is what is best for each person in their set up with their equipment.



Mccall...


I agree with you that it all comes down to personal preference. Each person accepts certain tradeoffs and makes the best decision for them. So in essence "better" is a relative statement.


But performance of anamorphic lenses can be objectively judged on parameters such as geometry, brightness, focus, aberration, contrast, etc. To give statements such as "the UH380 is so much better, clearer, brighter crisper" is so vague and subjective it really doesn't provide any value to the discussion of the tradeoffs b/t lenses and zooming and usually is the cause of pissing contests. For instance, how can the image possibly be "clearer" when adding an additional lens element? Trust me, adding any type of anamorphic lens will at best retain the original image clarity or most of the time slightly soften the image.


The best advice I can give people contemplating zoom vs. lens is to understand the pro's and cons to each, how those factors interact with their setup and then try to view it in person to make a judgement call. Let's try to be a little more objective.


----------



## taffman

The more glass you have in front of any image source, the worse the image is going to be. That is why prime (non-zoom) lenses (with few lens elements) on movie projectors give a much crisper picture than zoom lenses. All optical surfaces introduce some level of light scatter , which lowers contrast, as well as introducing some level of image aberration. So putting an anamorphic lens in front of a video projector has to compromise the image quality. Zooming the projector lens eliminates this problem, and those people who have posted here to say that they get better PQ by zooming than using an anamorphic lens are to be believed. Ask any film projectionist.

It's beginning to sound that the only real advantage anamorphic has is possibly convenience, namely the elimination of a zoom and possible tilt adjustment when going to 2.35. With an anamorphic set up costing $5000.00 or more, that is a small inconvenience that 99% of people can happily live with.


----------



## Health Nut

Great technical post. I agree the discussion should be about pros vs cons.


----------



## McCall

What I said was that in my set up the image is better, brighter and crisper. That is just how it is in my case. That is what I was getting at. all I have to do is move the lens out of the way and zoom the projector to see the difference. No technical measurements can change what I clearly see in viewing MY screen in MY situation.

This might not be what everyone else has in their setting, and again that is my point.

You can debate this zoom vs lens question till the cows come home and it still comes down to what each person sees in their theater and if that is acceptable to them.


----------



## pocoloco

Reasons for using a lens is:

1. Maintaining full vertical resolution to avoid seeing pixel structure.

2. No gray bars to mask

3. Can't zoom and want CIH

4. Cool Factor

5. Practically maintain equal brightness across aspect ratios.


Reasons for zooming:

1. No image degradation

2. Zero cost


In terms of convenience, it's really a toss up depending on implementation. A lens setup may be more convenient if you leave the lens in place all the time and scale electronically or if you have a motorized sled vs. manually walking up to the pj to zoom and lenshift. A zoom setup may be more convenient if you have motorized zoom/lenshift vs. having to walk up to the projector and slide the lens over and do a vertical stretch.


----------



## pocoloco




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *McCall* /forum/post/12339078
> 
> 
> What I said was that in my set up the image is better, brighter and crisper.



Want to trade my UH380 for yours?


----------



## streetdaddy

I will be getting a 2:35 screen in a few months. If i want to try the zoom method before investing in a lens, how do i do this?


My projector will be 21 ft from the screen. Is this a problem?


I have no experience with projectors.


----------



## GetGray

Other reasons to use a (high end) lens:

- In a higher end setup, one button press changes everthing. Masking, scaling, lens position, possibly different calibration settings. There is nothing to adjust, tweak, reposition or mask/hide/absorb (light spill from overscanned bars). In this arrangement, with a fast lens transport, it becomes practical to change aspects "on the fly". Paramount importance, maybe not. Important, sure. For example, Titles with 16:9 encoded menus can be displayed at 16:9 and after the movie is started, again, one button press and a second later, poof you have 2.35. No standing, no adjusting, no tweaking every time you want to change. Like to see the (usually misencoded) movie trailers?, one button press and they are at the right aspect. All with full panel resolution.

- No load on the projectors motorized zoom. Those little motors were not designed for repetitive use.

- Some will argue that more pixels producing the image will produce a better image. Of course this is dependent on the scaler, and other factors. If the scaler is inferior, etc. then this may or may not hold true.

- You are not as limited with throw options since you do not have to have a zoom range that will accomodate what is effectively a shorter throw in order to be able to zoom the image to a effective closer screen (for native 16x9 same image size). Not a huge point, I agree, but a point nonetheless.


Does is cost to have this convenience, yep. And the best options cost even more. Are they worth it, of course that is subjective. For the new PJ user who has stretched to get a JVC and dosen't want to go the lens route, it is great there is an option for them. For the person who comfortably buys a HT5000 or C3X and has a dedicated theater, they don't want to fiddle with it evey time they change. And they want changes to be quick, seamless, and comfortable.


Everyone won't buy HT5000's and Cinewide automated masking screens. And everyone

won't get high end lenses and transports. And it's great there is a way for a lower budget solution to produce a good result. But having had the convenience, I could never move to zooming. Not unless I saw a image degradation, and at least with the Isco III, and a decent Lumagen scaler, I have not. Subjectively, mine gets better. IMHO FWIW. Back to work...


----------



## zamboniman

GetGray has it nailed.....


A thought on the more reasonably costed equipment approaches and peoples varying results with lensing it and zooming it.


Could the varying results be more tied to if your projector was 720p or 1080p and where your projector was mounted within the throw "envelope"?


I could easily see where a zoomed image using 1080p may look better than using an inferior lens or any lens toward the wrong end of the throw range. Likewise, I can see where using a lens with a 720p unit would look superior to zooming the already less resolution projector.


----------



## Laserfan

Question for the "zoomers" since most (all?) of the pj literature ignores 2.35 screens: How can one tell for a given screen size, and throw distance, whether a pj will "zoom out" to fill the 2.35 screen?


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Laserfan* /forum/post/12342188
> 
> 
> Question for the "zoomers" since most (all?) of the pj literature ignores 2.35 screens: How can one tell for a given screen size, and throw distance, whether a pj will "zoom out" to fill the 2.35 screen?



Try this:

http://www.projectorcentral.com/proj...calculator.cfm 


Select the manufacturer and model of the projector you are interested in and afterward a set of sliding scales will appear, so you can test out throw ratio/zoom sizes etc.


----------



## D'ultimate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zamboniman* /forum/post/12341164
> 
> 
> GetGray has it nailed.....
> 
> 
> A thought on the more reasonably costed equipment approaches and peoples varying results with lensing it and zooming it.
> 
> 
> Could the varying results be more tied to if your projector was 720p or 1080p and where your projector was mounted within the throw "envelope"?
> 
> 
> I could easily see where a zoomed image using 1080p may look better than using an inferior lens or any lens toward the wrong end of the throw range. Likewise, I can see where using a lens with a 720p unit would look superior to zooming the already less resolution projector.



This was my thought while reading McCalls' post(s). Perhaps the zooming effect is better for those with a 1080p projector. For those, it would seem, that unless you get a ISCO III or comparable lense and maybe a motorized sled then the benefit of the lens would be minimal at best.


It would seem to me that some of the points that CAVX makes for a lens would be more applicable for a 720p projector. Points like greater pixel density and fill ratio are perhaps more applicable in these cases.


----------



## Laserfan

But Rich I was looking at that calculator when I made my post: there's no radio button for 2.35:1 aspect ratio, and the sliders (appear to me to) depend on it.


----------



## D'ultimate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/12340049
> 
> 
> Other reasons to use a (high end) lens:
> 
> - In a higher end setup, one button press changes everthing. Masking, scaling, lens position, possibly different calibration settings. There is nothing to adjust, tweak, reposition or mask/hide/absorb (light spill from overscanned bars). In this arrangement, with a fast lens transport, it becomes practical to change aspects "on the fly". Paramount importance, maybe not. Important, sure. For example, Titles with 16:9 encoded menus can be displayed at 16:9 and after the movie is started, again, one button press and a second later, poof you have 2.35. No standing, no adjusting, no tweaking every time you want to change. Like to see the (usually misencoded) movie trailers?, one button press and they are at the right aspect. All with full panel resolution.
> 
> - No load on the projectors motorized zoom. Those little motors were not designed for repetitive use.
> 
> - Some will argue that more pixels producing the image will produce a better image. Of course this is dependent on the scaler, and other factors. If the scaler is inferior, etc. then this may or may not hold true.
> 
> - You are not as limited with throw options since you do not have to have a zoom range that will accomodate what is effectively a shorter throw in order to be able to zoom the image to a effective closer screen (for native 16x9 same image size). Not a huge point, I agree, but a point nonetheless.
> 
> 
> Does is cost to have this convenience, yep. And the best options cost even more. Are they worth it, of course that is subjective. For the new PJ user who has stretched to get a JVC and dosen't want to go the lens route, it is great there is an option for them. For the person who comfortably buys a HT5000 or C3X and has a dedicated theater, they don't want to fiddle with it evey time they change. And they want changes to be quick, seamless, and comfortable.
> 
> 
> Everyone won't buy HT5000's and Cinewide automated masking screens. And everyone
> 
> won't get high end lenses and transports. And it's great there is a way for a lower budget solution to produce a good result. But having had the convenience, I could never move to zooming. Not unless I saw a image degradation, and at least with the Isco III, and a decent Lumagen scaler, I have not. Subjectively, mine gets better. IMHO FWIW. Back to work...



These are good points for a high end lens and transport although I believe some of these could be achieved with the zoom method as well. But, I suppose that if one could afford a high end lens and transport then the question would be a non starter due to these said benefits.


----------



## pocoloco




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Laserfan* /forum/post/12342188
> 
> 
> Question for the "zoomers" since most (all?) of the pj literature ignores 2.35 screens: How can one tell for a given screen size, and throw distance, whether a pj will "zoom out" to fill the 2.35 screen?



For CIH zoom method, you projector needs to have 2 things:


1. Zoom factor of at least 1.33x

2. Lens shift


If the zoom factor is not specified, here's how you calculate it:


Max throw distance (for a fixed screen size)

------------------------------------------ = zoom factor

Min throw distance (for a fixed screen size)


Here's an example: the IF 7210 has a max throw (15.1ft) and min throw (12.1ft) for a given screen size.


15.1

---- = 1.25x zoom factor. This is not enough for CIH zoom.

12.1


----------



## D'ultimate

I'm sure the math is there is what you just posted pocoloco but what about using the listed zoom ratio of a given projector to tell you how many inches you can throw?


----------



## pocoloco

I assume you're asking about how you can determine throw distance by using zoom factor alone? Zoom factor alone can't tell you anything about the actual throw distance unless you have at least a min or max throw (this is shown by the math). You can use zoom factor + min throw to figure out the max throw... vice versa. To put it another way, a long throw pj and short throw pj can have the same zoom factor. Does that answer the question?


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Laserfan* /forum/post/12348088
> 
> 
> But Rich I was looking at that calculator when I made my post: there's no radio button for 2.35:1 aspect ratio, and the sliders (appear to me to) depend on it.



All you need to know if the image will fill a given 2:35:1 screen size is the width.


With that calculator you can adjust the sliders by throw distance/image zoom size.


So first adjust one slider for your throw distance (distance the projector will be from your screen), then you can use the sliders to find out how wide an image the projector will throw from that distance.


That's all you need to know in determining 2:35:1 screen size for the zoom method: how wide your projected image will be.


Cheers,


----------



## Craig Peer

I thought this thread had died by now!


I used objective test subjects when I tried my two different anamorphic lenses on 2 different projectors - people that don't read these forums and aren't pre - conditioned that a lens has to look better. Nobody thought it really did look better using lenses in the 1K range. However, if you like a slightly fuzzier " film look " ( which many people do ) your results may vary.



> Quote:
> The more glass you have in front of any image source, the worse the image is going to be. That is why prime (non-zoom) lenses (with few lens elements) on movie projectors give a much crisper picture than zoom lenses. All optical surfaces introduce some level of light scatter , which lowers contrast, as well as introducing some level of image aberration. So putting an anamorphic lens in front of a video projector has to compromise the image quality. Zooming the projector lens eliminates this problem, and those people who have posted here to say that they get better PQ by zooming than using an anamorphic lens are to be believed. Ask any film projectionist.



That is my opinion at this point. The lens on my dVision 1080p alone cost over 4K. I'd not even consider putting len than an ISCO III or a Shneider lens in front of it - for what, 7K - 10K ? Not worth it to me. I'd rather zoom onto my two differnt screens and spend the difference on really good wine!!



> Quote:
> - No load on the projectors motorized zoom. Those little motors were not designed for repetitive use.



I never had a problem with my H79, and I expect even less chance of problems with my industrial like dVision. It isn't like I need to zoom in and out all the time anyway.


----------



## Laserfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/12349407
> 
> 
> All you need to know if the image will fill a given 2:35:1 screen size is the width.



Of course! (Slaps forehead) Many thanks, Rich!!!










Another question: at 14.5 ft throw I'm close to the limit of the zoom range (out, back, short) for my contemplated 110-120" width screen. Is this OK, or not OK, ie. would anyone here fret about focus or brightness?


----------



## Marc Rumsey

Since your throw is shorter when watching zoomed 2.35:1 content, you will get a small brightness advantage. This will be offset by the rediction in the number of pixels being used, however...


----------



## Laserfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Marc Rumsey* /forum/post/12355232
> 
> 
> ...you will get a small brightness advantage.



Actually I was wondering if it would be a DISadvantage to be fully zoomed-out. I can't recall if zoom-out means the Center of the lenses are most-in-use, or the full-diameter of the lenses, where I'd get poorer edge focus and CA.







Damn I used to know this stuff...


----------



## Graham Johnson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Laserfan* /forum/post/12359760
> 
> 
> Actually I was wondering if it would be a DISadvantage to be fully zoomed-out. I can't recall if zoom-out means the Center of the lenses are most-in-use, or the full-diameter of the lenses, where I'd get poorer edge focus and CA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn I used to know this stuff...



You will get a brightnesss advantage fully zoomed out. As you have an auto iris determining the area of the lens being used (edge to centre). The possibility of poor edge focus isnt that much of an issue.


Most projectors with auto iris's are pretty "stopped down" so edge focus isnt an issue generally. You do need to keep your lens shift to a mininum though for this exact reason.


----------



## Health Nut

Interesting: I hadn't considered the combination effect of lens shift and being full zoomed out... I'm kinda bummed I'm at the EXACT no man's land ot the C3X 1080 T1 and T2 lens at 1.7 throw.... which means fully zoomed T1... Afraid with the updated specs that I can't squeeze into a T2 lens which was rated at 1.7 initially, then bumped to 1.75 later...


----------



## Laserfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Graham Johnson* /forum/post/12362289
> 
> 
> Most projectors with auto iris's are pretty "stopped down" so edge focus isnt an issue generally.



Thank you Graham.


----------



## johnson_sb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/11717210
> 
> 
> I'm a believer in "you get what you pay for" most of the time.
> 
> 
> My point is if "judging", judge the lens itself, not quality anamorphics in general. Comparing zooming vs non-zooming in general, the deck is stacked if using a low end lens vs a high resolution PJ.



Perfectly valid points for sure. But for many, myself included, the options are limited to zooming vs a low cost lens. So I think the comparison still has meaning.


----------



## Daniel Hutnicki

I held a demo of the Panny 2000 yesterday using my 2.35 screen and we zoomed the picture into screen and it looked very nice. I personally have a RS1 and will be installing the Prismasonic and I have to tell you that I hope it looks as good as the zoom. All I have to say is that in terms of simplicity, the zooming is very very easy


----------



## 70MM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Daniel Hutnicki* /forum/post/12434681
> 
> 
> I held a demo of the Panny 2000 yesterday using my 2.35 screen and we zoomed the picture into screen and it looked very nice. I personally have a RS1 and will be installing the Prismasonic and I have to tell you that I hope it looks as good as the zoom. All I have to say is that in terms of simplicity, the zooming is very very easy



What I like about the zooming method, I dont have all that ugly stuff infront of my lens, its not pretty in a lounge room!


----------



## Laserfan

I wonder about something in re: zooming. Do folks here that have 2.35 screens zoom 2.4 (or greater) movies to eliminate black bars above/below? Should someone (like me) who is contemplating zooming think in terms of say, a 2.5 screen with side curtains, so as to never crop the sides?


----------



## LJG

On a 16:9 screen of say 54 x 96 when a 16:9 projector is setup to display the 16:9 image, would 2.35 content displayed 2.35 on the 41 x 96 section of the screen be exactly the same as setting up a 2.35 screen of 41 x 96 and using the zoom method?


I am only talking about the 2.35 content displayed on the 16:9 screen vs 2.35 content displayed on 2.35 screen with zoom method.


----------



## LJG

Is the above statement correct?


----------



## McCall




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LJG* /forum/post/12504449
> 
> 
> Is the above statement correct?



As near as I can make out your question the answer would be yes. Though you would not be using the complete projector panel as you would with vertical stretch and a lens, but that was not the question.


of course most people go with a wider but shorter screen which is in fact easier to view, especially close up or with a large screen.

If you stick with the 16:9 screen you are not doing constant height. In CIH the 2.35:1 image should be the largest image you have with the 16:9 being narrower.


----------



## LJG

Yes I Know it is not constatnt height, thanks for the answer


----------



## Craig Peer




> Quote:
> As near as I can make out your question the answer would be yes. Though you would not be using the complete projector panel as you would with vertical stretch and a lens, but that was not the question.
> 
> 
> of course most people go with a wider but shorter screen which is in fact easier to view, especially close up or with a large screen.
> 
> If you stick with the 16:9 screen you are not doing constant height. In CIH the 2.35:1 image should be the largest image you have with the 16:9 being narrower.



Like McCall said, most people go with a wider 2.35:1 screen. I have a 106" wide x 59.50" 16:9 screen, and zoom onto a 118" wide x 50.25" 2.35:1 screen. The black bars are zoomed right off the screen onto my JC Penny black velvet curtains. My 2.35:1 screen is a bit higher gain too.


----------



## taffman

I also use an 'almost CIH' set up. For 4:3 and 16:9 my screen height is 49 ins. So for 16:9 the image width is 87 ins. I zoom out to 106 ins wide x 45 ins high for 2.35:1 films - just a slight loss of screen height. I have 3-way motorized masking, with a fixed bottom masking panel. I zoom out so that the 2.35: 1 picture just meets the top edge of the lower masking panel, and then power down the upper masking panel, and power out the two side masking panels, to perfectly frame the 2.35 picture. That's it, just a single zoom adjustment - no lens shift adjustment, no refocussing, no black bars, and a screen width that really makes CinemaScope the biggest and most impressive format in my home theater, while retaining maximum size for 16:9 and 4:3 films. I see absolutely no SDE or loss of light when I zoom out. What could be simpler?


----------



## scottyb

Taffman,


what brand of masking system do you have? or is it DIY?


Thanks,

Scott


----------



## taffman

My masking system is totally DIY. The left and right masking panels are made from a 50 ins high x 15 ins wide rectangular frame of 3/8 x 3/4 wood strips covered with black velvet, and supported from a standard curtain traverse rod. The top masking panel is a roller, wound with a few turns of black velvet cloth, the lower end being attached to a 3/8 x 3/4 wooden strip to get a very sharp top edge for the picture. As I said, the bottom panel is fixed in place. Top and side panels are powered by RF controlled curtain motors from Smarthome, about $85.00 each. The system works very well, and masking of all formats is possible from 1.33 all the way out to 2.80. Total cost less than $300.00! - and it looks great.

I still contend that a motorized masking system does much more for 2.35:1 presentation impact than any $6000.00 lens can do.


----------



## scottyb

Taffman,


Any pics, it sounds like exactly what I'm looking for.


Scott


----------



## Aussie Bob

Ok, I ain't afraid of no stinkin' test.


I took the test.


I dismantled my anamorphic lens and tried the Zoom Method.

*Results*:

1. Re-jigging my offset, zoom and focus to suit 2.35 was a pain (as was re-jigging it back again for 16:9).


2. Image was less bright with the zoom method. As the lamp deteriorates, this will assume greater importance.


3. Screen door was MUCH more noticeable to me. We view a 120" screen from 3.5m (11 feet). Using a lens at least I keep my vertical resolution at 1.33 times the vertical resolution of the zoom method. No deterioration in picture quality at all, as far as I was concerned.


4. Gray letterbox bars top and bottom of screen... ugh!


Altogether far less hassle to switch between formats using an anamorphic lens. No re-focus, no re-offset, no re-zoom. I just slide that baby into place and enjoy the show.

*Equipment*:

* Panasonic AX-100

* Cylindrical anamorphic lens of my own design and manufacture (cost less than half an ISCO, even in a one-off, prototype quantity).

* Screen: 3050mm x 1290mm (120" x 50"), 1:1 pull down.


I can see that with a 1080 projector screen door would be less problematic as the pixels are 2/3rds the size of a 720 pixel device. The killer for me is the interchange chore and the bleed of gray bars all over the shop.


----------



## Laserfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/12531623
> 
> 
> Ok, I ain't afraid of no stinkin' test... The killer for me is the interchange chore and the bleed of gray bars all over the shop.



Thanks for that. Still, for someone like me who is new to FP, a scope screen and zooming pj (especially the Mitsu HC6000 w/shutters) is a way to get into the theater experience. I can always pop for a lens/sled later in the game, particularly after I grow weary of changing settings et. al.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/12531623
> 
> 
> 
> I can see that with a 1080 projector screen door would be less problematic as the pixels are 2/3rds the size of a 720 pixel device. The killer for me is the interchange chore and the bleed of gray bars all over the shop.



I intend on purchasing the new JVC RS2 projector - 1080p resolution shouldn't be a problem with big images and it's industry-leading black levels shouldn't leave anything visible beyond the picture borders (especially as I'll have a black wall beyond the black frame of the screen).


So that's two down.


It remains to be seen how easy I can make the zooming process or whether I will tire of it at some point. I intend to start with a zoom set-up and a 4 way variable masking system because I like changing image sizes. I find a smaller image size can garner that plasma-like punch, clarity and density, while really big images give me the truly cinematic vibe. Which is why I enjoy the flexibility to choose either one depending on what I'm watching.


Even if I end up deciding on the anamorphic lens route in the future, I still like the idea of the flexibility of an extra large screen and variable masking. Because even if I'm not changing the image size constantly, I could still have evolving tastes. I'll never be stuck thinking "Hmm it would be nice to have got a bit smaller or bigger screen" because I could always change the size for a while.


I really appreciate the effect of masking an image so even if I go CIH I'd be getting a side masking system. I figure I might as well throw in vertical masking while I'm at it (Carada Masquerade system) and have full flexibility.


----------



## taffman

Right on! A 4 way masking system is the way to go. Put your money into that right now, and then see if you still think you need a scope lens. My bet is that you won't ,and that you will be totally satisfied with zooming out for CinemaScope movies. I find my 3 way masking system gives me tremendous presentation flexibility, and as you so correctly state, it is nice to be able to go to any screen size that is best suited for a particular film. 3 or 4 way motorized masking gives you that capability - you are not stuck with a fixed screen size. For example, in my case I run a lot of super 8mm film as well as DVD, and I find that a slightly smaller screen is much better for S8 film presentation to get that rich film look.


Aussie Bob's 4-Point list of zooming negatives do not apply to my set up:


1. I do not have to adjust tilt or focus


2. When I zoom out the picture does not get any dimmer


3. There is no visible SDE when zooming (Panasonic Smooth Screen Technology)


4. The grey bars are totally absorbed in the black velvet screen masking.


Thats four down and $6000.00 in the bank!


----------



## Ebanks

If my maximum width I can fit would be 120" screen is there a good reason I wouldn't just do the screen 1.78:1 and then mask it down to 1.85, 2.35, 2.37, or 2.40:1 with top and bottom masking? No need for a lens, and the largest possible screen in all aspects given my width restrictions? The money saved on not spending $7k on a lens and sled would give me ample money to buy a much brighter projector, which in reality would probably give me more light than using every available pixel on a pj with less lumens by vertically stretching the image. On top of that there would be no zooming necessary, just masking, and I wouldn't have to worry about any of the CA or other problems some people experience with anamorphic lenses.


Am I an idiot to think this would work? In my mind the absolute only thing this wouldn't work for would be 1.33:1 OAR stuff, but honestly I can't remember watching a single thing in 1.33:1 that I would ever watch in my home theater.


So, no zooming problems, no lens problems, largest possible screen size in all aspects from 1.78:1 to 2.40:1. What is it that I am not thinking about here?


----------



## McCall

Actually viewing it. what is your seating distance to this screen? how high is it mounted off the floor? Do you have risers? can you see the bottom of the screen from the back row? your screen would be 67" high. A large 16:9 screen that size will cause excessive eye fatigue where a 2:35 will not. Also 2:35 scope movies should be the largest WOW factor movies.

Some people do what you say but they are not doing CIH. They are doing 16:9 with smaller 2:35 images. That might be called standard Home theater I guess, it is what the majority still have because the CIH idea and 2:35 is still fairly new, more and more of the movies coming out are in 2:35 though.


----------



## Ebanks




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *McCall* /forum/post/12537471
> 
> 
> Actually viewing it. what is your seating distance to this screen? how high is it mounted off the floor? Do you have risers? can you see the bottom of the screen from the back row? your screen would be 67" high. A large 16:9 screen that size will cause excessive eye fatigue where a 2:35 will not. Also 2:35 scope movies should be the largest WOW factor movies.
> 
> Some people do what you say but they are not doing CIH. They are doing 16:9 with smaller 2:35 images. That might be called standard Home theater I guess, it is what the majority still have because the CIH idea and 2:35 is still fairly new, more and more of the movies coming out are in 2:35 though.



1st row seating will be ~12ft. Back row ~17ft on a riser.


I guess what I don't understand about why this isn't considered cool is that you would still be getting the exact same size 2:35:1 image as you would with a CIH setup so you aren't giving up any screen size while in scope, but some of the newer movies (apocalypto, spider man, night at the museum, etc.) that are 1.78:1 would be much larger than if you went with a CIH setup. I understand you are saying the 2.35:1 movies are supposed to be the largest, but if you are limited on how wide you can make the screen, why would you let that limit you to how large you can watch 1.78:1 or 1.85:1 content if you don't have to?


Hmmm...


-Ethan


----------



## taffman

Exactly!


----------



## ilsiu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ebanks* /forum/post/12537553
> 
> 
> I guess what I don't understand about why this isn't considered cool is that you would still be getting the exact same size 2:35:1 image as you would with a CIH setup so you aren't giving up any screen size while in scope, but some of the newer movies (apocalypto, spider man, night at the museum, etc.) that are 1.78:1 would be much larger than if you went with a CIH setup. I understand you are saying the 2.35:1 movies are supposed to be the largest, but if you are limited on how wide you can make the screen, why would you let that limit you to how large you can watch 1.78:1 or 1.85:1 content if you don't have to?
> 
> 
> Hmmm...
> 
> 
> -Ethan



Here's a response that I made in a different thread that explains why people want to sacrifice the size of 1.78 (or 1.85):



> Quote:
> I think that's probably the way most people feel - all other things being equal, just make each image as large as they can. For most rooms, this means constant width.
> 
> 
> As a constant height proponent, I would say that even if you only watch a small amount of 2.35 material, if it's very important to you (LOTR trilogy? Matrix trilogy?), it's worth diminishing the size of 16x9. Constant height is all about maintaining the proper scale, not maximizing the size of all images.
> 
> 
> Here's a silly example: I give you 8 sheets of paper and tell you to draw Snow White and the seven dwarfs, one character per sheet. Based on the arguments above, you would draw all characters the same size: there's more smaller material (seven dwarfs vs one Snow White) and you utilized the maximum page space available. When you line them up side-by-side, will that look "right" to you?



By the way, there's no right or wrong answer. All this tells you is if you really want CIH or not.


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> Aussie Bob's 4-Point list of zooming negatives do not apply to my set up:
> 
> 
> 1. I do not have to adjust tilt or focus



Good for you. Not everybody has this luxury.


2


> Quote:
> . When I zoom out the picture does not get any dimmer



You're deceiving yourself I'm afraid. If the image gets bigger then it must get dimmer. Laws of nature and all that. You calculate the loss of light (all other things being equal) by taking the inverse of the increase in area. A 1/3rd increase in horizontal and vertical dimensions will give you 4/3 x 4/3 = 16/9 times the area. The inverse of this - 9/16 or 56.25% - is your starting point for relative brightness after zooming by 1/3rd, but it is not the bottom line.


You will improve on this because of the "aperture effect" of your Panasonic zoom lens. The aperture effect manifests as an improvement (decrease) in f/stop as you zoom wider (Panasonic lenses go from f/1.9 at max wide to f/3.1 at max narrow beam). The final number usually ends up at your zoomed picture being in the range of 10%-20% dimmer than the zoom method, dependent upon the two zoom positions ("before" and "after" zooming) and the fixed light loss through the anamorphic lens. The fall-off in brightness between zoom and lens methods is less - more like 10% - when your two zoom points are closer to the wide end of the projector lens's range. Small, but still a dimming of the picture.



> Quote:
> 3. There is no visible SDE when zooming (Panasonic Smooth Screen Technology)



We both have the same brand of projector (and they all use basically the same lens design), so I guess we'll have to agree to differ on that one. It's probably bound up in the difference between our viewing distances versus size of screen. We sit fairly close.



> Quote:
> 4. The grey bars are totally absorbed in the black velvet screen masking.



Ah! The luxury of a fixed screen! Mine has to be retractable. Large masking boundaries not an option.



> Quote:
> Thats four down and $6000.00 in the bank!



I wish this $6,000 figure wasn't bandied about so much. There's a controversy raging on another forum about whether "$6,000 lenses" are the only way to retain image quality from the lens method. You can achieve beautiful pictures - indistinguishable in quality from the over-priced ISCO - for a LOT less (as long as you don't fall for the DIY systems, some of which amount to not much more than toy lenses).


It seems you are happy with zooming because your set-up does not require substantial re-jigging of your system. As I have said above, not everyone has this luxury. Even a small offset from dead-on center in your projector's mounting position will require adjustment of the lens offset. Roof-mounted projectors, substantially above the vertical center of the screen, are a case in point. The center of the zoom is the point opposite the projector (which may even be off-screen in extreme cases), not the center of the viewable image. As you zoom the image will slide downwards on (and eventually, partly off) the screen.


----------



## R Harkness

I think CIH is one of the coolest things around. And speaking as someone who wanted to direct films all his life (I made plenty of super 8 growing up, then on to film school, then into the industry where I eventually ended up in post production sound)...the scope ratio has always been my favourite. I just love the shape and the compositions that come with it. I also think a scope-shaped screen just looks way cooler than a regular 16:9 screen.


So I was all set on CIH. I just wasn't able to end up with a fully satisfying 16:9 image AND a fully satisfying 2:35:1 image. It felt like choosing for one tended to cause problems with the other.


I don't really care about the idea per se of keeping the image height exactly constant when switching between 16:9 and 2:35:1 - that to me is a bit on the academic side. If I was _that_ concerned with the issue I'd always have to attend the same movie theater and same screen to see movies. Because as it is the sizes of movie screens vary between movie theaters anyway. I don't think "Drat, the image height is not remaining constant!"


I note that when I go to a theater ALL aspect ratios tend to be big and immersive. _That_ is the experience I want brought to my home. When playing around with zooming I found I could replicate that at my home. If I stuck with the image width I can fit in my room (120" to 124" max, from 11.6 feet viewing distance) I could certainly end up with a 16:9 image size most people would be happy with. But when I zoomed the 16:9 even bigger it too became a "wow, that feels like I'm at the cinema" experience, just as the enlarged scope films felt. And scope films STILL were significantly wider than the 16:9 images anyway, so they still felt "CinemaScope-like."


Once I viewed several 16:9 films at very large sizes, I just didn't want to give up the ability to really maximise the cinematic experience of 16:9 images. That's why I'm trying to have all aspect ratios available in very large image sizes if I wish. I DO like 2:35:1 images to be wider than 16:9 images and will still have that.


An academic issue of the fact I may not have kept image height perfectly constant isn't terribly compelling to me. The actors on the screen are changing sizes constantly throughout and between films anyway. Whereas some people seem ok with diminishing the cinematic impact of the 16:9/1:85:1 experience in order to ensure a constant image height.


----------



## mlbrand

RHarkness,


That's why I made my 2.37 cinemascope screen as large as possible, so the 1.78 movies had as much visual impact as possible. I was after at least a 100" diagonal 1.78 screen, which gave me a 126" 2.37 screen, and we view both at 10.5 feet. I only feel a "let down" when going from 1.78 to 2.37 if I have been watching a lot of cinemascope movies, otherwise the 16:9 movies look plenty big enough.


That said, if money was not an issue the ultimate setup might be TWO projectors and TWO roll down screens. The 1.78 screen could be sized to max, and paired with a high lumen 720p projector, which would be great to view sporting events on with friends over and the lights up. Then the 2.35 screen could be paired with a 1080p projector with great black levels. Alas, the money is not unlimited, so a CIH setup is a great compromise for me.


----------



## R Harkness

I completely understand that some people have found a satisfying 16:9 image in their CIH set up.


In my case if I went almost as wide as I can go - say 120" - that's a nice size scope image to be sure. In fact, I found that it was GREAT for certain movies - more epic in nature or contemplative, but a bit much sometimes for others (including for the source quality - some sources just didn't hold up that well at that size, especially some DVDs and I have lots of DVDs).


Anyway, a 120" wide scope screen would give me a 51" tall 16:9 image; a *104" diagonal 16:9 screen*. Still pretty good.


But...when I watched some movies like The Hulk HD-DVD (yeah, I'm one of the few who likes that movie) I had it up to 108" wide/58" tall; equivalent to a *123" diagonal 16:9 screen*. It was just awesome at that size, definitely more impact than the 104" size (which looked kind of puny going back down to 104"). I even watched the HD-DVD of Full Metal Jacket at almost 112" wide and it was like watching it when I saw it at our IMAX. So immersive, which is great for war movies, for "putting you there."


After having those experiences with much larger than 104" diag 1:85:1 movies it was too hard to give it up, to stick with a strict CIH. Even after viewing The Hulk at such a large size, a 120" wide scope film is still significantly wider and has that CinemaScope impact. So to me my intended flexible set up is the best of both worlds.


----------



## ilsiu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/12539733
> 
> 
> I completely understand that some people have found a satisfying 16:9 image in their CIH set up.
> 
> 
> In my case if I went almost as wide as I can go - say 120" - that's a nice size scope image to be sure. In fact, I found that it was GREAT for certain movies - more epic in nature or contemplative, but a bit much sometimes for others (including for the source quality - some sources just didn't hold up that well at that size, especially some DVDs and I have lots of DVDs).
> 
> 
> Anyway, a 120" wide scope screen would give me a 51" tall 16:9 image; a *104" diagonal 16:9 screen*. Still pretty good.
> 
> 
> But...when I watched some movies like The Hulk HD-DVD (yeah, I'm one of the few who likes that movie) I had it up to 108" wide/58" tall; equivalent to a *123" diagonal 16:9 screen*. It was just awesome at that size, definitely more impact than the 104" size (which looked kind of puny going back down to 104"). I even watched the HD-DVD of Full Metal Jacket at almost 112" wide and it was like watching it when I saw it at our IMAX. So immersive, which is great for war movies, for "putting you there."
> 
> 
> After having those experiences with much larger than 104" diag 1:85:1 movies it was too hard to give it up, to stick with a strict CIH. Even after viewing The Hulk at such a large size, a 120" wide scope film is still significantly wider and has that CinemaScope impact. So to me my intended flexible set up is the best of both worlds.



I think you're a good candidate for constant image area. Your 58x108 1.85 screen has an area of 6264 square inches. Your 51x120 2.35 screen has an area of 6112 square inches. The difference in area is less than 3%. This is probably why you feel that both have the same visual impact.


It's a good system to run, but more complicated than CIH or CIW.


----------



## R Harkness

That's interesting ilsiu but my main point is not being slavish to any particular "constant dimensions" concept, be it CIA, CIH or CIW. Flexibility is what I desire (I may watch a 16:9 movie much smaller some times as well). (And I'd point out that if I had to choose between a CIW or CIH set up I'd go with CIH).


I realise I'm not really the norm in this case, and that I may indeed pay somewhat for it

in having a more complicated system. As I said, I'll see how it goes.


I intend on making a trip to the AVS demo facilities to view some projectors, as well as an anamorphic lens set up.


----------



## ilsiu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/12540280
> 
> 
> That's interesting ilsiu but my main point is not being slavish to any particular "constant dimensions" concept, be it CIA, CIH or CIW. Flexibility is what I desire (I may watch a 16:9 movie much smaller some times as well). (And I'd point out that if I had to choose between a CIW or CIH set up I'd go with CIH).
> 
> 
> I realise I'm not really the norm in this case, and that I may indeed pay somewhat for it
> 
> in having a more complicated system. As I said, I'll see how it goes.
> 
> 
> I intend on making a trip to the AVS demo facilities to view some projectors, as well as an anamorphic lens set up.



I understand, but I think that it's not just a coincidence that the two examples you chose are almost the exact same area. You should really consider why that is.


In theory, having infinitely adjustable dimensions based on the particular material you happen to be viewing will of course guarentee that you will uniquely view everything in it's 'best' size (based on your preferences). In practice, adjusting the setup for every single thing you watch is just too much work. In the end, I think that that having just two screen sizes (either CIA, CIH, or CIW) is the compromise almost everyone will arrive at.


----------



## Brad Horstkotte




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/12540897
> 
> 
> In practice, adjusting the setup for every single thing you watch is just too much work.



Perhaps, but keep in mind that most of us here are obsessive compulsive when it comes to HT stuff. I mean dollarwise, anyone that thinks they are saving money by building a dedicated theater vs. going to the theater has lost his marbles. Its a terrible investment - but really fun.


----------



## thebland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brad Horstkotte* /forum/post/12549426
> 
> 
> Perhaps, but keep in mind that most of us here are obsessive compulsive when it comes to HT stuff. I mean dollarwise, anyone that thinks they are saving money by building a dedicated theater vs. going to the theater has lost his marbles. Its a terrible investment - but really fun.



True...but consider that those of us that are obsessive AND decide to build our own theaters from the ground up so that we can CONTROL the whole environment and not be at the mercy of some designer making a theater for the general public. We have better acoustics, seating, sound, video and can lift a leg up at any quiet part of any movie and rip a fart as loud as we like, and not worry about offending anyone at all. That is worth all the movie tickets I could ever hope to buy...... I have better, more lucrative investments than my theater....but they're on paper (lifeless & boring). Those are to enjoy for later...the theater, my theater, is for now..


----------



## Brad Horstkotte

Well said, Jeff - who needs buttkickers anyway?


----------



## Steve Bruzonsky




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thebland* /forum/post/12549806
> 
> 
> We have better acoustics, seating, sound, video and can lift a leg up at any quiet part of any movie and rip a fart as loud as we like, and not worry about offending anyone at all. ..



I hereby name Jeff's theater "Fartorama"[email protected]@


----------



## Laserfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Laserfan* /forum/post/12350652
> 
> 
> ...at 14.5 ft throw I'm close to the limit of the zoom range (out, back, short) for my contemplated 110-120" width screen.



Earlier in this thread I had asked about "zooming out" because I wanted to make sure I could fill my screen at what is for me a fixed throw distance (my equipment rack in the back wall of my room). Well, now I have a PJ for the first time (the Mits HC4900) and I'm stunned to find out that my head's been in a Very Dark Place all this time!










My thinking was exactly bass-ackwards about zooming--at 14 feet the SMALLEST image I can make is about 45" tall, so I need a minimum 45x105 (115 diagonal) 2.35 screen. Anything smaller (I almost bought a screen first, man I'm glad I didn't buy a 100" wide) and the PJ would have been unable to "zoom in" to make the smaller image!


I still can't get my head around throw ratios and Zoom factors (with a 105" screen I will be a 1.06x) but after reading & reading & measuring & calculating and still being completely wrong about all this, I must now concede w/some level of renewed confidence:


"There is no substitute for experience!"










The "good news" is that despite my stupidity I appear to have lucked-out: a bigger screen is my preferred direction to be pushed not the other way around...


----------



## McCall

Lazerfan, looks like your throw ratio with a 105 wide 2.35:1 screen would be 2.09 so you should be good with an HE lens in most cases if you ever decide to go the lens route.


----------



## fillydee

Actually I think a Vertical Compression lens would work better for the above situation since you can start off with a larger image and then compress it down.


The HC4900 would be an ideal canidate for zooming since it has both motorized zoom and lens shift. I think I am offically swayed to get this projector. Originally was going to go with the Epson HC720 for the lumens, but the low price and options of the 4900 can't be beat. The 1080 resolution is better for zooming and the newer LCD panels to boot.


My only concern is the brightness According to projector central I would be 10ftl for 49"H x 117"W and 15ftl for 100"diag 16:9. According to some reviews however the 4900 will have better brightness in "best" modes than the HC720


Laserfan how big of a screen are you going to use?


Anyone have any experience w/ relatively low lumens on a larger screen?


BTW will have a pretty well light controlled room and a SMX 1.1 gain screen


----------



## Laserfan

I am going with a 45x106 2.35 Da-Lite High Contrast Matte White at 1.1 gain. According to Projector Central at my throw of 14ft and in 16:9 mode (45x80) I'll have 16fL off the screen. I suppose tho that's Standard lamp mode; I will probably run Low lamp mode so expect a few fL less.


Just throwing onto a small piece of cream-colored cloth looks great to me now







I expect this Real Screen will be a little better!


----------



## rcase13

Hopefully someone can set me straight... I want a 96" wide 2.35:1 CIH screen using the Mitsu HC6000 projector. At $4000 it's a huge stretch to get that. No chance of getting a lense so I am stuck with the zoom CIH method. Since the HC6000 is fully remote adjustable I don't mind. We watch maybe 3 to 4 Blu-Rays a week so no big deal. The rest of the time is spent watching 16:9 HD Cable and PS3 games.


When I use the chart and key in 96" for the width it tells me this projector isn't recommended. The room is only 17' x 12' and that seems a lot less than most here have. Is my math wrong? I have complete light control. I can make it pitch black in the room even during the day. Is a lense my only solution?


The room is actually 17' x 28' but the other 16' is dedicated to my second favorite thing... 8 Ball!


----------



## Health Nut

I did some zooming with the C3X 1080 until my larger screen comes... I have to say I find it totally acceptable. The picture just gets larger... The only thing is I need a little more zoom range by moving the projector further back 6 inches. However, the point is moot since I'm going up to an 11.6' wide screen and will not be able to zoom soon anyway. The only real problem I see with zooming is that it seems to change the lens shift a little once I zoom back out. I have to recenter the image after zooming. Maybe it bumbs the end stop when fully zoomed. That seems to be the only negative aspect, otherwise I have no problem zooming. It works great otherwise and looks just like the non-zoomed image. Anyway, doesn't matter since I'm rehanging the ISCO 3 and getting ready for the new screen.


----------



## Laserfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rcase13* /forum/post/12682793
> 
> 
> Is my math wrong?



Can't tell--you haven't said how far back from the screen your PJ will be positioned.


A 96" wide screen for 2.35 means, lessee, 96/2.35=40.8" tall screen, which times 1.77 means a 72.2" wide 16:9 image. This is quite small, you'll have to make certain your PJ is close enough to the screen to be able to make this image.


The Calculator Pro at projectorcentral.com will tell all.


----------



## rcase13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Laserfan* /forum/post/12683553
> 
> 
> Can't tell--you haven't said how far back from the screen your PJ will be positioned.
> 
> 
> A 96" wide screen for 2.35 means, lessee, 96/2.35=40.8" tall screen, which times 1.77 means a 72.2" wide 16:9 image. This is quite small, you'll have to make certain your PJ is close enough to the screen to be able to make this image.
> 
> 
> The Calculator Pro at projectorcentral.com will tell all.



Sorry forgot that part. I can be any distance but no greater than 15 feet. Also I would go bigger but if I am reading the calculator correctly I can't. Bigger the better!


----------



## McCall

Looking at the calculator it looks like you could go 120" wide with no problem and certainly could do the 96 you mention. What is the zoom range on that projector?


----------



## rcase13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *McCall* /forum/post/12685703
> 
> 
> Looking at the calculator it looks like you could go 120" wide with no problem and certainly could do the 96 you mention. What is the zoom range on that projector?



The zoom range is 1.6x. Looking at the download charts from the Mitsu website it appears as though the PJ should work fine in my arrangement. For some reason I can't seem to understand the chart. Total newbie at this so please forgive me.


I'd love to have two rows of seating but alas 17' is just not enough room depth for this. so the first and only row will be about 12' feet from the screen. It is a relief that I can have a screen bigger than 8ft wide though. Although the wife thinks 8ft is too big. Hopefully when it's all in and working she will change her mind.


----------



## Uther




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jason Turk* /forum/post/11681148
> 
> 
> Sure thing...this is ballpark.
> 
> 
> If you have a 1920x1080 1000 lumen projector (for simple math). If you zoon, you use only 1920x817 resolution, which is ~25% less resolution, thus 25% less light output. If you use a lens, you will not lose that 25%, but you will lose ballpark 10% from adding an additional optic element (not avoidable). So essentially you can expect about 15% additional light output overall with a lens.
> 
> 
> Again, these are generalizations (but essentially close to the real results).



I know this is an old post from Jason, but it is a good reference for my question. While what Jason is true, am I incorrect in stating that this is not the full story? While it is true you lose 25% of the available resolution in the zoom method aren't you also gaining brightness by zooming? Everything I have read seems to indicate that this is the case, so if you were to actually compare both methods by measuring foot-lamberts on the screen, I suspect the difference would be quite a bit less than 15% between both methods. Am I missing something in this analysis?


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Uther* /forum/post/12708866
> 
> 
> While it is true you lose 25% of the available resolution in the zoom method aren't you also gaining brightness by zooming? Everything I have read seems to indicate that this is the case, so if you were to actually compare both methods by measuring foot-lamberts on the screen, I suspect the difference would be quite a bit less than 15% between both methods. Am I missing something in this analysis?



Wolfgang I believe found about 3% loss through the ISCO III. If that is reasonably accurate then the gain in light is closer to the 20% mark. This is similar to the difference from low to high lamp on my projector !


Art


----------



## Studio2000

Thanks for this great thread.


I have been researching for a while on size of screen, projector etc. I currently own a 50" Plasma" but am looking for that wow factor. I think I will make my purchase for a Projector this coming Thanksgiving of 2008, but am doing research on what type screen I would like to get etc.


I am interested in going with a CIH set up , but just zooming at this point and then later try those french prisms that I received a few months ago. Please forgive if these questions seem basic, but I am learning and wish to understand 2:35 and CIH.


Here is some information I have so far and will be looking for a PJ that can accomodate the following:


Viewing distance from wall *where screen will be is 11 feet*

Room is 17 feet long and 13 feet wide.

Light conditions = Room has no light. Its dark in there.

Objective: To mount projector on back wall which is 17 feet from front wall.


Questions:

*Zooming IN:*

1) When you talk about Zooming IN on a projector, does it mean you make the image smaller? Because when I work in a computer software or a pdf file zooming in makes the pic bigger.

*Screen Size:*


2) I tried to follow that calculator at projector Central and I took the slider for throw distance and most of the projectors that I selected (Mitsubishi 4900, Panasonic 2000, Epson Powerlite 1080, Optomo HD80, Sony and JVC RS1) did no like to go beyond a certain range. For instance I selected 17 feet as throw distance as that is what the distance would be from PJ to front wall and the screen sizes are huge like 122-133 inches (16:9 ratio) . Does this mean that I will not be able to do CIH 2:35 in my room because I only have a 13 foot wall in the front and on the front wall I have two main speakers one left and right which steals some of the width on the front wall. The biggest I could go as far as width on front wall would be 108" wide for a CIH. 2:35.


Am I understanding this correctly that I cannot make the image smaller if I am 17 feet throwing distance?


I appreciate your input.


All the best,


Dave


----------



## Laserfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Studio2000* /forum/post/12709993
> 
> 
> Am I understanding this correctly that I cannot make the image smaller if I am 17 feet throwing distance?



Yes! As a new FPJ owner I was confused by this too! At my throw distance, around 14.5', the smallest commercial screen I could do was 45x80/92 16:9, which zoomed to 2.35 is a 45x106/115 screen size. I was surprised to find that this was the SMALLEST 2.35 screen I could do...


Like you my back wall is where the pj is, in a built-in equipment cabinet, so I was "committed" to this distance. I decided in the end I could put something like a drawer mechanism in for the pj if I needed to, and pull it-out (bring it closer to the screen) if necessary, but now that I have the pj I think 106" wide is perfect, maybe even a little small!


----------



## McCall




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rcase13* /forum/post/12692995
> 
> 
> The zoom range is 1.6x. Looking at the download charts from the Mitsu website it appears as though the PJ should work fine in my arrangement. For some reason I can't seem to understand the chart. Total newbie at this so please forgive me.
> 
> 
> I'd love to have two rows of seating but alas 17' is just not enough room depth for this. so the first and only row will be about 12' feet from the screen. It is a relief that I can have a screen bigger than 8ft wide though. Although the wife thinks 8ft is too big. Hopefully when it's all in and working she will change her mind.



Just FYI it is true that you can't have two rows of recliner seats in 17' but you certainly can have two rows of Theater seats in 17' my theater is 17' from screen surface to rear wall.

I was going to include a picture of my theater with seating but photobucket is acting up. you can try clicking my signature link and scroll down to the seating.


If this is a dedicated theater then 8' and a 2.35:1 screen is Not too big. best way is to show her.


----------



## GGA




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Uther* /forum/post/12708866
> 
> 
> I know this is an old post from Jason, but it is a good reference for my question. While what Jason is true, am I incorrect in stating that this is not the full story? While it is true you lose 25% of the available resolution in the zoom method aren't you also gaining brightness by zooming? Everything I have read seems to indicate that this is the case, so if you were to actually compare both methods by measuring foot-Lamberts on the screen, I suspect the difference would be quite a bit less than 15% between both methods. Am I missing something in this analysis?



Here are some sample calculations (I like to round numbers for simplicity sake).


16:9 screen=5' high by 9' [8.9'] wide=45 sq ft

2.35 screen=5' high by 12' [11.75] wide=60 sq ft


Projector puts out 600 lumens.


16:9 gives 13.3 ftL [600/45].


2.35 with perfect lens gives 10 ftL [600/60].

The loss of light due to the lens must be factored in.

If we lose 10% due to lens we have 9.1 ftL.


If zooming we lose 25% of the panel, thus we have 450 lumens.

2.35 with zooming gives 7.5 ftL [450/60].

By zooming out we will pick up some lumens from the pj.

If we use vertical lens shift we will lose a few lumens.

If we gain 15% due to zooming and lose 5% due to vertical shift we have 8.2 ftL.


So zooming and lens give us about the same ftL (9). But to me the problem to be aware of is the 30% drop in ftL of 2.35 because of the increased sq ft when compared to 16:9. One can compensate if the pj has a high and low mode. In this case you would need a pj with a high mode of 900 lumens and a low mode of 600 lumens if you wanted to keep ftL equal.


----------



## Studio2000

Thanks for the response, For those that didnt read it, please look at my previous post.


Now it seems like rooms where the width of the room is less than the depth of the room is not friendly with Projectors.

*Question for all:*


Lets say that my throw distance from 17' equals a screen size of 122 inches (16:9), yet my room is only 13 feet wide and I can only project an image of 108' at 2:35 ratio in my situation - cant I just Zoom In and make the image smaller to fit on the 108' screen from 17'? Isnt that what the zoom IN is used for to make the image smaller?


Am I understanding this correct?


Dave


----------



## scottyb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rcase13* /forum/post/12692995
> 
> 
> I'd love to have two rows of seating but alas 17' is just not enough room depth for this. so the first and only row will be about 12' feet from the screen. It is a relief that I can have a screen bigger than 8ft wide though. Although the wife thinks 8ft is too big. Hopefully when it's all in and working she will change her mind.



Rodney,

I have two rows of recliners in my 17' deep theater and it's not a problem.

The screen in 96" wide in 2:35 mode. I use a constant area screen and am very happy with this set-up.


scott


----------



## Laserfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Studio2000* /forum/post/12712662
> 
> 
> Lets say that my throw distance from 17' equals a screen size of 122 inches (16:9), yet my room is only 13 feet wide and I can only project an image of 108' at 2:35 ratio in my situation - cant I just Zoom In and make the image smaller to fit on the 108' screen from 17'? Isnt that what the zoom IN is used for to make the image smaller?



Dave, for the sake of this argument, go to pjcentral calculator pro and look at the Mits 4900, my own projector. Set first the Throw Distance at 17', then click on the Diagonal Range button on the left, and drag the control down to the bottom, to 1.0x. You are now zoomed as small as you can make a 16:9 image, at 1.00x. Observe now that the Screen dimensions are 50high x 90wide for a 16:9 display. THIS IS THE SMALLEST PIC YOU CAN MAKE! Run the Diagonal slide up and you see that you can make the pic BIGGER but not SMALLER.


Note also that 50" is the HEIGHT of the smallest 16:9 screen you can make. If you imagine that you have to Zoom now to make a 2.35 movie expand to 50" high, thus making the black bars go off the screen top & bottom, that screen will have to be 50x2.35 equals 117.5" wide. To make a 117" wide image you'd zoom the lens to 1.32x. Got it?


Maybe 117" is too wide for you--how about deciding some movies e.g. 2001 are 2.20, so you decide to build a screen that is 50x2.20=110" wide. With a 2" border you're now at 114" wide which of course leaves 3.5' meaning 1.75 feet on either side of the screen. You'll have some black bars of course for 2.35/2.40/2.65 movies, unless you want to fill the Height and let the full Width of the images spill off the sides of the screen.


That's how to use the calculator--decide on your 16:9 size and multiply the height by your ultimate desired screen aspect ratio.


----------



## rabident




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/12708910
> 
> 
> Wolfgang I believe found about 3% loss through the ISCO III. If that is reasonably accurate then the gain in light is closer to the 20% mark. This is similar to the difference from low to high lamp on my projector !
> 
> 
> Art



The effects of an individual component are nice to have, but I would also like to see the effects on the screen after taking everything into account. I know that's going to vary with PJ, and probably a lot less so with Wolfgang's setups because of the high end optics, but for example the RS1 is reported to vary by 32% light output from the short end of the throw to the long end. The brightness you recoup from zooming in needs to be factored in as well.


----------



## rcase13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *scottyb* /forum/post/12713642
> 
> 
> Rodney,
> 
> I have two rows of recliners in my 17' deep theater and it's not a problem.
> 
> The screen in 96" wide in 2:35 mode. I use a constant area screen and am very happy with this set-up.
> 
> 
> scott



What seats are you using? Do the second row folks prop their feet up on the 1st row folks! just kidding. I'd love to see it work with Berkaliniers but so far my calcs have all ended in frustration. Not a big deal as we are just a small family of three.


Big thanks to everyone for trying to clear the CIH mess up for us newbies. I now see the benefits of both and can make an informed decision. It's exciting to see PJs like the HC6000 drop into the range of a normal family.


----------



## FutureTech

hi i was wondering whether u could help me please


im about to start my 1st home cinema and just want to make sure everything i am about to order will work.


the projector central calculator is really confusing me. i plan on buying the panasonic ae2000. my throw distance will be 13 feet and i am about to purchase a carada 112" 2.40 screen with 1.4 screen gain. will this work?


please help as am just about to order my screen and will be custom made. thanks


forgot to mention will be using the zoom method then mayb get lens


----------



## Laserfan

@FutureTech: Read my post three ahead of yours and enter instead your pj & parameters.


----------



## mlbrand




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/12708910
> 
> 
> Wolfgang I believe found about 3% loss through the ISCO III. If that is reasonably accurate then the gain in light is closer to the 20% mark. This is similar to the difference from low to high lamp on my projector !
> 
> 
> Art



I know at least one fellow who has measured the light loss from a Prismasonic lens of 2% _at the screen_, using a light meter. I'm not saying that one lens is better than the other, just that the light loss from good lenses appears to be very low. So yeah, I agree with the estimate from Art of an overall 20% more light gain in anamorphic stretch mode from the lens and scaler combo.


----------



## Studio2000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Laserfan* /forum/post/12715686
> 
> 
> Dave, for the sake of this argument, go to pjcentral calculator pro and look at the Mits 4900, my own projector. Set first the Throw Distance at 17', then click on the Diagonal Range button on the left, and drag the control down to the bottom, to 1.0x. You are now zoomed as small as you can make a 16:9 image, at 1.00x. Observe now that the Screen dimensions are 50high x 90wide for a 16:9 display. THIS IS THE SMALLEST PIC YOU CAN MAKE! Run the Diagonal slide up and you see that you can make the pic BIGGER but not SMALLER.
> 
> 
> Note also that 50" is the HEIGHT of the smallest 16:9 screen you can make. If you imagine that you have to Zoom now to make a 2.35 movie expand to 50" high, thus making the black bars go off the screen top & bottom, that screen will have to be 50x2.35 equals 117.5" wide. To make a 117" wide image you'd zoom the lens to 1.32x. Got it?
> 
> 
> Maybe 117" is too wide for you--how about deciding some movies e.g. 2001 are 2.20, so you decide to build a screen that is 50x2.20=110" wide. With a 2" border you're now at 114" wide which of course leaves 3.5' meaning 1.75 feet on either side of the screen. You'll have some black bars of course for 2.35/2.40/2.65 movies, unless you want to fill the Height and let the full Width of the images spill off the sides of the screen.
> 
> 
> That's how to use the calculator--decide on your 16:9 size and multiply the height by your ultimate desired screen aspect ratio.



Ok Laserfan, thank you for your thorough explanation. I think I am understanding this now, but want you to test me










I searched projectors with a throw of 17 feet that will still produce decent fl ratings. The only projector I found so far according to your explanation that might work for me is the Panasonic AE-2000. Here is why I think so.


When I go to Projector Central and selec the Panasonic AE-2000 I slide my throw distance to 17'. The result of this is only 11fl brightness. Thats at a zoom of 1.51X. I then select to the far left slider as Diagonal Range all the way down to zoom as 1.0X. I get a screen height of 42" and brightness at this point now reads 20fl. So if I want a CIH screen size 2:4 ratio I calculate 42" X 2.4 aspect ratio = 100.8" in screen width. If I had to zoom back out to that width in the diagonal range slider to a zoom of 1.41 X it gives me a screen width of 100" with a brightness of 14fl.


Does this sound correct? If I understand this it tells me that Yes I can use this Panasonic from 17 feet away and I would probably need a Bright White screen.


Thanks


Dave


----------



## FutureTech

thanks i think i get it at 13 feet min screen is 33" x 58" max screen is 65" x 115". so as my 2.40 112" diag screen is roughly 43" high and 104" wide so i zoom to 1.81 and shows 22FL is this good?


many thanks just want to make sure before i buy it


----------



## Laserfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Studio2000* /forum/post/12723588
> 
> 
> I think I am understanding this now, but want you to test me...the Panasonic AE-2000 I slide my throw distance to 17'... I then select to the far left slider as Diagonal Range all the way down to zoom as 1.0X. I get a screen height of 42" and brightness at this point now reads 20fl. So if I want a CIH screen size 2:4 ratio I calculate 42" X 2.4 aspect ratio = 100.8" in screen width. If I had to zoom back out to that width in the diagonal range slider to a zoom of 1.41 X it gives me a screen width of 100" with a brightness of 14fl.



Dave your "smallest screen height" of 42" is correct, and 100.8" width for a 2.4 AR is right of course, but when I work the calculator for 101" wide I get 13fL at 1.35x. At your 1.41x zoom the width becomes 105" (that size would mean 105/2.4 = 43.75" high. Regardless, either size is workable, and this at a screen gain of 1.0. Any gain greater than that just means more fL in excess of 12 (the lowest recommended). Probably a higher gain screen e.g. 1.1 is in order but others might say "more, more!".


I'll give you a B+; you're on your way. Certainly you've found a great projector option, I think.


----------



## Studio2000

Laserfan


Thank you much! Youre right my calculations were off, but I understand it now. This has been a great help, because I would have selected the wrong size screen.


All the best


Dave


----------



## Laserfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Studio2000* /forum/post/12727017
> 
> 
> I would have selected the wrong size screen.



Yeah I came close myself! Glad I could help...


Hey I'm about 40 miles west of you in the Hill Country! If you need a cheap screen, or even a temp screen, Laird Plastics in North Austin has some 5x10' half-inch gatorfoam board...512-837-2710 ask for James!


I've found it invaluable for testing cuz I have a 60" HDTV and window instead of a wall. May just keep the gatorboard.










p.s. they'll cut it for you too!


----------



## marldonnaharris

Anyone using the zoom method with the Sony VW60?


Two questions...


1) Can you set up the VW60 memory presets so that all zoom adjustments are just a single button press?


2) What does the immage look like zoomed to 2.35 at a CIH of around 45"?


Thanks


Mark


----------



## usualsuspects




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *marldonnaharris* /forum/post/12783662
> 
> 
> Anyone using the zoom method with the Sony VW60?
> 
> 
> Two questions...
> 
> 
> 1) Can you set up the VW60 memory presets so that all zoom adjustments are just a single button press?
> 
> 
> 2) What does the immage look like zoomed to 2.35 at a CIH of around 45"?



On 1) - no - on the VW60 the zoom/shift/focus are global settings, not per memory. Unfortunately the stretch modes (anamorphic zoom, zoom, wide, "normal", etc) are also global, as well as the blanking settings. It might theoretically be possible to get a pseudo non-global memory like setup by using complex IR macros to change the menu settings, but I don't think it would be reliable, too many steps and unknown state possibilities.


On 2) - at 45" high, the Pearl throws a nice zoomed image on my 1.16 gain screen in my batcave. You might find the image to be perfectly acceptable on a moderate gain or above screen in a light controlled room. At 51" high, it is clearly better with the UH380 lens in my opinion - using either the built-in stretch mode on the VW60 ("Anamorphic Zoom") or an external scaler.


----------



## LJG

If I am at the shortest end of the throw ratio due to projector placement constrant, is zooming to 2.35 still possible, or do I need to be at the longest end of the throw ratio to zoom, the zoom factor is 1.34


----------



## shodoug




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LJG* /forum/post/13028154
> 
> 
> If I am at the shortest end of the throw ratio due to projector placement constrant, is zooming to 2.35 still possible, or do I need to be at the longest end of the throw ratio to zoom, the zoom factor is 1.34



As I understand your question, you want to be at the longest end of the throw ratio.


That is, for 16:9, you are at the longest end of the throw ratio, and the picture will be zoomed to make it as small as you can make it, and then when you want 2.35, you zoom to make the picture as large as you can make it, and the projector will be at the short end of its throw ratio.


Clear as mud???


16:9 --> projector as far away as possible and picture as small as possible.


2.35 --> projector is in the same spot, but now zoomed as large as possible.


Best Regards,

Doug


----------



## LJG

Thanks doug, so if I am at the shortest end of the Throw ratio for 16:9 I can't zoom for 2.35, is that correct.


To try and clarify the throw range is 16.68' to 22.44' for 16:9.


I can't move the projector futher back then 17', am I unable to zoom for 2.35


----------



## shodoug




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LJG* /forum/post/13028530
> 
> 
> Thanks doug, so if I am at the shortest end of the Throw ratio for 16:9 I can't zoom for 2.35, is that correct.
> 
> 
> To try and clarify the throw range is 16.68' to 22.44' for 16:9.
> 
> 
> I can't move the projector futher back then 17', am I unable to zoom for 2.35



Right, with just zooming, you will not be able to do CIH, have the projector at ~17 feet and have the 16X9 image be the one that is zoomed to the largest size. the 2.35 image would have to be the one that is zoomed to the largest size.


Also, remember, the throw is from the front of the lens, and not the back of the projector. If your wall is at 17', then your throw will be 17 feet minus the length of the projector minus any air space the projector needs from the back wall.


Without a lens...


Do you have the projector already? If so, make the image as big as you can wherever the projector has to be. That will be your 2.35 width. If you are projecting a 2.35 movie, then it should also be your 2.35 height.


Then zoom it 1.31 smaller. That will be your 16x9 width. If it is a 16x9 movie/signal, then it should be the same height that your 2.35 movie was.


If you did get an HE (horizontal expansion) lens, you would have to make sure that it is large enough to let the projector beam pass through while the projector image is zoomed as large as possible. However, if it did work with your max image size at a 17'throw, then you could have your max image size at 17 feet (with no lens) be your 16x9 image size.


I am not an expert at HE lenses by any means. There might be other issues that are aggravated with a short throw through the HE lens. Since I have never had one, I have never really paid much attention to the issues that they have nor how to use them to get the best results.


Sorry I could not give better news.


Best Regards,

Doug


----------



## LJG

Scottyb answered my post his post and my question were deleted.


Here is my response to his deleted post


So if my zoom range for the 16:9 screen 81 x 144 was 16.68' - 22.44', and say I set the projector lens at 19.7' for 16:9, if zoomed to 71 x 168 I would be in the range ( 19.7' * .85 = 16.745) but just barely?


----------



## scottyb

LJG,

To be safe, I would wait to get the screen til you get the projector and test it. You can test it from a table. Depending on where you get the screen it's only a week or two.


----------



## LJG

Scottyb:


I know it is not 100% accurate but thank you for giving me a ball park range


----------



## NoNic2

Hi guys

I wonted to make seperate tread to ask this but i see this question has also come up here so here it goes... I will go zoom metod for sure so I just wonted to clear possible projector placemant posibilities for good.

I already bought 2.35 screen that is 57" high so using projector centrals calculator if for example i buy vw60 which have 1.42-2.44 throw and 1.7 zoom closest i can put vw60 is 14'10" and can go up to 20'. So 11'10"-14'9" is not good since i wont have 1.33 zoom i need.

Did I get it right?


----------



## shodoug

Scottyb and LJG,


I missed the posts that were lost when the server went down. I am guessing that the setup you are currently talking about is for constant area rather than CIH?


Best Regards,

Doug


----------



## Laserfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NoNic2* /forum/post/13034594
> 
> 
> ...I will go zoom metod for sure ... already bought 2.35 screen that is 57" high...



A 57" high 2.35 screen is 134" wide. Using the pro calculator , which as you know is for 16:9 screens, at 1.0 zoom it seems you would have to place the pj at 27' to make a 134" wide image. But you're probably looking for "closest" placement and that would be 15' 8" fully zoomed at 1.71x for 2.35 movies. You can't go any closer and still fill that monster screen you bought!


From 15' 8" you'd zoom to 1.29x to make a 57" high x 101" wide 16:9 HDTV image.


----------



## LJG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *shodoug* /forum/post/13036110
> 
> 
> Scottyb and LJG,
> 
> 
> I missed the posts that were lost when the server went down. I am guessing that the setup you are currently talking about is for constant area rather than CIH?
> 
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Doug



Not 100% Constant Area, but 16:9 image and 2.35 image not restricted to height or width


----------



## HDJK

Seems my post is MIA as well.


Can anyone comment on the quality differencies of PJ internal stretch modes and external scalers? Since some sort of interpolation is used I would assume that there are differencies?


----------



## NoNic2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Laserfan* /forum/post/13036633
> 
> 
> A 57" high 2.35 screen is 134" wide. Using the pro calculator , which as you know is for 16:9 screens, at 1.0 zoom it seems you would have to place the pj at 27' to make a 134" wide image. But you're probably looking for "closest" placement and that would be 15' 8" fully zoomed at 1.71x for 2.35 movies. You can't go any closer and still fill that monster screen you bought!
> 
> 
> From 15' 8" you'd zoom to 1.29x to make a 57" high x 101" wide 16:9 HDTV image.



Thanks for help, it can get kinda confusing sometimes, so at 57" high screen 15'8" for 16:9 and than zoom to fill 2.35 is possible with vw40-50-60.


----------



## Laserfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NoNic2* /forum/post/13042371
> 
> 
> Thanks for help, it can get kinda confusing sometimes, so at 57" high screen 15'8" for 16:9 and than zoom to fill 2.35 is possible with vw40-50-60.



Dunno about the 40 & 50, but that's right wrt the VW60. Yes it's confusing; the 57" high screen means your 16:9 and 4:3 images will be 57"hx102"wide/117"diagonal and 57"hx76"wide/95"diagonal respectively. Then you "Zoom Big" to get the 134"wide full 2.35 effect w/black bars spilling off the top & bottom of the screen.


Because for 2.35 movies you're at the absolute end of the zoom range at 15'8", I'd be inclined to mount the screen and do some testing with the pj on a table, before doing a fixed ceiling mount, just to make sure it works the way you want! I.e. maybe it'd be safer to plan 16' back instead. Good luck!


----------



## Laserfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDJK* /forum/post/13042350
> 
> 
> Can anyone comment on the quality differencies of PJ internal stretch modes and external scalers? Since some sort of interpolation is used I would assume that there are differencies?



My response to this was lost too. The answer of course is: it depends. It depends on the pj and it depends on the scaler. It's easy to generalize that any time you introduce additional processing, and CABLING, between your source and the pj that you risk image degradation. Not sure why you're asking but if you are trying to decide for an anamorphic lens setup whether to get a pj with internal vertical stretch vs. a pj without this feature, and then add an outboard scaler, well I'd not do this myself especially as some PJs have really good image processing these days what with "Reon inside" et. al.


----------



## shodoug




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LJG* /forum/post/13037882
> 
> 
> Not 100% Constant Area, but 16:9 image and 2.35 image not restricted to height or width



Sounds like a good idea. Your zoom wasn't too far off from a Constant area setup, FWIW.


Best Regards,

Doug


----------



## LJG

Doug:


What would you guess that my zoom range factor would be? 1.15 as Scottb suggests?


----------



## shodoug

LJG,


Give me a little background, so I don't misunderstand and mislead you.


What projector are you using?


How far back can you mount the projector?


Have you already received/ordered the projector?


Doug


----------



## LJG

Doug:


The projector I am considering is the Sim2 HT5000, the distance of the L2 lens is 1.39-1.87. The 16:9 screen will be 81 x 144, the 2.35 screen will be 72 x 168. I would like to use the Zoom method for this Constant Area type setup.


The farthest end of the throw calculates to 22.44', the closest end is 16.68'. I would like to calculate the closest I can set the projector to the screen and still be able to Zoom. I am somewhat restricted in throw length distance. The closer to the screen I can set the projector the better


Thanks


Lon


----------



## NoNic2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Laserfan* /forum/post/13043297
> 
> 
> Dunno about the 40 & 50, but that's right wrt the VW60. Yes it's confusing; the 57" high screen means your 16:9 and 4:3 images will be 57"hx102"wide/117"diagonal and 57"hx76"wide/95"diagonal respectively. Then you "Zoom Big" to get the 134"wide full 2.35 effect w/black bars spilling off the top & bottom of the screen.
> 
> 
> Because for 2.35 movies you're at the absolute end of the zoom range at 15'8", I'd be inclined to mount the screen and do some testing with the pj on a table, before doing a fixed ceiling mount, just to make sure it works the way you want! I.e. maybe it'd be safer to plan 16' back instead. Good luck!




Thanks for help


----------



## shodoug




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LJG* /forum/post/13044731
> 
> 
> Doug:
> 
> 
> The projector I am considering is the Sim2 HT5000, the distance of the L2 lens is 1.39-1.87. The 16:9 screen will be 81 x 144, the 2.35 screen will be 72 x 168. I would like to use the Zoom method for this Constant Area type setup.
> 
> 
> The farthest end of the throw calculates to 22.44', the closest end is 16.68'. I would like to calculate the closest I can set the projector to the screen and still be able to Zoom. I am somewhat restricted in throw length distance. The closer to the screen I can set the projector the better
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> Lon



Those numbers all seem about right to me. There is always the chance of some variation.


I would highly recommend testing with the projector, even on a drop cloth or some kind of tarp, if at all possible. Once you get everything up, your impression of what looks best in that room might be very different?


Are you zooming (rather than using an HE lens) for simplicity?


Are you going to have two different screens?


Best Regards,

Doug


----------



## HDJK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Laserfan* /forum/post/13043331
> 
> 
> My response to this was lost too. The answer of course is: it depends. *It depends on the pj and it depends on the scaler*. It's easy to generalize that any time you introduce additional processing, and CABLING, between your source and the pj that you risk image degradation. Not sure why you're asking but if you are *trying to decide for an anamorphic lens setup whether to get a pj with internal vertical stretch vs. a pj without this feature, and then add an outboard scaler*, well I'd not do this myself especially as some PJs have really good image processing these days what with "Reon inside" et. al.



Thanks for your response. Yes, I am at the moment trying to figure out if internal stretch mode is something I should be looking for in a PJ. My budget at the time is limited for a PJ only, but I would like to go the route of an anamorphic lense some day (after reading this thread it doesn't seem to be a definite 'it's better in any case', so I'll go with zooming for now).


But the first highlighted part was really what I was looking for: some 'Sony's stretch mode is as good as Optoma's' comments. Or are the differencies miniscule (in my 2-3K range anyway)? I'd like to stay away from an external scaler (not least because of budget), unless it has a significant advantage.


----------



## LJG

Doug:


What is the closet throw distance you calculate I can be to zoom between those to screen sizes


----------



## Laserfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDJK* /forum/post/13051945
> 
> 
> ...really what I was looking for: some 'Sony's stretch mode is as good as Optoma's' comments. Or are the differencies miniscule (in my 2-3K range anyway)?



I suspect your best chance for detailed answers might come after you've narrowed your list to a couple/three pjs and then hammered the guys in the respective Owners' threads on this subject.


But you might get lucky and have a Lens aficionado (in this Zooming thread) who has some knowledge about the diffs.


BTW $2-3K is not much budget for a pj w/vertical stretch. I'd been eyeing a Panny AE2000 before I scrapped the lens idea and bought a Mits HC4900.


----------



## HDJK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Laserfan* /forum/post/13053500
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> BTW $2-3K is not much budget for a pj w/vertical stretch. I'd been eyeing a Panny AE2000 before I scrapped the lens idea and bought a Mits HC4900.



I know. If internal stretching (don't beat me for this one







) is needed, I was leaning towards the AE2000 and the new Sony VPL VW40.


----------



## andy12

can the zooming method applied to dlp projector without lens shift?

thanks


----------



## scottyb

Depends on how the zoom works but most likely not.


----------



## LJG

Great thread, very helpfull thanks to all, I have a setup question.


With a Constant Area type setup, say 81 x 144 and 71 x 168, would the projector lens need to be set within the 81 or 71 height for 50% lens shift up/down?


----------



## Kelvin1965S

I use the zoom method with my AE2000, but it occured to me last night that I might get a better CR using a lens _when I use the Auto Iris mode_. I notice that when I watch 16:9 format programmes (and zoom back to fit them on my 2.35:1 screen) the picture is much brighter on bright scenes, more so than the reduction in area would give alone. I _think_ that the Iris never fully opens when watching 2.35:1 films as the black bars keep the picture brightness down. This _might_ explain why people using a lens notice such an improvment in the picture.


This has got me thinking (again) about getting a lens, but unfortunately I can't use the more common HE type as the picture would end up too wide to fit on my screen (according to Prismasonic's calculator).


It would be interesting if anyone with a light meter could check the level between a 100% white scene on a 2.35:1 film (if one could be found) and compare it with iris on and off (I guess with 'off' the iris goes to fully open all the time). I appreciate that this is more an AE2000 related question, but other PJs use iris so I imagine they would have a similar result.


----------



## Brad Horstkotte




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kelvin1965S* /forum/post/13111258
> 
> 
> I use the zoom method with my AE2000, but it occured to me last night that I might get a better CR using a lens _when I use the Auto Iris mode_. I notice that when I watch 16:9 format programmes (and zoom back to fit them on my 2.35:1 screen) the picture is much brighter on bright scenes, more so than the reduction in area would give alone. I _think_ that the Iris never fully opens when watching 2.35:1 films as the black bars keep the picture brightness down. This _might_ explain why people using a lens notice such an improvment in the picture.



I think more likely its the result of the changed focal length - when you're zooming to fill the 2.35 screen, you're effectively shooting from further away (plus more panel lighting the screen) - projectors lose some lumens when you move further away. Not sure the way I worded that makes any sense, hopefully it does.


----------



## Kelvin1965S




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brad Horstkotte* /forum/post/13111331
> 
> 
> I think more likely its the result of the changed focal length - when you're zooming to fill the 2.35 screen, you're effectively shooting from further away (plus more panel lighting the screen) - projectors lose some lumens when you move further away. Not sure the way I worded that makes any sense, hopefully it does.



I see what you're saying and I appreciate that the image _will_ be brighter anyway at the shorter zoom/smaller picture, but the point I'm making is that the bright scenes were *alot* brighter compared to 2.35:1 viewing. There is little difference in the black scenes as the iris is fully closed in either 2.35:1 or 16:9 films with very dark scenes. If I freeze/pause a bright scene in a 2.35:1 film and then toggle the iris on and off, the 'off' one is brighter. This makes me think that the iris doesn't open fully when viewing 2.35:1, so _if_ I got a lens and used the vertical stretch mode to use the whole panel, that same scene would open the iris more. That allows me to use the full contrast range of the PJ, which zooming is not allowing me to do at present.


----------



## usualsuspects

There has been speculation about how black bars affect auto-iris. There has never been any official technical statement from any PJ manufacturer that I know of on this subject. My personal guess is that any source input image that is not 16x9 shaped throws off auto-iris functions. I have noticed auto-iris behavior differences on my VW60 depending on if the source image is 4x3 or 16x9. I can't say for sure what is going on because every source is different, but there appears to be a significant difference in what the auto-iris does when the source is 4x3 on my projector. I don't notice any difference between auto-iris behavior between 16x9/1.85:1 and 2.35:1, but I am pre-stretching the scope image with a scaler before it hits my PJ + lens, so the PJ is seeing a 16x9 source for scope.


----------



## Laserfan

Very interesting discussion; might never have occurred to me without these last couple posts. Clearly it seems that at least experimentation w/auto-iris modes in "zoomed to 2.35" settings is in order.


Wondering too where one might get 2.35 test images to work with to get the black levels perfect!!!?!!


----------



## mr_fitz

I have a JVC RS-1 and I am purchasing a new scope screen and was wondering if when using the zoom method to produce a 2.35 image whether you needed to refocus as well after zooming and shifting the picture to the screen?


Thanks


John


----------



## RapalloAV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr_fitz* /forum/post/13125255
> 
> 
> I have a JVC RS-1 and I am purchasing a new scope screen and was wondering if when using the zoom method to produce a 2.35 image whether you needed to refocus as well after zooming and shifting the picture to the screen?
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> John



I have found for me it remains the same using the Mitsubishi HC6000 and HC4900


----------



## shodoug




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr_fitz* /forum/post/13125255
> 
> 
> I have a JVC RS-1 and I am purchasing a new scope screen and was wondering if when using the zoom method to produce a 2.35 image whether you needed to refocus as well after zooming and shifting the picture to the screen?
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> John



I have the same question, and have not gotten around to testing it yet.


You could try it yourself before you get the screen.


Just zoom out and recenter and see how the focus looks.


If you want, hold up a pillowcase at the edge of what will be the 2.35 screen, so you can check focus there.


Maybe I'll get to it myself, but probably not this weekend.


Best Regards,

Doug


----------



## RapalloAV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *shodoug* /forum/post/13127488
> 
> 
> I have the same question, and have not gotten around to testing it yet.
> 
> 
> You could try it yourself before you get the screen.
> 
> 
> Just zoom out and recenter and see how the focus looks.
> 
> 
> If you want, hold up a pillowcase at the edge of what will be the 2.35 screen, so you can check focus there.
> 
> 
> Maybe I'll get to it myself, but probably not this weekend.
> 
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Doug



If you just use zoom + vertical preset, there is no need to use lenshift. The focus then remains the same and to go from 16.9 to 2.35 you only need to use "zoom only" on the remote!


----------



## zamboniman

You'd probably have to retouch focus on the RS1... The lense adjustment assembly is so flimsy on it that even if theoretically you didn't have to refocus... just touching the zoom will bump the focus around enough that you would want to fix focus. Unless you're not really picky about the focus. I've found on my RS1 that as long as you're in the ball park with focus it's going to look pretty good.


----------



## 5mark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr_fitz* /forum/post/13125255
> 
> 
> I have a JVC RS-1 and I am purchasing a new scope screen and was wondering if when using the zoom method to produce a 2.35 image whether you needed to refocus as well after zooming and shifting the picture to the screen?
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> John



I use the RS1 with the zoom method and it definitely needs re-focusing when changing aspect ratios. IMO it's a must for resolving all the detail in HD media. I'm at min throw to maximize light output, so that could be a factor in the amount of re-focusing needed.


BTW, once set, I've found the focus to be very stable over time (I'm usually in 2.35 mode)


----------



## shamus




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RapalloAV* /forum/post/13129419
> 
> 
> If you just use zoom + vertical preset, there is no need to use lenshift. The focus then remains the same and to go from 16.9 to 2.35 you only need to use "zoom only" on the remote!



?????????


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pocoloco* /forum/post/11689900
> 
> 
> Brightness gains with an anamorphic lens are way overblown and negligible. You'll have way more brightness control by using the pj's iris settings, lamps modes or ND filters if you're really that concerned about equal ft-lamberts across aspect ratios.
> 
> 
> It's only true benefit is full vertical resolution.



True up to a point. Brightness gain with a lens starts out at a theoretical 33.3%, with the anamorphic expansion already factored in, but ramps down to anything from 10% to 20% brighter due to the projector lens becoming more efficient (passing proportionately more light) at the wider beams used with the zoom method. While not quite "negligible" the brightness gain from a lens is not "chalk and cheese" either.


Panel resolution increases are limited to more "smoothness" in the vertical direction, rather than more detail (because the starting amount of detail is fixed on the disk). If close viewing distances are important to you for that "immersive" effect then this is a plus for lenses. I for one could certainly see "screen-door" more readily when I have experimented with the zoom method.


The killer advantage for me with using a lens is that my projector is mounted way off axis with the center of the screen, meaning I have to use a lot of offset. Assuming this mounting situation, it follows that that the zoom is not centered on the center of the screen, but rather centered on _the projector's position relative to the screen_. Using the zoom method, re-calibrating zoom, offset and focus between 16:9 and 'scope presentations is a total pain in the a**.


Even small offsets between projector and center of screen mean that the zoom isn't centered. Even if the projector is pretty-well lined up, the image registration with the screen is not anywhere near perfect without an offset tweak in-between presentation formats.


On the other hand, sliding the lens in and out is a breeze. The image height is constant and the image placement vertically is constant. All I have to do is slide the lens. No focus, offset and no zoom problems. If you want your borders lined up perfectly, without effort and repeatably, a lens is the way to go.


So there you have it: smoother detail, no loss of brightness (maybe a little gain), ease of use between formats when using a lens.


Now, if only the film companies would provide full height anamorphically squeezed 16:9 HD movies as an option on their disks. Then a lens would be close to essential.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/13131714
> 
> 
> 
> So there you have it: smoother detail, no loss of brightness (maybe a little gain), ease of use between formats when using a lens.
> 
> 
> Now, if only the film companies would provide full height anamorphically squeezed 16:9 HD movies as an option on their disks. Then a lens would be close to essential.



100% agree. Another extremely well composed post, thanks Aussie Bob...


Mark


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/13131714
> 
> 
> Using the zoom method, re-calibrating zoom, offset and focus between 16:9 and 'scope presentations is a total pain in the a**.
> 
> 
> Even small offsets between projector and center of screen mean that the zoom isn't centered. Even if the projector is pretty-well lined up, the image registration with the screen is not anywhere near perfect without an offset tweak in-between presentation formats.



I'll be finding this out for myself. I plan on buying an "oversize" screen (2:05:1 aspect ratio, and masking) using the zoom method in my set-up, varying the image size for movies as I require. The projector will be mounted in a cabinet behind me and I"ll try to center it as best I can. But I'm making sure in my plans to allow for the addition of an anamorphic lens in the future if I find the zooming stuff a PIA.


Even if I decide I don't want to fiddle with zooming around every time I change movies and end up employing an anamorphic lens, at least with an extra large screen and masking I'll still have the flexibility to vary the image size when I want. I won't be stuck with the "If only I'd gotten a bigger screen" regret as the choice of image size will always be an option for me.


----------



## Cameron




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/13131714
> 
> 
> Now, if only the film companies would provide full height anamorphically squeezed 16:9 HD movies as an option on their disks. Then a lens would be close to essential.



I'm with you on that one! I don't see it coming for some time though.


----------



## badgerz49




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fisher191* /forum/post/12014418
> 
> 
> Zooming displays 817 source pixels vertically using 817 projector pixels.




I'm sure this has been discussed somewhere but can someone please clarify this. If the actual image is only 817 pixels vertically on scope content then why do they claim the video to be 1080p in the tech. details? Shouldn't they say 817p?


Also, my guess on source vertical resolution for scope movies would have been around 720 vertical pixels. It seems like the black bars cover approx. 1/3 of the screen on a 1080p display... 1/3 of 1080 is 360... 1080 - 360 = 720. Are you guys sure source content on a 2.35 film is 817 (black bars cover only 24% of the screen on a 16 x 9 display). I suppose I could do the math myself but that still wouldn't clear up my first question.


Any help/comments on this are appreciated.


----------



## Laserfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *badgerz49* /forum/post/13157289
> 
> 
> If the actual image is only 817 pixels vertically on scope content then why do they claim the video to be 1080p in the tech. details? Shouldn't they say 817p?



817 is just 1920/2.35, which is therefore the approximate height of a 'scope movie displayed on a 1920x1080 display. The other 1080-817=993 lines are wasted in black bars.


Your 720 guess would be for a movie w/a 2.66:1 AR. They exist in the world of film but I'm not sure how many have been produced that way in BD or HD DVD.


----------



## badgerz49




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Laserfan* /forum/post/13160524
> 
> 
> 817 is just 1920/2.35, which is therefore the approximate height of a 'scope movie displayed on a 1920x1080 display. The other 1080-817=993 lines are wasted in black bars.



I'm not sure I understand how you came up with 993 lines wasted(1080-817=993?)



Hopefully I can get a straight answer because this is bugging me. My understanding is that a 2.35 film has a "source rez" of 1920x817... meaning it was shot on a camera with that resolution and is presented that way on the disc. Am I correct about this. If that's the case, why do they say 1080p(1920x1080) in the tech details.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *badgerz49* /forum/post/13162162
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I understand how you came up with 993 lines wasted(1080-817=993?)
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully I can get a straight answer because this is bugging me. My understanding is that a 2.35 film has a "source rez" of 1920x817... meaning it was shot on a camera with that resolution and is presented that way on the disc. Am I correct about this. If that's the case, why do they say 1080p(1920x1080) in the tech details.



The staright answer is this - regardless of the Aspect Ratio you see on screen, if the source is HD, then it is 1920 x 1080...


Mark


----------



## klemsaba




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *badgerz49* /forum/post/13162162
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I understand how you came up with 993 lines wasted(1080-817=993?)
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully I can get a straight answer because this is bugging me. My understanding is that a 2.35 film has a "source rez" of 1920x817... meaning it was shot on a camera with that resolution and is presented that way on the disc. Am I correct about this. If that's the case, why do they say 1080p(1920x1080) in the tech details.



Because they count the black bars as part of the frame.


----------



## badgerz49

Thanks for the responses. That's the answer I was looking for.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *badgerz49* /forum/post/13162162
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I understand how you came up with 993 lines wasted(1080-817=993?)



I'm not sure about this math either







1080 - 816 = 264 which means that there is 132 pixels in each black bar...


Mark


----------



## HDJK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *badgerz49* /forum/post/13162162
> 
> 
> I...My understanding is that a 2.35 film has a "source rez" of 1920x817... meaning it was shot on a camera with that resolution and is presented that way on the disc. Am I correct about this. If that's the case, why do they say 1080p(1920x1080) in the tech details.



Actually most movies were and are shot on film, which has a resolution of approximately 4K (Blade Runner for example was scanned and restored in 4K).

Since the the standard for HD is 1920x1080 (which was a compromise to fit in the most common aspect ratios without any of them having too much black bars), in order to keep the original aspect ratio you have to use the max horizontal resolution, wasting some vertical pixels.


If it was shot on HD cameras it will fill all of your screen.


----------



## HDJK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/13131714
> 
> 
> ...Now, if only the film companies would provide full height anamorphically squeezed 16:9 HD movies as an option on their disks. Then a lens would be close to essential.



That would be sweet. But for an actual advantage (resolution wise) you would need to rescan (and possibly restore) most movies that are already out on Blu-ray, since aside from Blade Runner they all have a non anamorphic 2K master. So you would gain almost nothing, except for the not needed scaler to stretch the image.


Excerpts of a post by someone more knowledgeable than me in that regard:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Deciazulado* /forum/post/65276
> 
> 
> Four 35mm examples:
> 
> 
> If you scan the T2 Super-35 negative at 2k (1536 x 2048), that means it's scanned at aproximately 2048 pixels across the full 35mm aperture width (the exact figure depends on the specific beam scanning micron pitch). That would make the intended projected image have a size of approx 820 x 1970 pixels.
> 
> So a BD 1080p 820 x 1920 crop of that = 2k scan
> 
> 
> If you scan the Batman 1.85 35mm negative at 2k, that would make the intended projected image have a size of approx 930 x 1720 pixels.
> 
> So a BD 1080p 1040 x 1920 resize of that = 2k scan
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> To get the 100% you'd have to have a new 2:1 anamorphic 2k Video format. Or jump directly into 2160p/4k


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDJK* /forum/post/13167028
> 
> 
> If it was shot on HD cameras it will fill all of your screen.



Not all of mine










Mark


----------



## HDJK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/13167329
> 
> 
> Not all of mine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark



Come summer I can say the same thing










I finally have finished the plans for my D.I.Y. screen setup (2.37:1, of course, approx. 94'' diagonal for scope) and decided on a PJ. It will be the Panasonic PT-AE2000U; it's supposed to be (aside from good PQ) quiet and supports an anamorphic lens. The Sony VPL VW40 was promising (in price, loudness and motorized zoom) but no stretch mode. That would mean an external scaler down the road and I don't want to go that route.


So thanks to this thread I could finally make choice. Thanks all


----------



## nathan_h




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *scottyb* /forum/post/12713642
> 
> 
> Rodney,
> 
> I have two rows of recliners in my 17' deep theater and it's not a problem.
> 
> The screen in 96" wide in 2:35 mode. I use a constant area screen and am very happy with this set-up.
> 
> 
> scott



Scotty: What kind of seats are you using? I have 16.5 feet of space. The riser for ROW 2 is 5 feet deep, against the back wall, and every recliner I find really requires 6 feet.


----------



## scottyb

Nathan,

I just use love seats that recline. I'll try to take pics. My riser is 4 feet deep, a little tight but it works.


----------



## nathan_h

I'd love to see the photos. When you say a "loveseat that reclines" does it really RECLINE or just have a foot rest the pops out? (That would be fine for me.) I can picture having room for a foot rest but not for also having the back recline.....


----------



## scottyb

It's a zero clearance recline. Most of the newer ones are.


scott


----------



## uwansumadis

I've just finished reading this entire thread and just want to clarify a few things as I am about to redesign my theater. I currently have a 52"x92" 16:9 screen and a Panny AE900 proj.


When people are using the zoom method, they have a scope screen, correct? So when watching HDTV (16:9) they have the lens zoomed out so that the image fills the height of the screen and there are black bars on the sides? I imagine that most use some sort of masking system, eg. curtains or something? There is no way for a 16:9 source image to fill an entire scope screen right? Then when watching scope material, without changing anything from the prior setup, you would have both bars on sides and top/bottom. You then zoom the image to fill the entire screen, well actually the bars are bleeding off the top and bottom. As long as the image is centered on the screen, no lens shift should be needed, right?


Is the zooming method not a good idea with a 720p projector liike mine?


Sorry for all of the questions, I just want to make sure I understand everything correctly.


----------



## Laserfan

You have it all exactly right. Dunno about your 720p projector, but obviously when you zoom bigger to make the top/bottom bars go away with a 2.35 AR movie, your lower resolution (mine's a 1080p) may not be acceptable to you. YMMV!


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *uwansumadis* /forum/post/13278638
> 
> 
> You then zoom the image to fill the entire screen, well actually the bars are bleeding off the top and bottom. As long as the image is centered on the screen, no lens shift should be needed, right?



Unfortunately not. HT projectors tend to work off either the top or bottom of the image, not from the centre, so you end up having to use lens shift if your projector supports it...


Mark


----------



## 5mark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *uwansumadis* /forum/post/13278638
> 
> 
> Is the zooming method not a good idea with a 720p projector liike mine?



You can see for yourself what your PQ would look like by projecting a scope movie at your desired screen height on your current screen(assuming you get the same screen material). Even though it will go off the screen on the sides, it also gives you a great feel for the brightness, size and immersion you will get. I used the 900 for a short time with the zoom method before getting my RS1. The 900 is ideal PQ wise because of its film-like image and lack of SDE. However, since you will most likely need to use the lens shift, that joystick can be a royal pain changing aspect ratios.


----------



## Laserfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/13278899
> 
> 
> Unfortunately not. HT projectors tend to work off either the top or bottom of the image, not from the centre, so you end up having to use lens shift if your projector supports it...



You're wrong about this, at least wrt the HC4900 which I own & use. He said:


"...when watching scope material, without changing anything from the prior setup, you would have both bars on sides and top/bottom. You then zoom the image to fill the entire screen, well actually the bars are bleeding off the top and bottom. As long as the image is centered on the screen, no lens shift should be needed, right?"


Yes, this is the way the 4900 works. Of course, it IS true that sometimes a scope movie is not perfectly centered in the panel; in this case a little up/down tweaking might be appropriate depending on how picky you are.


The Zoom method works exceptionally well with the Mits HC4900, usually only Zoom is needed between 16:9 and 2.xx:1, never Focus, and rarely Lens Shift if you're picky and the disc/movie is not perfectly centered.


----------



## nathan_h

On the other hand, in my case, I'd be better served if the top of the image always stayed the same from 1.78 to 2.35. In my case, I have my projector basically level with the top of the screen. But I have to adjust the shift and the focus, in addition to the zoom, between aspect ratios.


Of course, the end result is an image with perfect geometry and no fringing.


If I could figure out how to shrink images without altering the zoom, I couldn't mind losing from resolution and always keeping projector zoomed out -- but that is another, different, convenience, topic...


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Laserfan* /forum/post/13283626
> 
> 
> You're wrong about this, at least wrt the HC4900 which I own & use.



No I said most tend to, not ALL. I've not seen a HT projector that zooms out symmetrically from the centre to date, and I have installed quite a few. All of the projectors I have seen tend to be based on the older data styles where their zoom remains fairly aligned to either top or bottom of the screen depending on how they are installed.


It would be much better if all projectors did zoom out from the centre of the image, not only for the zooming camp, but the lens users as well...


Mark


----------



## taxman95

I use the AE900 with zoom. You do have to use the lense shift but as my projector isn't mounted very high its easy to do. After a while adjusting the lense shift becomes pretty quick to do.


I rarely use my masking on 16:9 material as I don't find not filling the screen an issue


----------



## REF

nathan_h


Investing in a Lumagen HDP would give you exactly what you want. Selecting an output aspect ratio of 2.35(or any custom aspect you choose) and pressing the input aspect buttons on the remote, allows watching a 2.35 input or shrinking a 16/9 input into the 2.35 window. No zooming, no centering, no problem.


Alternately you can zoom the 16/9 picture in steps with the zoom button, trimming the top and bottom to get the size you want. Great for sports.


I understand this is not for purists, and of course it helps to have a 1080p projector.


----------



## nathan_h

Yep that does look like what I need. Thanks! Now to decide whether $1k and lower res at non-2.35:1 aspect ratios is worth the convenience factor of not zooming + shifting + focusing each time I change aspect ratios.


2/3 of my content is from my HTPC, which until Blu_ray could do that sort of stuff in software. But between limited blu-ray options, and sources like satellite, I cannot rely solely on the htpc.


Heck, I was hoping the best option would be more like $4k, not $1k, so I could justify just buying a second projector and leaving one at 2.35:1 and one at 1.85:1! Just kidding....


----------



## REF

This is most handy when watching HDTV and jumping between channels.

One channel might be standard 16/9 and the next might be a movie shown at OAR of 2.35. Then there may be a basketball game that just looks better and a little larger, with the crowd trimmed off the top and bottom.


There is more than just the convenience. I like to run a custom aspect of 1.17 to 1. This allows leaving small black bars if you zoom a 2.35 picture(not really noticeable with the better blacks we have today) or over-scan the edges slightly when 2.35 input aspect is selected. With this custom aspect, 16/9 side bars are less apparent and the picture is slightly larger. This just gives you the flexibility to adjust any picture to the aspect and vertical size within the frame that you want.

I may be a control freak but I think this is where having a projector has the greatest advantage. You just can't do this with a flat panel.


Besides the convenience and flexibility the HDP is just a great little scaler, and worth looking into.


----------



## sound dropouts




> Quote:
> If it was shot on HD cameras it will fill all of your screen.




umm...star wars episode ii and iii were shot on an hd camera, and they are 2.35 to 1. I believe they were filmed at 2048 by 1080...though I do not know if they were anamorphic or not. Regardless, it sucks that they will have to downrez these movies for blu-ray.


Edit: never mind, it seems that both episode ii and iii were shot at 1920 by 817....


----------



## uwansumadis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *5mark* /forum/post/13281898
> 
> 
> You can see for yourself what your PQ would look like by projecting a scope movie at your desired screen height on your current screen(assuming you get the same screen material). Even though it will go off the screen on the sides, it also gives you a great feel for the brightness, size and immersion you will get. I used the 900 for a short time with the zoom method before getting my RS1. The 900 is ideal PQ wise because of its film-like image and lack of SDE. However, since you will most likely need to use the lens shift, that joystick can be a royal pain changing aspect ratios.



I tried this today and it looks like the top of the image stays pretty much at the same place, the picture zooms in all other directions, so the lens shift definitely has to be used.


----------



## usualsuspects

There is a reason why anamorphic transcodes of letterboxed 2k sources might look better than straight 1:1 non-anamopric transfers. The 4:2:0 nature of the encodes throws away a lot of chroma info. Some of that chroma can be recaptured by using more vertical resolution (basically a way of "cheating" around the encoding limitations of 4:2:0). This has never been done on a commercial basis, but it would be interesting to see what happened if this was tried.


----------



## kriktsemaj99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taxman95* /forum/post/13284920
> 
> 
> I use the AE900 with zoom. You do have to use the lense shift but as my projector isn't mounted very high its easy to do. After a while adjusting the lense shift becomes pretty quick to do.
> 
> 
> I rarely use my masking on 16:9 material as I don't find not filling the screen an issue



With my PLV-Z5 it takes 15 seconds to adjust zoom and lens shift, and the focus stays the same.


The good thing about the black side bars for 16:9 material on a 2.35:1 screen is that they are really dark because there's no light projected there at all (assuming a totally light controlled room). They are much easier to ignore than the top and bottom black (usually grey!) bars of 2.35:1 material on a 16:9 screen. So much so that I never installed the side masking I was originally planning on.


----------



## Kelvin1965S

I've found a workaround with my AE2000 that allows me to use the zoom method, but not have to fiddle with the lens shift. It might be my particular setup, but when I zoom the top of the visible picture moves, so this helps me have the top at the same point before and after zooming, so my top masking frames the picture appropriatley. A longer explaination in my post on Page 92 of the AE2000 Owners Thread, but I'll try to explain in brief:


The AE2000 has a 'Position' menu that allows vertical (and horizontal) movement of the image electronically. As far as I can tell it doesn't _seem_ to reduce image quality like Keystone does...it basically seems to chop of part of the picture and moves the rest up/down/left/right. If I zoom for a 2.35:1 image I can raise the image to put the top of the visible picture in exactly the same spot on the screen (ie level with my top masking) by applying +32 on the vertical position menu. As it is only chopping off part of the black bar then nothing of importance is lost and 1:1 pixel mapping of the visible image seems intact.


On it's own this would be little more than a remote control version of the lens shift, but I've found a hidden 'feature' with the AE2000: It remembers the setting of the position controls individually for each input resolution. It _might_ remember the settings for each HDMI input, but I haven't tried this yet.


I use my BluRay player at 24p for BluRays and 50p for upscaled DVDs (95% are 2.35:1 at a guess), but my HTPC (which only receives HD TV at native 1080*i*) mostly shows 16:9 programms. This means I can set +32 Vertical Position for 1080/24 and 1080/50 inputs and '0' VP for 1080i/50. Having set the PJ up to align a 16:9 image on the screen at '0' VP, then I only need to zoom in or out according to AR and use the relevent source. No more fiddling with the lens shift (in fact they are both at centre detent).


If you have sources that work at other resolutions such as 720p or 480p/i then these could be set with either positive VP settings for predominently 2.35:1 material or VP at '0' if mostly 16:9.


This 'feature' might be available in other PJs so forgive the AE2000 bias.










Wasn't very brief either...........


----------



## taffman

Can someone please post some good photos comparing zooming versus A-lens ,using the same source material?


----------



## timmyotule

I'm still planning on doing this Taffman but I didn't get a chance the other week and I'm back out at work again. Hopefully I'll get sometime at the first of the month.


----------



## kriktsemaj99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/13478925
> 
> 
> Can someone please post some good photos comparing zooming versus A-lens ,using the same source material?



I'm not sure pictures are going to be very conclusive. If you can't see pixel structure the two methods will look the same, and if you can see pixel structure the zoom proponents will say you are sitting too close or using the wrong projector (their main argument being that you have enough resolution and lumens these days to zoom and still see a smooth, bright image).


I know that with my 720p PLV-Z5 there is a hint of screen-door when I zoom for 2.35:1, at which point I'm sitting at 1.4x screen width. But my next upgrade is not a lens, it's a 1080p projector that will be brighter and give me 1.5x smaller pixels in both directions, much better than I would get with a lens on my current setup. At that point I don't expect a lens will ever be necessary (for me







).


----------



## VTPete

Well, I guess my pictures weren't very good... But I swear it was the camera, not me.









Regardless, the pictures I posted earlier did one thing well, and that was to reflect what I was seeing on the screen.


I'd love to see other's photos as well. I still stand by my earlier comments that a) zooming provides a better picture with my RS1 and that b) it's too much of a hassle, and the difference is so minor that I continue to use my Prismasonic.


I love this thread, by the way.


----------



## kriktsemaj99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *VTPete* /forum/post/13482514
> 
> 
> Well, I guess my pictures weren't very good... But I swear it was the camera, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless, the pictures I posted earlier did one thing well, and that was to reflect what I was seeing on the screen.
> 
> 
> I'd love to see other's photos as well. I still stand by my earlier comments that a) zooming provides a better picture with my RS1 and that b) it's too much of a hassle, and the difference is so minor that I continue to use my Prismasonic.



I think your pictures were useful, especially the full size ones you linked to. To me they show that any difference in the image is minor (and it can go either way, depending on the quality of the lens).


Improvements in projector technology have basically erased the image quality advantages of the lens, and I expect they'll address the convenience aspect soon (motorized zoom and lens shift with settings stored in memory so one button press can automatically zoom and centre when you switch aspect ratios).


----------



## scottyb

VTpete,

can you post alink to you pics?


----------



## VTPete

 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post11716565 


The above post compares my zoomed image to that using the HTB lens.

Granted, the HTB lens is a simple two prism system with all associated strengths and weaknesses... but I have found similar results when using my Prismasonic as well. Let me see if I can find some comparison shots of that...


Also, I now have a vertical scaler so I could, pretty easily, redo some comparisons using a better camera and a bluray picture. (Didn't I post shots of Johnny Depp as Captain Jack somewhere?) Let me look around...


-Pete


----------



## VTPete

 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post12040335 


There's the shots comparing the zoom method to the Prismasonic FE1500R.

Gotta love search functions, eh? Sorry, I don't have time to search for the raw images right now...


But, last word for now: Those images, as I recall, accurately reflected what I was seeing on the screen.


-Pete


----------



## taffman

Can't see any difference. Which proves the point that the A-lens is really all about convenience, not improving picture quality over zooming.


----------



## timmyotule




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/13486829
> 
> 
> Can't see any difference. Which proves the point that the A-lens is really all about convenience, not improving picture quality over zooming.



That's what it seems like _for a 1080p_ projector. Those pirate shots aren't of a high enough resolution to see the difference if there even is one.


VTPete, if you track down the full images please post them up.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/13486829
> 
> 
> Can't see any difference. Which proves the point that the A-lens is really all about convenience, not improving picture quality over zooming.



I would not say that the ONLY benefit is convenience, but it good that the photos do not show degradations for either zooming or the lens...


Mark


----------



## VTPete

Mark,

The Star Wars photos illustrate some chromatic aberration in the star field of the lower right side of the image. The RS1's crisp white dots on black backgrounds become a bit fuzzy.


That's with the two lens system only... the Prismasonic does a better job. You get what you pay for, of course.


-Pete


----------



## 5mark

Many people start out with the zoom method and later upgrade to the lens/scaler solution. Zooming is definitely not for everyone, but with some thought about your setup and goals, it can be a viable option for some. There's a decent chance you could be happy zooming long-term if:


1. The vast majority of your theater viewing is scope films and you want to optimize your setup for them.


2. You have a 1080P projector (or possibly a Panny 720P) so that you can sit close without being bothered by SDE. IMO, sitting too far away from a scope screen starts to defeat the purpose.










3. You have light-absorbing material above and below your screen to hide the overscanned black bars. Depending on your projector's black level, many materials/paints can work, but black velvet is always safest.


4. You don't have roommates/family members who will be using the system unsupervised. Trying to teach people to properly change aspect ratios could lead to trouble.


5. If brightness is a concern, your room can easily accomodate a short throw to maximize light output.


6. Your projector location makes it easy to access the lens functions to change aspect ratios. Or you have a projecor with powered zoom, focus and lens shift (in most setups, adjusting all three is required, but of course there are exceptions)


7. You are a "bang for the buck" kind of person. You're not that concerned about having the coolest, classiest theater on the block (not that there's anything wrong with that)







Seeing the menus go off the screen doesn't bother you. Your main concern is that once the movie starts, you are getting the best results per dollar spent.


8. You can handle the occasional embarrassment of being caught in the wrong aspect ratio and having to mess with it in front of company. This is much worse if your projector location requires standing on a stepladder and using binoculars to get the focus just right (see #6)










Obviously everyone is different, but all the above factors apply to my situation and I'm still happily zooming and blown away by the results I'm getting with my RS1 (just about a year now). There's one negative of zooming I don't often see mentioned. The different aspect ratios will require different calibrations to be optimum and even then, they may have a different look to them. I can also tell that my convergence changes a little because of the lens shift adjustment. Since my calibration and convergence are the best in the 2.35:1 configuration, even that doesn't bother me much.


OTOH, I'm thinking of getting a video processor for non-CIH reasons. If I already had scaling abilities, trying a lens could become more tempting....


----------



## RapalloAV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *5mark* /forum/post/13506093
> 
> 
> Many people start out with the zoom method and later upgrade to the lens/scaler solution. Zooming is definitely not for everyone, but with some thought about your setup and goals, it can be a viable option for some. There's a decent chance you could be happy zooming long-term if:
> 
> 
> ............



Very nice explanation 5mark and all very true. Im using the same system with the Mitsubishi HC6000 (motorised all functions) and two motorised screens, one for 16.9 the other 2.35.


I have one screen rolled on its roller back to front so both screens are only 1" apart, the focus remains exactly the same on both screens, so thats one funtion I dont have to change.


We have made up a system that remembers the HC6000's shutters and zoom, so with just one press on my Harmony remote I have 2.35 or 16.9. This way I can display the trailers/menu in 16.9 then with the press of a button the 16.9 screen goes up, the 2.35 screen drops and the ratio changes on the HC6000 to 2.35.


----------



## Allen

Go HERE for my take on the convenience issue.


----------



## 5mark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RapalloAV* /forum/post/13506234
> 
> 
> We have made up a system that remembers the HC6000's shutters and zoom, so with just one press on my Harmony remote I have 2.35 or 16.9. This way I can display the trailers/menu in 16.9 then with the press of a button the 16.9 screen goes up, the 2.35 screen drops and the ratio changes on the HC6000 to 2.35.



Whoa, that's way too classy for me.







Very nice!


----------



## Art Sonneborn

I agree with Scott, using the best quality lens is certainly the most accurate way to compare the two techniques.


Art


----------



## Steve Burke




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RapalloAV* /forum/post/13506234
> 
> 
> We have made up a system that remembers the HC6000's shutters and zoom, so with just one press on my Harmony remote I have 2.35 or 16.9. This way I can display the trailers/menu in 16.9 then with the press of a button the 16.9 screen goes up, the 2.35 screen drops and the ratio changes on the HC6000 to 2.35.



What does the shutter do? Is it a substitute for screen masking?


----------



## RapalloAV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steve Burke* /forum/post/13507563
> 
> 
> What does the shutter do? Is it a substitute for screen masking?



All the current Mitsubishi's have top, bottom, left & right blanking shutters that you can set to remove any part of the image that might overlap on the black borders of the screen.


If you set these for 2.35 the 16.9 menu will be cleanly cropped top and bottom to fit the scope screen without overspill. I think only the Mitsubishi projectors have this function, then again they dont have a squeeze setting for using a anamoprhic.


----------



## kriktsemaj99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *5mark* /forum/post/13506093
> 
> 
> ...There's one negative of zooming I don't often see mentioned. The different aspect ratios will require different calibrations to be optimum and even then, they may have a different look to them. I can also tell that my convergence changes a little because of the lens shift adjustment. Since my calibration and convergence are the best in the 2.35:1 configuration, even that doesn't bother me much.



I'm happy zooming, and your 8 points do indeed all apply to me.


But I don't really agree that you have to recalibrate between aspect ratios. Can you elaborate on that?


----------



## 5mark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kriktsemaj99* /forum/post/13508457
> 
> 
> I'm happy zooming, and your 8 points do indeed all apply to me.
> 
> 
> But I don't really agree that you have to recalibrate between aspect ratios. Can you elaborate on that?



I find my smaller 16:9 image to be noticeably brighter and more saturated. My main calibration difference is to turn down contrast and I think I adjusted brightness and color slightly. I actually prefer the better blacks and more natural look of the larger (less bright) 2.35:1 image.


----------



## kriktsemaj99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *5mark* /forum/post/13509501
> 
> 
> I find my smaller 16:9 image to be noticeably brighter and more saturated. My main calibration difference is to turn down contrast and I think I adjusted brightness and color slightly. I actually prefer the better blacks and more natural look of the larger (less bright) 2.35:1 image.



The smaller image will be brighter of course, but technically you shouldn't have to change the contrast. e.g. if you set the proper contrast at 2.35:1, whites won't be crushed when you switch to 16:9. Same at the black end --- the blacks are darker when spread out for 2.35:1, but you don't need to touch the brightness control.


What I do to make the two aspect ratios more similar in brightness is use the low lamp mode for 16:9 and normal lamp mode for 2.35:1.


Also, my PLV-Z5 doesn't need to be refocused when changing the zoom, which is convenient.


----------



## Steve Burke




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kriktsemaj99* /forum/post/13509560
> 
> 
> Also, my PLV-Z5 doesn't need to be refocused when changing the zoom, which is convenient.



In the old days, most zoom lenses maintained a constant focus. In other words, once you have focused, it stays focused as you zoom. But they are more costly to manufacture.


For anyone that is buying a projector and using zooming to achieve CIH, this is a feature to put on the check-list, along with motorized zoom & shift, and (we can hope) memory for zoom & shift.


----------



## Kelvin1965S

I'm wondering if there is a way of setting the 'end stop' on my AE2000 so that when I zoom it stops at the right size for 2.35:1 i.e. before it reaches maximum zoom. As my 16:9 is convieniently at minimum zoom, all I have to do for that is hold the zoom button down until it reaches the minimum. I'm trying to create a macro for my remote to do this, but not acheiving great success with my Logitech 525 remote.


I have a spare AE1000 that has a damaged green LCD panel that I can use to experiment on; if I can achieve the 'end stop' mod on this PJ then I'll risk it on my AE2000. I then just need two macros that hold down the zoom + or - for say 2 seconds...my setup means that I don't need to use any lens shift lucky for me...only zoom and any screen masking (just sides for 16:9 on my 2.35:1 screen).


----------



## Scott Wallace




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sound dropouts* /forum/post/13299009
> 
> 
> umm...star wars episode ii and iii were shot on an hd camera, and they are 2.35 to 1. I believe they were filmed at 2048 by 1080...though I do not know if they were anamorphic or not. Regardless, it sucks that they will have to downrez these movies for blu-ray.
> 
> 
> Edit: never mind, it seems that both episode ii and iii were shot at 1920 by 817....



Episodes II & III were shot with Sony CineAlta HD cameras with 1920 x 1080 resolution, which is a 16:9 chip. The image was masked in the viewfinder of the camera and photographed for eventual projection of a 2:35 section of the total image area. The cropped portion of this image therefore is lower in available resolution from the chip since they didn't use the part of the image outside of their intended 2:35 frame of the 16:9-based camera.


----------



## Kelvin1965S

I've managed to setup up my AE2000 in a position where 16:9 is minimum zoom and when zooming for 2.35:1 I don't need to adjust lens shift or focus (seems to stay sharp during this move). I'd love to create a macro with my Harmony 525 remote that zooms for the 2 seconds (approx) that would bring me from 16:9 to 2.35:1, but I can't find a way to get a macro that 'holds' the button down for a set time. I also could do with a discrete code for accessing the 'zoom +' rather than having to enter the 'lens' menu first (so maybe I could 'blank' the screen while the zoom occurs). I did try a VC lens recently, but the quality was poor so I've gone back to zooming.


If anyone has any experience of achieving this, I'd be glad to hear.







I don't really want to have to blow £s on a Pronto that has this timeable hold facility built in.......


----------



## ilsiu

At the risk of beating a dead horse, there's an interesting discussion on lens vs zooming in the >$20K forum (starts on post #600):

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=908533 


Even the big boys don't agree on what's best


----------



## taffman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/13596175
> 
> 
> At the risk of beating a dead horse, there's an interesting discussion on lens vs zooming in the >$20K forum (starts on post #600):
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=908533
> 
> 
> Even the big boys don't agree on what's best



How true! There is just no agreement on the benefits of an A-lens versus zooming. After reading the above referenced thread my personal conclusions are:


There is no hard evidence to support the claim that an A-lens( and associated electronic scaling) enhances picture quality compared with zooming.


The A-lens main advantage is to reduces pixle structure visibility ( a non issue anyway with Panasonic projectors), compared with zooming, due to full use of the projector panel ,but also possibly because of MTF degradation by the A-lens.


The A-lens probably degrades MTF (sharpness) and ANSI contrast compared with zooming.


An A-lens will definately introduce pin-cushion distortion which may require a curved screen to reduce it.


The A-lens is probably more convenient for switching back and fore to 2.35., depending on specific projector features and set up.


Neither method is perfect and it all comes down to personal visual and ergonomic preference in a specific HT set up.


----------



## Art Sonneborn

Going back and forth between a zoom and the ISCOIII using half a million fewer pixels than an ISCO III was blatently obvious in it's negative effect. Pixel structure visibility became egregious between 1.3X width and SMPTE minimum seating distance. IMO the picture quality degredation resulting from the 24% loss of pixels from zooming becomes the overarching picture degredation issue not loss of ANSI contrast or MTF.


Of course you could sit back far enough such that this is not an issue but this could be said about comparing a 1080p to 720p 3chip .This needs to be considered.


Art


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/13601405
> 
> 
> Going back and forth between a zoom and the ISCOIII using half a million fewer pixels than an ISCO III was blatently obvious in it's negative effect.



Well said Art










Mark


----------



## 5mark

Art, I think we're in agreement that sitting close is desireable as long as pleasing PQ can be achieved (to our eyes at least, since normal people aren't bothered by what we stress over)







Would you also agree that different projector technologies can be more suited for zooming than others? My RS1 has very good convergence and sharpness and at 1.0X SW I do see slight pixel structure on some bright areas. But it doesn't bother me since the vast majority of the time it is very smooth and film-like.(My only complaint about sitting close is that not all transfers look like say, Serenity) From what I've read and experienced, it sure seems like LCOS is the technology most suited for using the zoom method. Of course everyone will have a different opinion on optimum seating distance and what acceptable PQ is.


----------



## Art Sonneborn

Yes, in my experience I would agree with that for several reasons.


Art


----------



## taffman

My first row of seats is 1.0 width from a 108 ins wide 2.35 :1 screen. With my Panasonic projector zoomed to this width , there is no detectable pixel structure at all at this distance. So exactly what improvement in picture quality can I expect, in my particular set up, by adding an A-lens? Will it be sharper? Will it be brighter? Will it have improved contrast? Exactly what would I get for my $6000.00 plus?


----------



## Art Sonneborn

Just out of curiousity, have you looked at any full bandwidth res patterns when you zoom and can't see any pixels at one screen width while zooming ?


Art


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/13608776
> 
> 
> Exactly what would I get for my $6000.00 plus?



I hope you intend to upgrade your projector if you buy the ISCO III...


Mark


----------



## 5mark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/13608776
> 
> 
> My first row of seats is 1.0 width from a 108 ins wide 2.35 :1 screen. With my Panasonic projector zoomed to this width , there is no detectable pixel structure at all at this distance. So exactly what improvement in picture quality can I expect, in my particular set up, by adding an A-lens? Will it be sharper? Will it be brighter? Will it have improved contrast? Exactly what would I get for my $6000.00 plus?



C'mon, I know you're half-kidding, right?







In your situation it would make so much more sense to upgrade the projector before even thinking about adding a lens. (Say the Panny 1080P, should be perfect for zooming.)


Not to put down the 720P Pannys. I loved my Panny 900 for the short time I was zooming from 1 SW. In some ways it even handled SD DVDs better than the RS1. (Kind of "smoothed" out the artifacts) It was the ultimate "bang for the buck" CIH setup.


----------



## Bobby_M

5mark,

Thanks for the link to this thread on my other post. I swear I searched....


I think one of the biggest drawbacks to any CIH system is the spousal acceptance of switching when I'm not around. I just have to remember to leave it in 16:9 mode whenever I leave the house. Any 2.35 content will have the same shape and size as it currently does on my 16:9 screen.


I plan to mount the z2000 at a throw that will allow my planned dual AR zooming and try it out on the current screen before I go through the trouble of a new one. The biggest motivator for doing this at all is my confined height and 5 years with this screen size, 75" wide, has lost its impact.










You can see that a scope will take me out near the L/R speakers and still fit between the CC speaker and the mantle. I'm a little worried about the letterbox bleed showing up on the white paint but I might add some velvet onto the top of the mantle that can be folded down when necessary.


Bobby


----------



## wse

Zooming works best for me cheaper and less distortion than with an anamorphic lens


Downside: I need to zoom back for 16:9 widescreen but I save $6000 and get a better picture


Equipement: JVC DLA RS2 and StewartFilmScreen FireHawk G3 (10 feet wide 2.35 aspect ratio)


----------



## nathan_h




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bobby_M* /forum/post/14337082
> 
> 
> 5mark,
> 
> Thanks for the link to this thread on my other post. I swear I searched....
> 
> 
> I think one of the biggest drawbacks to any CIH system is the spousal acceptance of switching when I'm not around. I just have to remember to leave it in 16:9 mode whenever I leave the house. Any 2.35 content will have the same shape and size as it currently does on my 16:9 screen.
> 
> 
> I plan to mount the z2000 at a throw that will allow my planned dual AR zooming and try it out on the current screen before I go through the trouble of a new one. The biggest motivator for doing this at all is my confined height and 5 years with this screen size, 75" wide, has lost its impact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can see that a scope will take me out near the L/R speakers and still fit between the CC speaker and the mantle. I'm a little worried about the letterbox bleed showing up on the white paint but I might add some velvet onto the top of the mantle that can be folded down when necessary.
> 
> 
> Bobby



Actually, I'd say that while I love my 2:35:1 setup and use the zoom method for the sharpness, clarity, geometry, and budget reasons.... in your situation, if your primary goal is BIGGER rather than constant height, a nice drop down screen would be great.


----------



## mattr762

Is "The Dark Knight" on blu-ray the perfect example of not going 2:35:1? With the 16:9 IMAX footage placed arbitrarily through out the movie. How do you guys with lenses handle that? It's obviously not worth changing if you use the zooming method.


----------



## nathan_h

The Dark Knight was really annoying that way: I want a theatrical experience and would would have preferred if they matted the imax to match the rest of the film -- or at least gave us the option via seamless branching.


As it was, that extra stuff was just off the screen in my room, and created a faint glow.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nathan_h* /forum/post/16004761
> 
> 
> I want a theatrical experience and would would have preferred if they matted the imax to match the rest of the film



I guess Warner figured that the IMAX presentation was the "best Theatrical Experience, and so why it was done. Using a lens meant that I was never distracted by the AR change, but your right, end users should have a choice and seemless branhing would have made allot of sense in this case.


----------



## mgolanlan

388 posts later, and still no picture comparison of the ISCO lens?

This can only mean one thing it my book - the image is not as good as you'd expect.


I've done my own tests with HTPC, with internet text being displayed...


I've tried only a DIY VC crystal glass prims lens, since I've to pay $$$$ for the rest. Projector is Epson 6500/7500 (actually european 5000).


I concluded what seems to be the common thread here:


1. A prism-based lens will make the picture soft - very noticeable on text

2. A VC lens will gain you some light, but less than you'd expect (10-15%)

3. A HE lens will not gain any light compared to zooming (due to zoom gain)

4. The extra pixels are NOT new information/details.

5. Even a perfect ISCO III cannot provide a "better picture" compared to zoom, PQ-wise (brightness, contrast, textual display, etc)


My DIY prisms lens looked pretty good, except for TEXT. Yes, isn't so bad in movies (film soft-look). Yes, a $2000 UV200 lens will be better (but still softer than no lens).


Overall, I'm only sorry I didn't get the Pana 3000 which has a built-in lens option for 2.35. My conclusion to anyone looking at current projectors in this price range for CIH? get the Panasonic!


----------



## CRGINC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pocoloco* /forum/post/11689900
> 
> 
> Brightness gains with an anamorphic lens are way overblown and negligible. You'll have way more brightness control by using the pj's iris settings, lamps modes or ND filters if you're really that concerned about equal ft-lamberts across aspect ratios.
> 
> 
> It's only true benefit is full vertical resolution.



Using zooming for a decade the real difference is not the picture quality. It is the lack of over spray of the unused pixels when using a lens. Most cinemascope movies either have widescreen previews and or setup menues that spill over the top and bottom of the screen. Even if you blank it out with the video processor you may not be able to read the setup screen. It is not until the movie actually starts that you can zoom. I usually leave the video processor set in 1.78/1.85 mode until the main feature starts and then go to the 2.35 mode. So painless and easy just to push the aspect button and enjoy.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mgolanlan* /forum/post/16006680
> 
> 
> 388 posts later, and still no picture comparison of the ISCO lens?
> 
> This can only mean one thing it my book - the image is not as good as you'd expect.



The prehaps you need to check THIS LINK .



> Quote:
> I've done my own tests with HTPC, with internet text being displayed...
> 
> 
> I've tried only a DIY VC crystal glass prims lens, since I've to pay $$$$ for the rest. Projector is Epson 6500/7500 (actually european 5000).
> 
> 
> I concluded what seems to be the common thread here:
> 
> 
> 1. A prism-based lens will make the picture soft - very noticeable on text
> 
> 2. A VC lens will gain you some light, but less than you'd expect (10-15%)
> 
> 3. A HE lens will not gain any light compared to zooming (due to zoom gain)
> 
> 4. The extra pixels are NOT new information/details.
> 
> 5. Even a perfect ISCO III cannot provide a "better picture" compared to zoom, PQ-wise (brightness, contrast, textual display, etc)



Maybe you need to consider the following points which relate to your point 1 only.


1. The surface quality of the trophies you have used is not good enough!!! Yes they are smooth, but they are NOT true optical quality even close to 60/40 scratch and dig which is a minimum optical grade suface finish required for a len such as the anamorphic lens.


2. There is NO CA CORRECTION in trophies! Part of the reason the image becaomes soft is because the light is being broken up.


3. NO Astigmatism correction. Therefore, you also see the DEFOCUS properties of the trophies and hence WHY the image looks soft.


Moving on and the fact that every one that says zooming is better than a lens misses is simply this - YOUR IMAGE when using a lens and 1080 projector WILL BE made up of over 2M pixles. When you zoom, you throw away 25% of the vertical rez to start, then you also expanding the remaining in both the horizontal and vertical directions. IE you may as well be watching a 720 projector (well 810 if they made such a device).


----------



## nathan_h




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16007021
> 
> 
> When you zoom, you throw away 25% of the vertical rez to start, then you also expanding the remaining in both the horizontal and vertical directions. IE you may as well be watching a 720 projector (well 810 if they made such a device).



I agree that the lens method can be very good.


But I disagree about throwing away resolution: I'm seeing every pixel that is encoded with picture information on my 1080p 2.4:1 blu-ray discs, using a zoom method. The only thing I am missing are the black bars.


Now, if I was seeing actual pixel structure, I'd want to back off this approach. But that's not happening with my setup.


----------



## CAVX

Right now I am watching a Star Wars film and it is being upscaled by my BD-P1500 from (PAL) 576 to 1080. The image is softer than a true HD 1080 BD, but it is made up of 1920 x 1080 pixles none the less.


----------



## mgolanlan

CVAX:

>>The prehaps you need to check THIS LINK.


This LINK is a nice picture of an expensive setup. It does not show zoom-vs-isco pictures, esp. of some display grid/chart.


>>1. The surface quality of the trophies you have used is not good enough!!! Yes they are smooth, but they are NOT true optical quality even close to 60/40 scratch and dig which is a minimum optical grade suface finish required for a len such as the anamorphic lens.


I'm well aware of it - but - when placed in front of the pj as "see thru" it has little or no bad effect. The effect gets worse as the increase in compression gets worse. Surely, a $2000 lens UV200 will be better, but I'm also certain it won't be perfect.


>>2. There is NO CA CORRECTION in trophies! Part of the reason the image becaomes soft is because the light is being broken up.


I'm doing a VC lens. None exist with CA correction and it is considered by the industry as a non-issue due to compression.


3. NO Astigmatism correction. Therefore, you also see the DEFOCUS properties of the trophies and hence WHY the image looks soft.


Maybe. I'm not sure about this being correctable and by how much by existing VC lens.


>>Moving on and the fact that every one that says zooming is better than a lens misses is simply this - YOUR IMAGE when using a lens and 1080 projector WILL BE made up of over 2M pixles. When you zoom, you throw away 25% of the vertical rez to start, then you also expanding the remaining in both the horizontal and vertical directions. IE you may as well be watching a 720 projector (well 810 if they made such a device).


I'd believe that viewing 1.5Mpix on a 2Mpix screen is better than on a 1.5Mpix screen when I see patter charts and text comparisons with a good camera. I'd say the burden of proof is upon the people who claim a $6000 lens is a good way to spend money (when many 1080p pj cost less now)


This whole argument, I'm sorry, sounds odd. We're talking an expensive add-on optical device. A proof of its benefits should be simple and fast to setup, take photos of, and publish. And not some paused movie, but real patterns. I know we watch movies, not patterns, but pattern comparison is more objective.


----------



## ilsiu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16007021
> 
> 
> The prehaps you need to check THIS LINK .



Since that only shows the images produced by the Isco, still not sure how much improvement there is over a zoomed image. Those are very nice images.


Here's some images from forum member Chris Dallas. It's a zoomed CIH on a *150" wide* screen:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=852 


Not bad for just 1.5M pixels, eh?


----------



## ilsiu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mgolanlan* /forum/post/16006680
> 
> 
> 1. A prism-based lens will make the picture soft - very noticeable on text



To be fair, the top end prism lenses can be very sharp. Here's a post looking at the entry level, mid-level, and top end offerings from Prismasonic vs no lens. I'd say the 5 element H5000 lens shows no sharpness degradation with only a small hint of CA (purple fringing).

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=122 


They have drastically cut their prices recently, so even the top model is less than 2k USD. More affordable than the Isco, but still too high for me


----------



## mgolanlan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/16008994
> 
> 
> To be fair, the top end prism lenses can be very sharp. Here's a post looking at the entry level, mid-level, and top end offerings from Prismasonic vs no lens. I'd say the 5 element H5000 lens shows no sharpness degradation with only a small hint of CA (purple fringing).
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=122
> 
> 
> They have drastically cut there prices recently, so even the top model is less than 2k USD. More affordable than the Isco, but still too high for me



First, thank you for the link. Its great information.

Second, I disagree with your assesment of "very sharp". Certainly, if you look at the older/simpler lens, they look worse. But if you simply compare the original and the HT5000 you still see noticeable degredation in sharpness.


What I'd like to see is actual TEXT display. In my 14' wide (200" diagonal) CIH 235 screen with 1080p zoomed, I can see the HTPC sharp edge-to-edge. I'd be surprised, given the above link sample, if the text is still as sharp after The HT5000 is in place. (pj is Epson 5000 aka 6500/7500)


This is a simple sharpness argument, very simple to test and judge. I'm aware that some people believe softer picture is actually better, but this is subjective.


If a textual picture looks better in 1.5Mpix than in 2Mpix, I personally see no reason to use the lens, and I disagree that the 1.5Mpix is "wasting some of the pixels" if more pixels means overall less sharpness.


To define "better" for a textual screen, simply draw text as small as possible (eg internet explorer ctrl and +- keys) that it is still readable...


----------



## LJG

This is what can be attained with zooming, but not with a lens. Constant Area setup

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...65482957005659


----------



## nathan_h




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16008367
> 
> 
> Right now I am watching a Star Wars film and it is being upscaled by my BD-P1500 from (PAL) 576 to 1080. The image is softer than a true HD 1080 BD, but it is made up of 1920 x 1080 pixles none the less.



I'm satisfied with seeing all the pixels that are part of my source, dot-for-dot exactly as they are on the source, and don't feel the need to scale them. YMMV.


---


But of course, this conversation for you is like a walking into a sports bar (this topic) when a home teem's game is playing on the TV (zoom method), and rooting for the other team (your scaling + lens method)..... so I'm not sure we'll do much better than to agree to disagree.


----------



## CAVX

So I guess you hope they never bring out true anamorphic titles then


----------



## nathan_h




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16013848
> 
> 
> So I guess you hope they never bring out true anamorphic titles then



Assuming I'm still gainfully employed, I'll be first in line to buy those titles and an anamorphic lens


----------



## Jacob B

aarrhh

I just lost a long post due to spell control. Anyway. Short version:


I think many of the arguments of the pro lens camp (i used to have an older Prismasonic H500 by the way, but too much CA and softness made me sell it last year) have been overtaken by:


- 1080P material and 1080P projectors:

now you don't need to scale 16:9 material and are therefore used to the fantastic sharpness of such an image. Scaling can introduce artifacts and less perceived sharpness, which might bother you when shifting from 16:9 to scope.


- Cheap projectors with memory functions for zooming 2.35:1 material (e.g. Panny 3000):

The convinience factor is now equal. A BIG THING.

*Now for SD or 720P material*, when scaling will be done _anyway_, an A-lens will probably perform better (more light and less SDE), since the biggest A-lens downside (the scaling) is done in zooming as well (I presume no one is using 1:1 pixel mapping on SD material on a 1080P projector...).

But if you don't need the light (and zooming gains light as well!!) and sit far enough away, it might not do you any good (for the buck)


Now, if the budget is huge, the best scaler and the best lens will probably have neglectable downsides, and those on a big budget normally run huge HT - and thus need the extra light and maybe the less SDE as well (close 1st row).


So - I will start with upgrading my Z4 to a Panny 3000, and see whether I am satisfied. Then I can always add a lens (again).


my 2 cents


----------



## Jacob B

by the way, as part of a HT reconstruction project, I am planning on changing the pull down 92" x 39" DaLite High Power 2:35:1 screen to a SMX AT scope screen.

*1.* I don't know whether to by a _curved or a flat_ screen, since I might not buy a lens again (as per post above).









A curved screen has a certain coolness factor, but if I end up never buying a lens, it's an expensive coolness (+1000 $). Plus, I will have to overscan the pincushion due to lack of lens (how much and does it matter?)

*2.* I don't know whether to buy a 2.37:1, a 2.39:1 or a 2.40:1 screen...









If I DON'T end up with a lens, 2.37:1 seems wrong. And with a Prismasonic variable lens, 2.37:1 seems wrong as well...

But is it then a 2.39:1 or 2.40:1 screen? On DVDs it says 2.40 or 2.35:1 on most scope movies. I have never seen "2.39:1". However, that is what I hear is used in comercial theaters










Jacob


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jacob B* /forum/post/16015760
> 
> 
> by the way, as part of a HT reconstruction project, I am planning on changing the pull down 92" x 39" DaLite High Power 2:35:1 screen to a SMX AT scope screen.
> 
> *1.* I don't know whether to by a _curved or a flat_ screen, since I might not buy a lens again (as per post above).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A curved screen has a certain coolness factor, but if I end up never buying a lens, it's an expensive coolness (+1000 $). Plus, I will have to overscan the pincushion due to lack of lens (how much and does it matter?)



Actually you will have barreling if you buy a curved screen and zoom...

*2.* I don't know whether to buy a 2.37:1, a 2.39:1 or a 2.40:1 screen...









If I DON'T end up with a lens, 2.37:1 seems wrong. And with a Prismasonic variable lens, 2.37:1 seems wrong as well...

But is it then a 2.39:1 or 2.40:1 screen? On DVDs it says 2.40 or 2.35:1 on most scope movies. I have never seen "2.39:1". However, that is what I hear is used in comercial theaters









> Look at the case of Ratatouille. It says for Video: 1080P High Definition / 2.39:1. If you really plan on zooming, then go for a 2.40:1. Even though the shape of the light is 2.37:1 when using a lens, using a 2.40:1 screen ensures that (with a very small amount of zoom) all ARs to 2.40:1 are full screen.
> 
> 
> Shame you didn't get the 1000 instead of the 500. It was CA corrected and upgradable as well. I doubt that you would have sold it.


----------



## Jacob B

Mark,

you skipped answering whether you would buy a 3000+ $ curved screen if you are not sure you will upgrade with a lens at a later point...










best,

Jacob


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jacob B* /forum/post/16016115
> 
> 
> Mark,
> 
> you skipped answering whether you would buy a 3000+ $ curved screen if you are not sure you will upgrade with a lens at a later point...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> best,
> 
> Jacob



Umm, what exactly did you want to know?

I did recently upgrade my lens (MK3 is now CA corrected) and I do have a curved AT screen , though at this point in time, it is in storage. I didn't pay $3K+ for it though










The short answer is this: No I would never go back to zooming.


----------



## mgolanlan

CAVX:>>The short answer is this: No I would never go back to zooming


Sort of gives your bias... I planned on a lens, ended up realizing zooming is a more reasonable option, will go lens if I'm convinced it will improve things ...


I used to own a CRT, tried digital, ended up DLP at one point, now using latest LCD. Its only technology. Best is to apply whatever is available now, realizing new and improved equipment will be here within 2-3 years.


But I do think anyone who intends to purchase a $3000-$5000 pj will be happier with the money saved (screen, lens) compared to any improvement, even if I get convinced it really is better (which at this point, I'm not!)


I'm also certain anamorphic 235 Bluray titles will be available, if ever, only after a 4Mpix DLP/LCD chips are available, allowing for true 235 picture...


----------



## wse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pocoloco* /forum/post/11689740
> 
> 
> This issue is very simple.
> 
> 
> If: - you don't mind the "hassle" of zooming and refocusing between aspect ratios.
> 
> - and you don't see pixel structure...
> 
> 
> zooming will result in the best image quality and the benefits will far outweigh the benefits of a anamorphic lens system. This is especially true if you have a 1080p pj.
> 
> 
> Why? Because the best lens is no lens. The very best anamorphic lenses cannot improve the picture. It's more a matter of not harming the existing image fidelity.
> 
> 
> Now if you want an automated experience, full rez, and have the cash... then get high grade optics and go for it. But getting cheaper anamorphic lenses... trust me you are better off zooming.



I could not agree more if only the manufacturer would provide an anamorphic lens taht one could change like on SLR camera that would be the ultimate







In the mean time I will continue zooming







I have a JVC DLA RS2 and a 2:35 screen, I should have bought a 2:40 screen instead


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> I could not agree more if only the manufacturer would provide an anamorphic lens taht one could change like on SLR camera that would be the ultimate...



Can't do, unfortunately.


1. It would be too heavy and cumbersome. The beam widths of HT projectors (due to large screens relative to the throw distance... low TRs in other words) mean the glass has to be of large diameter. Large diameter glass means thicker through the middle of the lens (and most of its elements), which means proportionally more weight. If you double the size of an SLR lens you increase its weight by a factor of four.


2. A fixed lens bayoneting or screwing onto the prime projector lens would only work if there was no offset involved, i.e. if the projector was straight-on to the screen, and centered on it. Otherwise you have to tilt the lens, yaw it and offset it it vertically and/or horizontally to get the beam centered through the lens. So your mount would have to be gimballed.


3. It would be a lot of trouble to slide the lens out of the way.


4. Because there are so many different shapes of projectors, with different mechanical recesses, it would be virtually impossible to design a casing for the A-lens that suited everything.


Generally, the impossibility of executing a general design (for the reasons above) would make such a lens horrendously expensive to manufacture. You'd have to have a different mounting kit for every projector, plus support for the weight. Even if you made a specific lens for a specific projector it would be unlikely to work well with other projectors, and may not even work in all circumstances with the one it was designed for.


Cinema projectors _do_ have fixed mountings, but this is because their chassis can support the weight, they generally project straight on at high TRs, and the prime projector lens stands proud of the chassis, allowing access room. Forget about sleds with cinema A-lenses. They have complicated arm mechanisms to swing the lens out which cost a fortune. What Get Gray charges is peanuts compared to the cost of these things.


A good quality cylindrical A-lens for HT purposes doesn't blur the image, even down to pixel resolution. Really, you can't get any better than pixel resolution, as this is what the on-screen image is made up of. Any extra resolution is totally wasted.


I will grant you that a cheap prism lens or a crude cylindrical has all the problems other posters have listed in earlier posts. Mostly poor astigmatism performance and color problems at the sides of the screen. It's not so objectionable (on the principle of "You can get used to anything if you have to") until you put a good lens in front of your projector... then you see the difference, quite starkly.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mgolanlan* /forum/post/16016762
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of gives your bias... I planned on a lens, ended up realizing zooming is a more reasonable option, will go lens if I'm convinced it will improve things ...



Bias? I've used a lens since 2005 and I liked it over my previous zoom set up so why would I go back - I actually lose more than I gain if I go back to zooming. Besides, my current projector onlyu has 1.2x zoom anyway.



> Quote:
> I used to own a CRT, tried digital, ended up DLP at one point, now using latest LCD. Its only technology. Best is to apply whatever is available now, realizing new and improved equipment will be here within 2-3 years.



Going from CRT then to an LCD now - wow. How do you feel about the black levels










My first 3 projectors were LCD. This is my first DLP (1080) and there is no way I would go back to LCD now. Inorganic chips or not, I've already seen the effects of colour drift with these and the LcOS chipsets. DLP can't do that.


So it is not about what is available, all about what is gives better perfomace for my dollar and that is DLP even if it is more expensive than LCD.



> Quote:
> But I do think anyone who intends to purchase a $3000-$5000 pj will be happier with the money saved (screen, lens) compared to any improvement, even if I get convinced it really is better (which at this point, I'm not!)



The penny drops (yes pun intended) it is a money issue. I didn't just buy a curved acreen, I bought a flat screen and made it custom curved to match my exact needs needs. Right now however, I am projecting onto a flat solid screen.



> Quote:
> I'm also certain anamorphic 235 Bluray titles will be available, if ever, only after a 4Mpix DLP/LCD chips are available, allowing for true 235 picture...



What is the point of going 4K if the AR of the display remains at 1.78:1?

Scope projectors can't happen due to the primary lens design issues that have been brought up many times in the past in other threads. Phillips are moving in the right direction with their 21:9 Cinema TV (2560 x 1080) LCD TV range. True anamorphic titles would allow that pixel count to be stored. From my perspective using a lens, I would not be able to access the full width of 2560, but I would have the full height of 1080 of my projector's panel. This then eliminates the "scaling" issue all zoomers use as an excuse.


----------



## nathan_h




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wse* /forum/post/16020333
> 
> 
> I have a JVC DLA RS2 and a 2:35 screen, I should have bought a 2:40 screen instead



Ain't that the truth, and the dirty little secret about constant height setups. More people are picking up on it, but too many of us got bit.


I've got to find some clean way to mask the bottom 4 or 5 inches of my 10' wide stewart screen for that very reason.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nathan_h* /forum/post/16022086
> 
> 
> Ain't that the truth, and the dirty little secret about constant height setups.



What dirty little secret?







Yes 2.40:1 is WIDER than 2.35:1 and so WILL exhibit slight black bars top and bottom given the siftware is based on CIW once over 1.78:1 anyway.


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> Going from CRT then to an LCD now - wow. How do you feel about the black levels



Well, I finally saw the, er, light, and picked up a special deal on a new HD-100 (=RS2) for about a 60% discount. Wowee-jeebies, that thing redefines BLACK.


And BRIGHT.


The trick I've found is to set "HDMI INPUT LEVEL" to "ENHANCED" and set your own blacks simply by toggling the BRIGHTNESS rocker. All movies have slightly different "setups" (old BBC-talk for how much the program "black level" is above absolute digital "0"). You wait for a nice black scene (like opening credits), reduce your black until it gets no darker as you press the minus on the brightness rocker and the rest of the movie is perfectly presented. Usually about -9 on the black rocker does the trick. Some movies need -8 or -10, but rarely so. Very simple technique and leads to endless hours of fun and enjoyment.


And its BLACK. When the screen fades to black you wonder where the light went.


OH yes, did I mention edge-to-edge sharp too? Every pixel stands up to be counted. Right to the edges and the corners (even _with_ a lens).


----------



## Warbie

Could someon explain for me in simple terms (really simple, pictures an all) why 2.40:1 is desirable? I think in my inexperience i'm missing something rather key.


----------



## nathan_h




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16024052
> 
> 
> What dirty little secret?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes 2.40:1 is WIDER than 2.35:1 and so WILL exhibit slight black bars top and bottom given the siftware is based on CIW once over 1.78:1 anyway.



By "dirty little secret" I mean all these movies that I thought would fit perfectly on a 2.35:1 screen actually need a 2.40:1 screen -- to fill the screen and have no overscan. Given the choice and the knowledge, I would DEFINITELY choose a 2.40:1 screen instead of a 2.35:1 screen.


----------



## nathan_h




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Warbie* /forum/post/16028272
> 
> 
> Could someon explain for me in simple terms (really simple, pictures an all) why 2.40:1 is desirable? I think in my inexperience i'm missing something rather key.



Because 2.40:1 (or 2.39:1) is the (arguably) most common format for the movies most of us watch.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nathan_h* /forum/post/16029750
> 
> 
> By "dirty little secret" I mean all these movies that I thought would fit perfectly on a 2.35:1 screen actually need a 2.40:1 screen -- to fill the screen and have no overscan. Given the choice and the knowledge, I would DEFINITELY choose a 2.40:1 screen instead of a 2.35:1 screen.



It was never a secret unless your projector had massive overscan issues like my last LCD had. Well for zooming it might have been as thos small portions of black bars are all part of the big black bars. When you scale for CIH using a lens, you can see the difference between the black masking bar and the "no light"which is the edge of the light beam. This makes it easier for me to get the framing perfect.


The difference between 2.40 and 2.35 could not be seen on my last unit. My new projector has 0% overscan and shows the whole picture right to the edges so the very portions of black bars I see for 2.40:1 can be seen. I am considering having my screen height cut down soon, so will probably go for a 2.40:1 screen just to see how that goes.


----------



## wse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16030040
> 
> 
> The difference between 2.40 and 2.35 could not be seen on my last unit. My new projector has 0% overscan and shows the whole picture right to the edges so the very portions of black bars I see for 2.40:1 can be seen. I am considering having my screen height cut down soon, so will probably go for a 2.40:1 screen just to see how that goes.



Yes I wished I had bought a 2:40 instead of 2:35


----------



## wse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nathan_h* /forum/post/16022086
> 
> 
> Ain't that the truth, and the dirty little secret about constant height setups. More people are picking up on it, but too many of us got bit.
> 
> 
> I've got to find some clean way to mask the bottom 4 or 5 inches of my 10' wide stewart screen for that very reason.



The bars are so small that with it that this is not visible with the JVC DLA RS2







Still it would have been nice to have a 2:40 screen


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wse* /forum/post/16030865
> 
> 
> Yes I wished I had bought a 2:40 instead of 2:35



I think a big part of the problem is also that "scope" is called 2.35 even when it is actually 2.39:1. Therefore 235 is like market rounding. It is easier to say even if it not 100% correct. Another example we are seeing right now is the new Scope TVs which are called Cinema 21:9. 21:9 is actually 2.33:1, not 2.37 which the pixel matrix of 2560 x 1080 is.


----------



## Jacob B




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nathan_h* /forum/post/16029758
> 
> 
> Because 2.40:1 (or 2.39:1) is the (arguably) most common format for the movies most of us watch.



So, what is it...2.39:1 or 2.40:1??









It seems that 2.39:1 often is called 2.40:1 - but what is the pixel resolution on cinamascope Blu-rays: 1920 x 800, 1920 x 803, or 1920 x 810 or...?


Unfortunately, I don't have a Blu-ray disc to test right now, but someone out there?










As for DVDs, my current screen is 92" x 39", as I, in 2004, mistakenly also thought this to be the dominant cinemascope format (of newer movies) - 2.35:1.

I find my self overscaning the sides almost 1" in each side when zooming to watch cinemascope DVDs -indicating a ratio of 2.40:1.

Using pixel count to figure out the ratio is a littler more tricky, since the pixels are non-square due to the TV pixel format, as well as the anamorhic storage of >16:9 material


When I had my Prismasonic H-500 lens, the 2.35:1 screen was just fine, since the prismasonic lenes are variable - I just adjusted the picture to fit the screen. It was impossible to see that I compressed the picture by 2"...


The CA and the softness of the picture was evident, though. So I can not recommend cheap anamorphic lenses vs. zooming.


Jacob


----------



## John Ballentine

After much deliberation and research (for about 6 months) - I chose a 2:40 (10' wide) screen over a 2:35 screen.


Panamorph also recommends 2:40:

"What aspect ratio screen should I order - 2.35:1, 2.40:1, or 2.37:1? 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."


Makes sense. As these are the two most prevalent and important aspect ratios. However in my case I'm not so sure I made the right choice, as I watch a lot of different aspect ratio films. Sure when I display a 2:39/2:40 film it fits my screen perfectly on all 4 sides (w/ NO overscan or black bars







). And 1:85 fits my screen perfectly too (Top and bottom). Nice







.


But all other aspect ratios (1:33, 1:66, 1:78, 2:00, 2:20 overscan about ¾" top and ¾" bottom (minimum). So I'm losing 1½"-2" of vertical image w/ these ratios. Now if I had a 2:35 screen this wouldn't be the case. However I do realize that 2:40 films would then have tiny ¾" (by 10' wide







) black bars (top & bottom). But you really wouldn't notice them w/ my RS20 and bat-cave theater. Or you could simply overscan the sides by that much (no real loss) to eliminate the tiny (T&B) black bars.


Seems to be no perfect solution


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Ballentine* /forum/post/16033506
> 
> 
> Seems to be no perfect solution



No Perfect solution, but if you don't mind a very slight "tweak" you could just apply a very fine amount of zoom for your 1.85 and 2.40 films and set the projector to be top to bottom framed for 1.33, 1.66, 1.78 2.00 and 2.20 if you watch content in these ARs.


If there are pros and cons for each, then it is a best of both worlds deal


----------



## nathan_h




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16030889
> 
> 
> I think a big part of the problem is also that "scope" is called 2.35 even when it is actually 2.39:1. Therefore 235 is like market rounding. It is easier to say even if it not 100% correct. Another example we are seeing right now is the new Scope TVs which are called Cinema 21:9. 21:9 is actually 2.33:1, not 2.37 which the pixel matrix of 2560 x 1080 is.



Yep, the problem is people saying 2.35 when most of the films are really 2.39 or 2.4. I wasn't paying close enough attention, or I thought the difference wouldn't matter, but it does (for me, in my setup).


I guess there are/were some 2.35 films, but the standard for the past 25+ years has really been 2.39.


----------



## John Ballentine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16033734
> 
> 
> No Perfect solution, but if you don't mind a very slight "tweak" you could just apply a very fine amount of zoom for your 1.85 and 2.40 films and set the projector to be top to bottom framed for 1.33, 1.66, 1.78 2.00 and 2.20 if you watch content in these ARs.
> 
> 
> If there are pros and cons for each, then it is a best of both worlds deal



Yup. A little tweak w/ the motorized zoom and shift controls and I can align everything perfectly for each aspect ratio. But I hate using these controls too much as I fear the motors failing at some point. Then I'm dead in the water. Would have to pull the projector down (major effort) and ship it to JVC (another major effort & expense). I guess I'm just not sure how reliable those little motors are and I don't want to push my luck.


----------



## nathan_h

I've thought about those little motors in the Pearl, since I not only zoom but also use lens shift, each time I change aspect ratios -- which is a few times a week.


But I persist in this method.


----------



## Ken Tripp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16033734
> 
> 
> No Perfect solution, but if you don't mind a very slight "tweak" you could just apply a very fine amount of zoom...



Sorry what was that, use zoom, I thought you were a lens man.










As for 2.35 v 2.40 screens and framing correctly all the various aspect ratios, Sony pj's from the Pearl onwards have a nice blanking control which lets you independently move all 4 sides of the viewable image inwards in pixel increments.


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Tripp* /forum/post/16037170
> 
> 
> Sony pj's from the Pearl onwards have a nice blanking control which lets you independently move all 4 sides of the viewable image inwards in pixel increments.



by cropping or scaling?


----------



## Kelvin1965S

The JVC HD350 allows 2.5% side cropping which seems to work well for a 2.40:1 image zoomed to fit my 2.35:1 screen. I too have realised that I should have specified a 2.40:1 screen rather than a 2.35:1 one, but between my HD350 and my Lumagen HDQ I've been able to apply appropriate crop and/or masking to allow all 2.35 to 2.40:1 content to fill my screen exactly with no more than 1-2mm of overscaning. It might be sacrilage to cut off some active image area, but I doubt there would be something _that_ critical in the last 2.5% of each side. I guess it's just one of the many compromises we have to weigh up when setting up a home cinema......


----------



## Ken Tripp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/16037671
> 
> 
> by cropping or scaling?



Cropping, so one to one pixel mapping is retained.


----------



## CAVX

John,


My curved 2.37:1 AT screen is in strorage at this time, so I am using a borrowed 2.35:1 screen that is a tad smaller that what I like, but it mathematically correct for my room. I have the beam set up for a 2.35:1 image and last night did see the very small strips of black for the 2.40 film I was watching. I didn't even bother applying any zoom as I just not be bothered as I just wanted to watch the film.


This is tempory and then I actually get to go to a much larger screen in the next place


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Tripp* /forum/post/16038078
> 
> 
> Cropping, so one to one pixel mapping is retained.



Here we go again







and DTS will always sound better than DD - it has too, it has more data


----------



## Ken Tripp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16038789
> 
> 
> Here we go again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and DTS will always sound better than DD - it has too, it has more data



No idea where you're going because what has one to one pixel mapping got to do with more data. For a digital projector it's simply displaying what's there in the best possible way. Or are you trying to tell us that overscan and scaling are a good thing.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Tripp* /forum/post/16039548
> 
> 
> No idea where you're going because what has one to one pixel mapping got to do with more data. For a digital projector it's simply displaying what's there in the best possible way. Or are you trying to tell us that overscan and scaling are a good thing.



The audio reference is simply an example of how people number cruching can turn fact to fiction. How many times has the comment of "but source only has 810 lines" being brought up?


If scaling is so bad, then:

A you no longer watch SD material or

B you watch it as a small window boxed image in the centre of the screen because that is how a true 1:1 pixel mapping of a 480/576 source (SD DVD) looks on a 1080 projector.


As for overscan, isn't that what ALL zoomers do to rid the black bars?


And yes, I am a lens man.


----------



## Ken Tripp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16039959
> 
> 
> The audio reference is simply an example of how people number cruching can turn fact to fiction. How many times has the comment of "but source only has 810 lines" being brought up?
> 
> 
> If scaling is so bad, then:
> 
> A you no longer watch SD material or
> 
> B you watch it as a small window boxed image in the centre of the screen because that is how a true 1:1 pixel mapping of a 480/576 source (SD DVD) looks on a 1080 projector.
> 
> 
> As for overscan, isn't that what ALL zoomers do to rid the black bars?
> 
> 
> And yes, I am a lens man.



Yeah okay I'll play.


Overscan is a selectable function where a display displays less than the source being fed to it by clipping 2%-5% off all edges and then scales what's left back up to fill the available resolution of the display. Nothing to do with zooming, or getting rid of black bars, it screws up the image (softens it because a scaled digital image is never as sharp) and as such shouldn't really be used.


I do watch SD, but I scale in the player to 1080p50 and 1080p60 and feed that to the projector which strangely enough fills the entire screen with an image whilst maintaining one to one mapping of the 1080p source that's being fed into it.


The image height of a letterboxed 2.37:1 (to pick the average) Blu-ray disk image is 810 pixels and like most things in life it's probably going to look it's best when as little as possible is done to mess with it.


And whilst we're at it, why am I getting crap like "Here we go again







" anyway. I was asked a simple question by someone that unlike you obviously understands the difference between and the ramifications of scaling and cropping after I mentioned the Blanking function of Sony projectors and how it was useful in framing different AR images correctly and I provided that answer. Pretty succinctly I thought.


----------



## sound dropouts




> Quote:
> ou watch it as a small window boxed image in the centre of the screen because that is how a true 1:1 pixel mapping of a 480/576 source (SD DVD) looks on a 1080 projector.



DVDs cannot have true 1:1 pixel mapping unless there is a dvd with a 1.5:1 aspect ratio....dvd resolution of 480x720 is going to result in non-square pixels for every common aspect ratio.


----------



## wse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kelvin1965S* /forum/post/16037781
> 
> 
> The JVC HD350 allows 2.5% side cropping which seems to work well for a 2.40:1 image zoomed to fit my 2.35:1 screen. I too have realised that I should have specified a 2.40:1 screen rather than a 2.35:1 one, but between my HD350 and my Lumagen HDQ I've been able to apply appropriate crop and/or masking to allow all 2.35 to 2.40:1 content to fill my screen exactly with no more than 1-2mm of overscaning. It might be sacrilage to cut off some active image area, but I doubt there would be something _that_ critical in the last 2.5% of each side. I guess it's just one of the many compromises we have to weigh up when setting up a home cinema......



With the JVC RS2 and a FireHawk G3 screen I can't see the mini-black bars. But next time, when I move in ten years and buy a Cabaret From StewartFilmScreen I will specify a 2:40 aspect ratio


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Tripp* /forum/post/16040197
> 
> 
> Yeah okay I'll play.
> 
> 
> Overscan is a selectable function where a display displays less than the source being fed to it by clipping 2%-5% off all edges and then scales what's left back up to fill the available resolution of the display. Nothing to do with zooming, or getting rid of black bars, it screws up the image (softens it because a scaled digital image is never as sharp) and as such shouldn't really be used.



Good point. The term "overscan" often shows up on this forum when used to describe triming an image like 2.40:1 on a 2.35:1 screen or in other words, projecting the image off the screen as is doen when zooming. I have always considered the term as an electrical manipulation as well, not an optical one.


> Quote:
> I do watch SD, but I scale in the player to 1080p50 and 1080p60 and feed that to the projector which strangely enough fills the entire screen with an image whilst maintaining one to one mapping of the 1080p source that's being fed into it.



Ahh, but it is still scaling, is it not? It is not taking one resolution and converting to another? Does it not fill the panel of the projector? When we do this for CIH, we do so just to change the geometry.



> Quote:
> The image height of a letterboxed 2.37:1 (to pick the average) Blu-ray disk image is 810 pixels and like most things in life it's probably going to look it's best when as little as possible is done to mess with it.



So you don't use a scaler as in a video processor? Scaling for CIH is done for an end purpose though - to change the geometry. I'intend to add an out board scaler for both AR changing as well as the benitits of VP.



> Quote:
> And whilst we're at it, why am I getting crap like "Here we go again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " anyway. I was asked a simple question by someone that unlike you obviously understands the difference between and the ramifications of scaling and cropping after I mentioned the Blanking function of Sony projectors and how it was useful in framing different AR images correctly and I provided that answer. Pretty succinctly I thought.



Dont take it personally. Reading the rest of the thread and many others and seeing how many times it comes up.


My 1st SONY projector had this blanking feature too and I honestly saw no purpose for it in an LCD as the transmissive nature of the panels let light through anyway.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sound dropouts* /forum/post/16040546
> 
> 
> DVDs cannot have true 1:1 pixel mapping unless there is a dvd with a 1.5:1 aspect ratio....dvd resolution of 480x720 is going to result in non-square pixels for every common aspect ratio.



I read in WSR a few years ago that DVD was a 4 x 3 format based on 720 x 540 (1.33:1) but used 576 for PAL and 480 for NTSC.


----------



## John Ballentine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16038768
> 
> 
> John,
> 
> 
> My curved 2.37:1 AT screen is in strorage at this time, so I am using a borrowed 2.35:1 screen that is a tad smaller that what I like, but it mathematically correct for my room. I have the beam set up for a 2.35:1 image and last night did see the very small strips of black for the 2.40 film I was watching. I didn't even bother applying any zoom as I just not be bothered as I just wanted to watch the film.



I'm also noticing that some 2:40 films (e.g. Blu-ray disc of The Road Warrior) have different size black bars







. The top bar is wider than the bottom. So when you apply stretch to the image (for CIH) there is still a tiny bar on top - and the bottom of the image overscans slightly. Guess you would need a VP to correct for this.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Ballentine* /forum/post/16041543
> 
> 
> Guess you would need a VP to correct for this.



Or use lens shift. I have not bought the BD of The Road Warrior yet.


----------



## John Ballentine

Correct. That's what I did. But I'm trying to find a "happy medium" so I don't have to constantly fiddle w/ the zoom and lens shift to get each picture perfectly framed. The key is how much overscan you are willing to accept. And where - Top, bottom, left/right. I mainly don't want overscan on the top as it makes head shots look a little too tight. A little overscan L/R is OK too because my eyes seldom wonder to the very edges of the (10' wide @ 40 degrees) frame.


The Road Warrior is a fabulous BD and filmed just down the street from you


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Ballentine* /forum/post/16046374
> 
> 
> Correct. That's what I did. But I'm trying to find a "happy medium" so I don't have to constantly fiddle w/ the zoom and lens shift to get each picture perfectly framed. The key is how much overscan you are willing to accept. And where - Top, bottom, left/right. I mainly don't want overscan on the top as it makes head shots look a little too tight. A little overscan L/R is OK too because my eyes seldom wonder to the very edges of the (10' wide @ 40 degrees) frame.
> 
> 
> The Road Warrior is a fabulous BD and filmed just down the street from you



I did own the HD DVD for a time, but now that I switched to BD, I need to re-buy a few titles - The Road Warrior being one. The vertical positioning was actually a huge concern with the BD release of The Dark Night and I have noticed that a few titles seem to be off centred in my limited collection.


I re-aligned my projector/lens last night and have decided to frame it best for 2.37 which means I have a very slight over shoot for the L and R of the image and I will just put up with the very fine black bars top and bottom for 2.4:0. I even played with the overscan on the projector and found that the very first step fixes this, but do I really want to go there? I like the 0 overscan setting...


Thankfully, those tiny black slivers are only visible on bright scenes


----------



## queendvd2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Ballentine* /forum/post/16033506
> 
> 
> After much deliberation and research (for about 6 months) - I chose a 2:40 (10' wide) screen over a 2:35 screen.
> 
> 
> Panamorph also recommends 2:40:
> 
> "What aspect ratio screen should I order - 2.35:1, 2.40:1, or 2.37:1? 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."
> 
> 
> Makes sense. As these are the two most prevalent and important aspect ratios. However in my case I'm not so sure I made the right choice, as I watch a lot of different aspect ratio films. Sure when I display a 2:39/2:40 film it fits my screen perfectly on all 4 sides (w/ NO overscan or black bars
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ). And 1:85 fits my screen perfectly too (Top and bottom). Nice
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> But all other aspect ratios (1:33, 1:66, 1:78, 2:00, 2:20 overscan about ¾" top and ¾" bottom (minimum). So I'm losing 1½"-2" of vertical image w/ these ratios. Now if I had a 2:35 screen this wouldn't be the case. However I do realize that 2:40 films would then have tiny ¾" (by 10' wide
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) black bars (top & bottom). But you really wouldn't notice them w/ my RS20 and bat-cave theater. Or you could simply overscan the sides by that much (no real loss) to eliminate the tiny (T&B) black bars.
> 
> 
> Seems to be no perfect solution



John, I'm exactly in the opposite camp. I had decided to go scope at the very last minute and asked my installer whether I should opt for a 2.40 screen since he suggested the 2.35. He advised sticking with 2.35 so I did. But I've been having second thoughts after viewing several movies where the image spilled over on the left and right edges of my screen (SMX AT, 130" wide). I am using the RS20 with a Panamorph 480. I don't notice the tiny black bars at all on the top and bottom, probably due to blending seamlessly with the velvet frame. But since I'm new to this I didn't realize I'd have spill-over on some ARs







.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *queendvd2* /forum/post/16050735
> 
> 
> I am using the RS20 with a Panamorph 480. I don't notice the tiny black bars at all on the top and bottom, probably due to blending seamlessly with the velvet frame. But since I'm new to this I didn't realize I'd have spill-over on some ARs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



Your going to have spill anyway with a 2.35:1 screen simply because your projector is 16:9 and your lens is 1.33x expansion, so 1.7777777 x 1.3333333 = 2.3703702 and whilst 0.02 may not sound like much, it can be a few inches if the image is large enough.


----------



## video_bit_bucket

You know the funny thing is that I read and read threads like this, bought, don't think about it much since. Just enjoy watching movies.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *video_bit_bucket* /forum/post/16051499
> 
> 
> Just enjoy watching movies.



I wish it was that simple


----------



## shamus

I have a 2.35 screen and a vp50pro/panamorph. Am I correct in zooming out so that 2.40 films fit the top and bottom and leave it alone? I originally had it fit 2.35/1.78 stuff and simply used overscan for 2.40, but noticed on the 1:1 pixel test pattern that it was thrown out of whack. Whats ideal here without touching the PJ's zoom/shift?


----------



## John Ballentine

I would zoom out so that 2:40 films fit the top and bottom of your screen and put up w/ an inch or so overscan on each side. Better this than long thin bars (w/ pincushion?) running the entire width of your screen on top & bottom. Unless you can't see those bars as another poster mentioned. Really comes down to personal choice.


----------



## CAVX

Agreed. I think side light spill is less noticeable than top/bottom bars - even if they are very small.


----------



## VTPete

Glory be, is this thread still alive and kicking? It's like a (good) zombie movie. In this case, it's fun to watch, so please, no shooting in the head.


Let me see if I can reanimate my thoughts from the dead...


Zooming, is, without a doubt, hands down, the cheapest way to implement CIH. Can we all agree to this?


Zooming with a high quality 1080p projector will always be better than a lesser quality 720p projector... right?


With the exception of the Panny 3000, zooming is the most manually intensive way to implement CIH. Can we all agree to this?


In my experience, zooming my RS1 created a better resulting image (I have photographic evidence) than using either my HTB Lens and Key Digital HDMI 4x1 combo, or my Prismasonic FE1500R and DVDO Edge combo. So, my opinion on this matter is that with even a "decent" lens and scaler, zooming still provides a better picture.


I have no doubt that under optimal conditions with a high quality scaler and anamorphic lens the resulting image can be better than zooming. For me personally, I would not spend the extra money to get that slight improvement. It's a personal decision.


And, then, just to put the icing on the cake, I personally continue to use my Prismasonic and Edge combo because it's just so freakin' easy to use. One button push on my Harmony one does it all. So, in my case, it's not so much about image quality as it is ease of use and flexibility.


Notice how much I said, "In my opinion" or "In my case". This is because I'm convinced that the interplay of room conditions, projector throw, zoom ratios, lens quality, price, etc. all need to be taken into consideration before deciding what will ultimately work best in YOUR situation.


Please don't shoot the zombie. I like to watch it ramble. Ah, shamble.


-Pete


----------



## shamus

Thanks John and CAVX... I figured zooming out would be the best option.


----------



## Oggythemoggy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16057009
> 
> 
> Agreed. I think side light spill is less noticeable than top/bottom bars - even if they are very small.



Personally I find light spill of this type highly objectionable, you are just overscanning on to the wall!, better to crop electronically if you can.

How could black bars be more noticable than bright objects moving at the extreme edge of the movie frame that would be contained in the overspill.

I was very surprised with that comment .


----------



## John Ballentine

I use a black velvet screen border (as I'm sure most do) to absorb light spill.


----------



## Oggythemoggy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Ballentine* /forum/post/16062732
> 
> 
> I use a black velvet screen border (as I'm sure most do) to absorb light spill.



I would think the bright images would still betray themselves having seen this type of overscan implemented in lots of HTs (intentionally and with keystone difficulties) , both with velvet and/or other dark edge materials


----------



## taffman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Oggythemoggy* /forum/post/16062787
> 
> 
> I would think the bright images would still betray themselves having seen this type of overscan implemented in lots of HTs (intentionally and with keystone difficulties) , both with velvet and/or other dark edge materials



What bright images? In a zooming set up, the velvet masking is only absorbing the grey bars of the letterboxed image. It (the border) looks jet black on all my zoomed CIH movies. If the aspect ratio is not exactly 2.35, I just raise or lower the top motorized screen mask.


VTPete,

Thanks for the most honest and sensible assessment of zooming versus lens that I have yet read. I think for many people the lens addition is primarily a convenience factor and they are willing to relinquish a little PQ to get it. Lens memory presets, as on the Panny AE3000, has negated that advantage.


----------



## Oggythemoggy

[QUOTE=taffmanWhat bright images? In a zooming set up, the velvet masking is only absorbing the grey bars of the letterboxed image. It (the border) looks jet black on all my zoomed CIH movies. If the aspect ratio is not exactly 2.35, I just raise or lower the top motorized screen mask.


Side spill will contain picture information.....unless...your system must letterbox all the way round, never seen that before unless a unit was in native mode, then again this thread seems to be filled with fantastic new information


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Oggythemoggy* /forum/post/16062661
> 
> 
> Personally I find light spill of this type highly objectionable, you are just overscanning on to the wall!, better to crop electronically if you can.
> 
> How could black bars be more noticable than bright objects moving at the extreme edge of the movie frame that would be contained in the overspill.
> 
> I was very surprised with that comment .



My set up at this time is a huge compromise. My Curved AT 2.37:1 screen is in storage and I have been loaned a slightly smaller solid 2.35:1 screen. The 16:9 projector + lens produces a 2.37:1 image of light, not a 2.35:1 image, so with the projector/lens perfectly aligned top to bottom, I get that 0.02 difference of lightspill on the sides. No it not objectional as it is so small and my masking is a total light sponge.


----------



## taffman

The simple fact is that film aspect ratios are all over the map, so 2.35 or 2.4 are just nominal numbers. How The West Was Won, for example, is about 2.9, and many of the earlier CinemaScope films are 2.55.

One advantage of the zoom method is its flexibility in accomodating these larger aspect ratios. You just zoom out to the full width of your 2.35 screen, and then if necessary just close in the top/bottom masking to exactly frame the picture no matter what scope ratio the film is.

So I think the best advice is to use the zoom method, select your screen width and height based on 2.35, and then install moveable masking to exactly frame everything else.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/16066216
> 
> 
> So I think the best advice is to use the zoom method, select your screen width and height based on 2.35, and then install moveable masking to exactly frame everything else.



If you own a Panny or an Espon, that might be OK. Not all projector allow the zoom method.


----------



## shamus




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Oggythemoggy* /forum/post/16063741
> 
> 
> 
> Side spill will contain picture information.....unless...your system must letterbox all the way round, never seen that before unless a unit was in native mode, then again this thread seems to be filled with fantastic new information



Actually, my VP50 pro can mask any amount of spill horizantal or vertical. My concern was overscan vs. overzoom. I'm going to fill my 2.35 screen with 2.40 no matter what, I just wanted to know if overscan can hurt an image.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *shamus* /forum/post/16067245
> 
> 
> My concern was overscan vs. overzoom.



I like your terms







If I use the first step of the overscan on my projector, the tiny slivers are gone from the top and bottom, but I also lose that little bit if picture width and of course, not running 1:1 (in the width) anymore.


How important are those very small portions? I can't see them any way due to the fact that I am projecting onto a 2.35:1 screen and not a 2.37:1 or 2.40:1 screen and they get lost on my black masking.


----------



## nathan_h




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/16066216
> 
> 
> The simple fact is that film aspect ratios are all over the map, so 2.35 or 2.4 are just nominal numbers. How The West Was Won, for example, is about 2.9, and many of the earlier CinemaScope films are 2.55.
> 
> One advantage of the zoom method is its flexibility in accomodating these larger aspect ratios. You just zoom out to the full width of your 2.35 screen, and then if necessary just close in the top/bottom masking to exactly frame the picture no matter what scope ratio the film is.
> 
> So I think the best advice is to use the zoom method, select your screen width and height based on 2.35, and then install moveable masking to exactly frame everything else.



On my setup, my goal is to have only side masking for anything 2.4:1 or under. I find top/bottom masking to be much tougher and far more expensive to implement well. Hence my love of this area's title -- "constant height" -- though the 2.35 part of the title is a little annoying.


I may have found a reasonable way to permanently mask the lower 4 inches of my 2.35 screen. I'll need to measure or do math to know for sure, but this should make it a touch wider than 2.4, which should work well, except for the silly ones.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nathan_h* /forum/post/16067671
> 
> 
> except for the silly ones.



Please share your thoughts here. Which are the "silly ones"


----------



## nathan_h

"silly ones" (tongue-in-cheek) are those that are super-wide, like the non-smile-box version of How The West Was Won. Or Ben Hur. If I really had the width in my room, I'd do a 3:1 screen, and be done with it.... but that's not in this or the next decade, I suspect!


Not really complaining about those movies, per se, just noting that I cannot accommodate them in the ideal way I'd like.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nathan_h* /forum/post/16069919
> 
> 
> 
> Not really complaining about those movies, per se, just noting that I cannot accommodate them in the ideal way I'd like.



Some would see me as a non purist as well for having a similar thought process. I don't think I will ever buy such films (classic or not) much less watch them over and over. I prefer "modern" cinema (post 1977 and the introduction of Dolby Stereo etc) where the specs for CinemaScope have been finalized to using a 2x stretch lens for film and the the AR is pretty much set at approx 2.39:1. All we need now is for D-Cinema to get on the same page with their 2048 x 1080 panels and 1.25x lens.


My HT uses 1920 x 1080 projector with a 1.33x lens and I am happy with that as it allows me to watch all of my preferred film genre at home.


----------



## wse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16072988
> 
> 
> Some would see me as a non purist as well for having a similar thought process. I don't think I will ever buy such films (classic or not) much less watch them over and over. I prefer "modern" cinema (post 1977 and the introduction of Dolby Stereo etc) where the specs for CinemaScope have been finalized to using a 2x stretch lens for film and the the AR is pretty much set at approx 2.39:1. All we need now is for D-Cinema to get on the same page with their 2048 x 1080 panels and 1.25x lens.
> 
> 
> My HT uses 1920 x 1080 projector with a 1.33x lens and I am happy with that as it allows me to watch all of my preferred film genre at home.



To each his own


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wse* /forum/post/16082682
> 
> 
> To each his own



Thanks


----------



## nathan_h

I watch stuff that is narrower than 1.3:1 (Chaplin's early films are actually pillarboxed even on a 1.3:1 screen when shown in OAR) up to 2.55:1. So the I have to balance flexibility with all the other factors.


----------



## laychooba

had a question...


i'm about to pull the trigger on a panny 3000 and carada criterion

screen. i'm just wondering, when one doesn't have a masking system

and while watching 1.78 and 4:3 material, do the vertical black

bars extend to both edges of the 2.35:1 screen, or does it just

project 16:9 and doesn't fill the additional width?


----------



## nathan_h

Depends on whether you are solely using zoom or also (or instead) using some processing, but assuming you are using zoom as your tool: The edges of the screen (sides) are white / ie, nothing is projected on them from the projector when playing 16x9 material, but since there are no masks in the situation you describe, you will be able to see the white material there.


Will that be a problem? Depends on you, how dark the room is, how good the projector is, etc. I find I sometimes get lazy and don't close the curtain/mask for 16:9 or 4:3 stuff.... and don't mind too much, until I pull the curtains as masks halfway through and say "Wow, that looks a lot better." -- and I'm in a bat cave with an LCOS projector, which should make the impact of masking minimal.


----------



## CRGINC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16065910
> 
> 
> My set up at this time is a huge compromise. My Curved AT 2.37:1 screen is in storage and I have been loaned a slightly smaller solid 2.35:1 screen. The 16:9 projector + lens produces a 2.37:1 image of light, not a 2.35:1 image, so with the projector/lens perfectly aligned top to bottom, I get that 0.02 difference of lightspill on the sides. No it not objectional as it is so small and my masking is a total light sponge.



I zoomed for a decade. Constant Area for 1 year and a lens forever! The light spillage and convenience were my issues.


----------



## bmcent1

I must be really slow this morning, because I can't figure this out...


I want to zoom for my (planned) 2.40:1 screen. But, if you aren't stretching the image with a scaler and using an anamorphic lens to stretch horizontal, aren't you going to have huge black bars projected above and below the screen?


My screen will have a black felt frame, but I can imagine light from the projected black bars is still going to show up outside of the frame on the top and bottom of the screen.


Am I missing an easy solution?


I recall when I worked as a projectionist (many years ago) we had a little metal mask we slide in front of the projector lens depending on the film format. Is there anything similar for today's LCD projectors?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bmcent1* /forum/post/16292084
> 
> 
> I must be really slow this morning, because I can't figure this out...
> 
> 
> I want to zoom for my (planned) 2.40:1 screen. But, if you aren't stretching the image with a scaler and using an anamorphic lens to stretch horizontal, aren't you going to have huge black bars projected above and below the screen?



You don't need to scale the image when you use the zoom method. The black bars will be projeted above and below the screen. No there is no such apperature plate for HT, so you just have to hope that the light spill top and bottom is not too distracting.


----------



## JeffY

Light spill from black bars shouldn't be an issue, it's a more of an issue when something is being projected like subtitles, menus and actual content (TDK). One answer would be electronic masking that you get on video processors like the Lumagens.


----------



## CAVX

Given that this is the Zooming Vs Lens thread, using a lens is one sure way not to have light spill top and bottom.


----------



## Laserfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bmcent1* /forum/post/16292084
> 
> 
> I must be really slow this morning...aren't you going to have huge black bars projected above and below the screen?



You're not slow, this is absolutely right.


I'm an ardent zoomer, but no one who has seen my theater has ever done anything but marvel at it. You just do need to take care that nothing in the "spillage area" is bright & shiny i.e. reflects the "black" in a distracting way.


We've found that once the movie starts, we never notice areas "above the top" or "below the bottom" of the 'scope screen area. The many purists here though hate even the idea of this.



> Quote:
> Am I missing an easy solution? I recall when I worked as a projectionist (many years ago) we had a little metal mask we slide in front of the projector lens depending on the film format. Is there anything similar for today's LCD projectors?



Yeah, my Mitsubishi HC4900 (and all the 1080p Mitsus, I think) has built-in Shutters which perform much the same function. But I'm sure if you think back on your own experience, there was spillage from your masks, and there is spillage from my Mits' shutters. You probably never noticed the spillage in the movie theater.


You should try to find a zooming setup and take a look for yourself. Also, I recommend buying a projector first, and the screen later, if you have no prior experience with front projection, just to see in your own environment about screen size and width and light and all the rest.


----------



## bmcent1

Thanks for the reply, I thought I must be crazy 


I'm building a DIY 2.40:1 screen for my Theater 1.0. For one thing, I've almost run out of money. That is also a reason I'm going to try zooming first and will possibly consider a lens or a different screen setup when I upgrade the theater down the road.


One question... has anyone had success doing their entire screen wall (except for the screen) in black velvet? I'm doing an AT screen and was going to do the front of the room in GOM anyway. My speakers will be behind the AT screen.


Hmmm... now that I think about it, BPAPE designed the very front of my room with 2" of Acoustic Cotton and corner base traps. Maybe I need to check with him whether the velvet will interfere with the sound design of the room. I guess I could do black GOM on the front wall if that would help control light spill.


----------



## RapalloAV




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bmcent1* /forum/post/16293630
> 
> 
> One question... has anyone had success doing their entire screen wall (except for the screen) in black velvet? I'm doing an AT screen and was going to do the front of the room in GOM anyway. My speakers will be behind the AT screen.
> 
> 
> Hmmm... now that I think about it, BPAPE designed the very front of my room with 2" of Acoustic Cotton and corner base traps. Maybe I need to check with him whether the velvet will interfere with the sound design of the room. I guess I could do black GOM on the front wall if that would help control light spill.



You dont have to spend the money to cover the entire wall with black velvet, just the boarders of the screen. All the outer walls just painted matte black will do the same trick and save you dollars.


----------



## collinhack

I've been zooming, and I did sometimes notice the "black bars", but my setup meant that they were projected onto my white ceiling . .. which has a slight slope, so they were probably more distracting than normal. I don't think any of my guests have ever even noticed - the picture (with high quality upscaling of DVDs or BRs) is spectacular.


However, I have set the ball rolling to get one of CAVX's Aussiemorpic MkIIIs and a DVDO edge, so will post comparison piccies of before and after


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bmcent1* /forum/post/16293630
> 
> 
> Hmmm... now that I think about it, BPAPE designed the very front of my room with 2" of Acoustic Cotton and corner base traps. Maybe I need to check with him whether the velvet will interfere with the sound design of the room. I guess I could do black GOM on the front wall if that would help control light spill.



If your going AT, then you really want absorbtion behind the screen.


----------



## bmcent1

I e-mailed him... it's okay to go with velvet for the screen wall. The front wall (out of sight behind the screen wall) will still be treated the same. He felt the velvet wouldn't hurt the performance of the treatments on the front wall. I guess that makes sense because it's not reflective and anything not getting absorbed will still be handled by the treatments. Anything getting absorbed is no big deal because his design for my room was a totally dead front wall.


The screen itself is AT, so that's where the speakers will be placed (behind the screen) and velvet wouldn't be in the path of the sound.


Only concern was if the air from the sub will cause the velvet to flex/move. I guess that's because velvet is more dense than GOM and might push against it more as a result.


Sounds like treating the whole screen wall (except the "hole" for the AT screen) would be feasible. Now I have to figure out I'd like the look. My projector is on the way, so it might be something I'll just try out and see if the projected black bars bother me.


Now when is a big brand going to give us a native 2.40 projector?







One can dream.


----------

