# Oppo UDP203’s 21x9 CIH Mode



## coolrda

Oppo’s 21x9 feature really wasn’t a big deal to me when it was released. It is now. My RS520 locks with 4K/60 and I’m dead in the water when it comes to streaming online content and having aspect control, whether from Netflix, Amazon, YouTube or others. The 21x9 fixed lens feature is huge. It’s so nice having the Oppo default to the 4K 16x9 screen for menus of all sources when shutoff. I’ve always preferred my Oppo remotes over my iRule or harmony hub control for control of the disc. And now it handles all my scaling too. Pretty sweet. I got permanent thumb drives for trailers and cal patterns. Really makes things simple. If you run a fixed lens setup give it a shot. It’s a killer feature that can save you some major cash.


----------



## CAVX

Yeah, should have my OPPO 203 in Jan, 2018 and looking forward to the progressive upgrade to UHD. A-lens stays regardless of the projector upgrade.


----------



## john hunter

coolrda said:


> Oppo’s 21x9 feature really wasn’t a big deal to me when it was released. It is now. My RS520 locks with 4K/60 and I’m dead in the water when it comes to streaming online content and having aspect control, whether from Netflix, Amazon, YouTube or others. The 21x9 fixed lens feature is huge. It’s so nice having the Oppo default to the 4K 16x9 screen for menus of all sources when shutoff. I’ve always preferred my Oppo remotes over my iRule or harmony hub control for control of the disc. And now it handles all my scaling too. Pretty sweet. I got permanent thumb drives for trailers and cal patterns. Really makes things simple. If you run a fixed lens setup give it a shot. It’s a killer feature that can save you some major cash.


Can only agree wholeheartedly. A really great feature that opens up every PJ to anamorphic support.


----------



## huse0054

i don't understand, what exactly does all this mean? Why would be of benefit?


----------



## coolrda

huse0054 said:


> i don't understand, what exactly does all this mean? Why would be of benefit?


For one thing, a lot of projectors give you aspect ratio or scaling control with 4K/24-30 but not 4K/60. This is beneficial for a lot of external 4K content when you have a roku or other streaming device plugged into the Oppo. 

Another is that menus and overlays on the disc stay locked to the 21:9 window while you change the contents AR. Heres an example.

This is the Menu when stretched by the projector.










This is with the projector set to full and the Oppo doing the scaling. The menus are always on the screen regardless or AR. Now its like watching on a true native 21x9 panel.


----------



## huse0054

i see, that makes sense now thanks for the further detailed info. Am I safe to assume the sony- ubp-x800 would not have this ability?


----------



## Shawn Kelly

FWIW, we've been working closely with Oppo to get all these modes in and working properly but we're still fine tuning. The "Full" mode when video output is set to 21:9 fixed or movable is still off - it horizontally stretches and therefore crops the sides. This will be fixed in the next firmware update.


----------



## CAVX

Shawn Kelly said:


> FWIW, we've been working closely with Oppo to get all these modes in and working properly but we're still fine tuning. The "Full" mode when video output is set to 21:9 fixed or movable is still off - it horizontally stretches and therefore crops the sides. This will be fixed in the next firmware update.


Good to hear.

What would be even better is if the studios turned on the 21:9 mode in their work flow for disc mastering.


----------



## Shawn Kelly

Working on it. Just one of our missions in the realm of wagging the dog. I assume you're just talking about the AR flag.


----------



## coolrda

CAVX said:


> Good to hear.
> 
> What would be even better is if the studios turned on the 21:9 mode in their work flow for disc mastering.





Shawn Kelly said:


> Working on it. Just one of our missions in the realm of wagging the dog. I assume you're just talking about the AR flag.


Yep. Even if they don't give us enhanced for 21x9, I'd be happy with the flag that triggers auto stretch with 2.40 content when set for fixed or moveable 21x9. Thanks and keep at it.


----------



## CAVX

Shawn Kelly said:


> Working on it. Just one of our missions in the realm of wagging the dog. I assume you're just talking about the AR flag.


Yes. Not that different to how DVD had flags for 16:9 enhanced which we used to our advantage, BD and UHD should have their flags for 21:9 turned on. It would provide us with a full panel worth of image without the need to scale. 

I get that most of the world is 16:9, but this allows the highest possible res for every system and for those with 16:9, the answer is simple, don't turn on the 21:9 mode, rather, leave it at 16:9.

LG(?) has already made a curved 100" 5120 x 2160 display. More will follow if there is software. In fact, all the good things about TVs these days started out in PC monitors. Those included progressive scan and high frame rates. Notice the shape of PC monitors of late? Many are moving to the "ultra wide" aspect of 2.37:1.


----------



## Shawn Kelly

Hi Mark,

Ah the glorious days when DVDs were anamorphic and the players just down converted to letterbox!

Unfortunately at this point the UHD BD flag is only considered to identify the format of the content without intention to actually provide anamorphic data. 

Yep - chicken and egg. The studios aren't motivated to add UltraWide "stuff" because the market isn't big enough but in part the market isn't big enough because the studios don't put out that added UltraWide stuff. Our hoped-for ace in the hole some years ago was that Vizio put out a 21:9 panel through a major channels but they really dropped the ball on marketing so nobody bought it. 

Constant encouragement seems to be the recipe of the day.


----------



## CAVX

Shawn Kelly said:


> Hi Mark,
> 
> Ah the glorious days when DVDs were anamorphic and the players just down converted to letterbox!
> 
> Unfortunately at this point the UHD BD flag is only considered to identify the format of the content without intention to actually provide anamorphic data.


One thing I've noticed since owning an OPPO (still using the 103D) is that the display actually shows the format as 16:9 regardless of the image being letterboxed or full screen. 

Did some research and apparently 21:9 is part of the BD spec, they just choose not to use it.


----------



## Shawn Kelly

We were active both in the CEA working group for standards and as part of the BDA since these discussions began (under the Folded Space moniker). Again, constant "encouragement" but so far that's all we and other champions of the cause have been able to accomplish.


----------



## CAVX

We have had 16:9 for close to 30 years now. Yawn, it time for something new.


----------



## sbquart

Shawn Kelly said:


> Working on it. Just one of our missions in the realm of wagging the dog. I assume you're just talking about the AR flag.


Shawn, can you confirm they will be fixing the HDR misconvergence issue when stretching. Myself and others have noted this on the 203 thread when using our lenses. Reds and blues tend to bleed when stretching. Thanks.


----------



## Shawn Kelly

Just to confirm - are you sure it's the Oppo stretch mode or is it the lens? The Phoenix and older CineVista lenses were designed to do this and then rely on the panel alignment feature in JVC, Sony and Epson projectors to converge.


----------



## coolrda

sbquart said:


> Shawn, can you confirm they will be fixing the HDR misconvergence issue when stretching. Myself and others have noted this on the 203 thread when using our lenses. Reds and blues tend to bleed when stretching. Thanks.


I have that issue as well. Only with the Oppo scaling. No issue with the proj scaling.


----------



## sbquart

Shawn Kelly said:


> Just to confirm - are you sure it's the Oppo stretch mode or is it the lens? The Phoenix and older CineVista lenses were designed to do this and then rely on the panel alignment feature in JVC, Sony and Epson projectors to converge.


Definitely the Oppo. I can make it happen on my TV as well.


----------



## CAVX

Has this been reported to OPPO? 

I have found their customer service in regards to faults to be one of the best I have dealt with.


----------



## coolrda

I haven't yet but I will. Now that I think about it I have seen it in a movie, a horizontal blue line. Must be a timing issue.


----------



## BattleAxeVR

CAVX said:


> LG(?) has already made a curved 100" 5120 x 2160 display. More will follow if there is software. In fact, all the good things about TVs these days started out in PC monitors. Those included progressive scan and high frame rates. Notice the shape of PC monitors of late? Many are moving to the "ultra wide" aspect of 2.37:1.


I like 21:9 monitors but the extra resolution provided by 5K ultrawide is useless for movies, only for games.

For movies the ideal 21:9 monitor resolution is 3840 x 1600 so there is never any horizontal scaling, only vertical cropping or scaling depending on what you prefer. Upscaling for nothing, by a non-integer ratio (1.33x horizontally and variable vertically, depending on the exact vertical resolution of the movie in question which as you know can vary quite a bit from 1600 lines to 1640 or more), results in lowered image quality and sharpness.


----------



## CAVX

BattleAxeVR said:


> I like 21:9 monitors but the extra resolution provided by 5K ultrawide is useless for movies, only for games.
> 
> For movies the ideal 21:9 monitor resolution is 3840 x 1600 so there is never any horizontal scaling, only vertical cropping or scaling depending on what you prefer. Upscaling for nothing, by a non-integer ratio (1.33x horizontally and variable vertically, depending on the exact vertical resolution of the movie in question which as you know can vary quite a bit from 1600 lines to 1640 or more), results in lowered image quality and sharpness.


Based on what I am seeing from Epson and Optoma UHD projectors, Scaling or more to point, 1:1 pixel mapping is irrelevant with UHD content.

However, the true 21:9 mode for UHD has 2160 vertical pixels and would support 5120 pixels if the studios would encode properly. At this time, they are just catering for a 16:9 market, so everything is maxed out to 3840 wide. Which kind of reminds me of early DVD days when studios were not using the anamorphic enhancement function, so would do 4 x 3 letter boxed transfers instead of 16:9 anamorphic. Why did they do this? Because MOST people owned 4 x 3 TVs. 

So it really is a chicken / egg thing. Make the displays to move the population to UW but also give us program to support that. If they were smart, they would be encoding for 21:9 now and the current 16:9 players would not see this, hence reformat for 16:9. Update the player and you already have software. DTS did this on BD where they were already encoding at HDMA, but no one would hear this until HDMI 1.3 came out.


----------



## CAVX

I got to play with that 21:9 mode today. SONY projector won't scale for CIH with 4K HDR10, but the OPPO 203 allows easy AR changes at the push of a button (zoom on the remote). Very neat.


----------



## John Ballentine

I have a movable A-lens on a sled so I put the OPPO 203 to 21:9 Movable. But I also tried it at 21:9 Fixed. Seems to work the same. Anybody know the difference between these two options?


----------



## Josh Z

Does the OPPO's 21:9 mode only work with a lens in place? Does it have an option for scaling the image down to occupy the center of the 21:9 image when doing the Zoom Method?


----------



## CAVX

Josh Z said:


> Does the OPPO's 21:9 mode only work with a lens in place? Does it have an option for scaling the image down to occupy the center of the 21:9 image when doing the Zoom Method?


I don't have my 203 yet, but my 103D seems to have a "half zoom" mode that looks to be about right for shrinking down the 16:9 image to be the same height as the active image of a letter box film. I would need to do some testing, but I think this is the mode. The question then is, does it still work now OPPO have introduced the new 21:9 mode to the 203?

I think to get the zoom/shrink to work, you would have to not use the 21:9 mode as that seems to introduce the scaling.


----------



## coolrda

Josh Z said:


> Does the OPPO's 21:9 mode only work with a lens in place? Does it have an option for scaling the image down to occupy the center of the 21:9 image when doing the Zoom Method?


Initially I only remember the 21:9 Moveable and 21:9 Fixed modes but I checked last night and they added the 21:9 Cropped mode which allows you to stay zoomed on a 2.35 screen. I verified all scaling is correct. Nice addition for zooming.


----------



## coolrda

John Ballentine said:


> I have a movable A-lens on a sled so I put the OPPO 203 to 21:9 Movable. But I also tried it at 21:9 Fixed. Seems to work the same. Anybody know the difference between these two options?


The 16x9 mode on 21:9 Fixed is accomplished by squeezing the 16x9 info into a 12x9(4x3) while the 21:9 Moveable is 16x9 mode is non-scaled due to the lens being moved out of the light path. The 21:9 and Full modes scaling will be the same on both Fixed and Moveable as the lens is engaged.


----------



## Josh Z

coolrda said:


> Initially I only remember the 21:9 Moveable and 21:9 Fixed modes but I checked last night and they added the 21:9 Cropped mode which allows you to stay zoomed on a 2.35 screen. I verified all scaling is correct. Nice addition for zooming.


Just to confirm, these all work on 4k Ultra HD sources?


----------



## coolrda

Josh Z said:


> Just to confirm, these all work on 4k Ultra HD sources?


Yes. All 4K sources whether from the Oppo via disc,4K streamed from thumb drives from the usb ins and my Roku and Nvidia 4K streamers all running 4K24/30/60. 4K60 was really the big problem as no JVC will scale that internally. HDR flagging is flawless with all inputs. I'm growing partial to the look of 4K60 streaming. I rarely rent but I watched BR2049 in 4K60/HDR from Vudu on the Shield and it looked really good.


----------



## Franin

coolrda said:


> The 16x9 mode on 21:9 Fixed is accomplished by squeezing the 16x9 info into a 12x9(4x3) while the 21:9 Moveable is 16x9 mode is non-scaled due to the lens being moved out of the light path. The 21:9 and Full modes scaling will be the same on both Fixed and Moveable as the lens is engaged.


I just stumbled onto this and I must of done something wrong. When I tried 21:9 moveable it just stretched the picture horizontally when I used my moveable lens ( no difference to when using a 16x9 AR). Do I have to put the projector on a different setting ?


----------



## coolrda

Franin said:


> I just stumbled onto this and I must of done something wrong. When I tried 21:9 moveable it just stretched the picture horizontally when I used my moveable lens ( no difference to when using a 16x9 AR). Do I have to put the projector on a different setting ?


The JVC must be set to Anamorphic Off and not A or B. I’ll double check the moveable scaling as I focused on the 21:9 Cropped mode last run thru.


----------



## Franin

coolrda said:


> The JVC must be set to Anamorphic Off and not A or B. I’ll double check the moveable scaling as I focused on the 21:9 Cropped mode last run thru.


Hi Coolrda there all off I just move the lens with no anamorphic supplied by the projector. At the moment I see no difference between the 16:9 and 21:9 moveable.


----------



## barhoram

I'm playing around with this mode for my setup...which is a JCV projector and just 2:35:1 screen via masking...no A-Lens. I Have two questions regarding my setup...see below: 

I set up the projector with the masking panels off (16:9 screen) so when I do not use the Oppo CIH mode, the oppo home menu, etc extends onto the panels when they are on. As expected. 2:35 content plays back perfectly with the panels and no changes to the oppo...the home menu over-spill is the only problem. 

When I use the cropped CIH mode, the Oppo Home Menu is then the correct Height (no over-spill), but does not fill the screen. I then use one of the zoom modes, and it will eventually fill the 2:35:1 screen. 

1) Is this the proper way to use the CIH mode for my setup?
2) Is there a way to save the zoom setting on the Oppo so it reverts back to it after a power cycle? As best I can tell, when I power off the player, it only remembers the CIH mode setting, so on a restarts, it not doing the zoom and does not fill the screen. 

Thanks!


----------



## coolrda

Franin said:


> Hi Coolrda there all off I just move the lens with no anamorphic supplied by the projector. At the moment I see no difference between the 16:9 and 21:9 moveable.


I double checked and it scales properly in 21:9 Movable. I confirmed with several 4K blurays and all function the same. What content are you scaling?


----------



## coolrda

barhoram said:


> I'm playing around with this mode for my setup...which is a JCV projector and just 2:35:1 screen via masking...no A-Lens. I Have two questions regarding my setup...see below:
> 
> I set up the projector with the masking panels off (16:9 screen) so when I do not use the Oppo CIH mode, the oppo home menu, etc extends onto the panels when they are on. As expected. 2:35 content plays back perfectly with the panels and no changes to the oppo...the home menu over-spill is the only problem.
> 
> When I use the cropped CIH mode, the Oppo Home Menu is then the correct Height (no over-spill), but does not fill the screen. I then use one of the zoom modes, and it will eventually fill the 2:35:1 screen.
> 
> 1) Is this the proper way to use the CIH mode for my setup?
> 2) Is there a way to save the zoom setting on the Oppo so it reverts back to it after a power cycle? As best I can tell, when I power off the player, it only remembers the CIH mode setting, so on a restarts, it not doing the zoom and does not fill the screen.
> 
> Thanks!


21:9 Cropped is for CIH systems where the Projector is zoomed to fill the screens width with overspill on the top and bottom. This is permenently blanked and masked basically turning your 16x9 projector into a 21x9 projector with you having 800x1920 or 1600x3840 pixels and all content scaled to this. Now 16x9 content is scaled to this new pixel count inside the CIH system. No further zooming or scaling should be done with the projector as is the case with all of these 21:9 modes.


----------



## Franin

coolrda said:


> I double checked and it scales properly in 21:9 Movable. I confirmed with several 4K blurays and all function the same. What content are you scaling?



X-men apocalypse 4k 

What process steps do you use. You place it on 21:9 moveable. Do you stretch the picture ? Sorry I’m trying to get a better understand in how this works, what its purpose is.


----------



## coolrda

Franin said:


> X-men apocalypse 4k
> 
> What process steps do you use. You place it on 21:9 moveable. Do you stretch the picture ? Sorry I’m trying to get a better understand in how this works, what its purpose is.


I used Fixed as my lens is always in the light path. Heres a video of what happens when I scale with it set to 21:9 Movable. Excuse the poor quality. I recorded in HD but uploaded in SD.


----------



## coolrda

Just to futher elaborate and clarify, if I had a lens sled, with the lens out I would use 16x9 and it would scale as a typical non lens projector with a letterboxed presentation. Full appears to stretch the picture horizontally, which I only see a benefit with 4x3 material if you wish to stretch it to fill the screen. 21x9 stretchs the picture vertically to to fill the screen with the lens in place. So lens in light path and 21:9 for 2.35 content and lens removed from light path and 16:9 for 1.78/1.85 content and ignore Full.


----------



## Franin

coolrda said:


> Just to futher elaborate and clarify, if I had a lens sled, with the lens out I would use 16x9 and it would scale as a typical non lens projector with a letterboxed presentation. Full appears to stretch the picture horizontally, which I only see a benefit with 4x3 material if you wish to stretch it to fill the screen. 21x9 stretchs the picture vertically to to fill the screen with the lens in place. So lens in light path and 21:9 for 2.35 content and lens removed from light path and 16:9 for 1.78/1.85 content and ignore Full.



Thank you so much for that Coolrda. That was very helpful will look at it again tonight.


----------



## sbquart

HDR misconvergence is fixed with the new firmware. Finally my movies look good!


----------



## coolrda

sbquart said:


> HDR misconvergence is fixed with the new firmware. Finally my movies look good!


Thanks for the heads up.


----------



## DenverMDM

I've been using the 21.9 Cropped mode for awhile with my 203. Has anyone noticed that the when switching to the 16.9 mode by using the zoom button - that a 16.9 movie is still zoomed not quite right? I've brought up the issue a few months ago with Oppo and in the 203 owners thread but maybe I'm not doing something correct. Just to confirm, menus fit correctly but 16.9 content played through my Nvidia Shield (kodi) projected by my JVC RS500 are still just a bit too big to fit within my screen. I had a lumagen mini and was hoping that it would be a shrink to fit solution like that. Am I crazy?


----------



## coolrda

Downloaded the beta firmware which fixes the color shifting with 21:9 modes. Theres mention of the improved sharpness with all material including 4K and that Oppo now has the sharpness and quality of the UB900. While I would need to see and A/B comp I have to say overall its never looked crisper, tack sharp with incredible shadow detail and color saturation.


----------



## Franin

coolrda said:


> Just to futher elaborate and clarify, if I had a lens sled, with the lens out I would use 16x9 and it would scale as a typical non lens projector with a letterboxed presentation. Full appears to stretch the picture horizontally, which I only see a benefit with 4x3 material if you wish to stretch it to fill the screen. 21x9 stretchs the picture vertically to to fill the screen with the lens in place. So lens in light path and 21:9 for 2.35 content and lens removed from light path and 16:9 for 1.78/1.85 content and ignore Full.




Tried it tonight with new Blade Runner fantastic with the 21:9 mode. Thanks for your help. Puts a new lease in life regarding anamorphic for us new lens owners.


----------



## coolrda

Franin said:


> Tried it tonight with new Blade Runner fantastic with the 21:9 mode. Thanks for your help. Puts a new lease in life regarding anamorphic for us new lens owners.


Your welcome. I agree and actually prefer having the Oppo do the scaling. The fact it does the same with HDMI in and gives you all the data specs to boot is great.


----------



## Franin

coolrda said:


> Your welcome. I agree and actually prefer having the Oppo do the scaling. The fact it does the same with HDMI in and gives you all the data specs to boot is great.




I agree the same


----------



## edtorious

Hi, for those of us who doesn't have projector but TV (I have the Sony A1E), what is the best 21:9 zoom setting we should use?


----------



## CAVX

Franin said:


> Hi Coolrda there all off I just move the lens with no anamorphic supplied by the projector. At the moment I see no difference between the 16:9 and 21:9 moveable.


AFAIK, the moveable option is no different to the Vertical Stretch of the previous player and or FW of this player. The real magic happens when you select "fixed" lens and then use the zoom button (denoted by the magnifying glass on the remote) to toggle between VS, HS and normal. 

In the moveable option, there is no HS mode because you would have moved the lens out of the light path for this.


----------



## CAVX

edtorious said:


> Hi, for those of us who doesn't have projector but TV (I have the Sony A1E), what is the best 21:9 zoom setting we should use?


You use 16:9 unless you have a 21:9 TV.


----------



## Franin

CAVX said:


> AFAIK, the moveable option is no different to the Vertical Stretch of the previous player and or FW of this player. The real magic happens when you select "fixed" lens and then use the zoom button (denoted by the magnifying glass on the remote) to toggle between VS, HS and normal.
> 
> 
> 
> In the moveable option, there is no HS mode because you would have moved the lens out of the light path for this.




I found the moveable option when using the 21:9 with lens on front I’ve noticed that information is now on screen ( not cut off like in stretch mode )


----------



## CAVX

Franin said:


> I found the moveable option when using the 21:9 with lens on front I’ve noticed that information is now on screen ( not cut off like in stretch mode )


I don't have my player yet. Are you guys able to post screen grabs on how this works?


----------



## coolrda

CAVX said:


> I don't have my player yet. Are you guys able to post screen grabs on how this works?


I’ll get something together.


----------



## benji888578

CAVX said:


> Based on what I am seeing from Epson and Optoma UHD projectors, Scaling or more to point, 1:1 pixel mapping is irrelevant with UHD content.
> 
> However, the true 21:9 mode for UHD has 2160 vertical pixels and would support *5120 pixels if the studios would encode properly*. At this time, they are just catering for a 16:9 market, so everything is maxed out to 3840 wide. Which kind of reminds me of early DVD days when studios were not using the anamorphic enhancement function, so would do 4 x 3 letter boxed transfers instead of 16:9 anamorphic. Why did they do this? Because MOST people owned 4 x 3 TVs.
> 
> So it really is a chicken / egg thing. Make the displays to move the population to UW but also give us program to support that. If they were smart, they would be encoding for 21:9 now and the current 16:9 players would not see this, hence reformat for 16:9. Update the player and you already have software. DTS did this on BD where they were already encoding at HDMA, but no one would hear this until HDMI 1.3 came out.


Sounds great, problem is, UHD discs don't have enough room as it is.

HD discs: 
25GB single layer
50GB dual layer

UHD discs:
50 or 66 GB dual layer (50 would be for something short)
100 GB triple layer

HD=1920x1080=2,073,600 pixels
UHD=3840x2160=8,294,400 pixels

That's both sides multiplied twice, not just double the number of pixels, but 4 times as many pixels as HD, yet, the top capacity discs are only twice as large. Yeah, the H.265/HEVC compression is better, but, there's only room for the content as it is, no extras, we're talking about using more compression or getting more capacity out of the discs somehow.

(21:9 UHD 5120x2160=11,059,200 pixels)

DTS is not a fair comparison as we're talking about a much, much smaller amount of data.

An example of the problem with capacity is glaring with the Stranger Things UHD set. A reviewer on blu-ray.com reviewed both the UHD & BD discs. Netflix wanted to stay with using only 2 discs for the entire season for both the HD BDs and UHD BDs. He said the UHD version (SDR) didn't look better than the BDs. Not only did they (obviously) use more compression for the video to get it to fit on 2 100GB discs, they only have lossy audio. So the increase in capacity for UHD content isn't really enough at this point, for the best quality possible at 3840x2160 as it is, never mind going to 5120.

In a way, I think the disc capacities were a half-arsed attempt, they couldn't have done it without the new HEVC/H.265 compression tech also, but, it's still like trying to stuff "one more thing" into that already full suitcase, sometimes you just need a bigger case...and for 5120x2160 we need higher capacity discs, (or add another disc, which neither side likes.)


----------



## coolrda

If it’s done like DVD you simply use the entire 16x9 frame, all 2160 pixel lines instead of 1600. This 21:9 feature would only be of benefit to A lens users due to the vertical stretching of 2.35 content to fill the 16x9 frame.


----------



## CAVX

coolrda said:


> If it’s done like DVD you simply use the entire 16x9 frame, all 2160 pixel lines instead of 1600. This 21:9 feature would only be of benefit to A lens users due to the vertical stretching of 2.35 content to fill the 16x9 frame.


I know that the Phillips 21:9 TVs would bi-cubic scale BDs to map out at 2560 x 1080. What we need to see is more 5120 x 2160 TVs (LG and I think Samsung) and if they could provide an electrical stretch, then the "anamorphic" mode you described (and how they should be done IMO) would work for all markets. 

Full screen for 21:9 TVs [21:9 mode]
Anamorphic encodes for projectors + A-Lenses [21:9 mode]
Letterbox or centre crops for 16:9 [both 16:9 or 21:9 mode]


----------



## coolrda

CAVX said:


> I don't have my player yet. Are you guys able to post screen grabs on how this works?


This menu shows the disc data specs accessed by holding down the INFO button.


----------



## CAVX

coolrda said:


> This menu shows the disc data specs accessed by holding down the INFO button.


Cool. Are you able to video the AR change when you press the zoom button?


----------



## coolrda

CAVX said:


> Cool. Are you able to video the AR change when you press the zoom button?


----------



## CAVX

That is very cool. And this works on the HDMI input as well?


----------



## coolrda

CAVX said:


> That is very cool. And this works on the HDMI input as well?


Yes it will, on both hdmi and usb in’s.


----------



## Franin

coolrda said:


> https://youtu.be/8fRMEAKzb3k




coolrda is the full zoom designed for 16:9 content through lens for a scope screen ?


----------



## coolrda

Franin said:


> coolrda is the full zoom designed for 16:9 content through lens for a scope screen ?


Full stretches 16x9 content to fill the screen. 16:9 mode would look like squeezed 4:3 without the lens. 21:9 zooms in all directions. All of the above is with 21:9 Fixed.


----------



## Franin

I have also the 103 and the 93 Oppos and I decided to use the stretch mode on the Oppo 103 to see how it looks and low and behold I get the info like the 21:9 setting on the Oppo 203 ( just too clarify there is no 21:9 aspect ratio setting in the 103 ) when using stretch mode . Meaning everything is on screen as well like the volume control etc not cut off like my JVC anamorphic does.

Edit : I’ve also tried my Oppo 93 region A with the same results.


----------



## coolrda

I didn’t know that about 103 or 93. Always did my scaling through the projector. 

The big thing with the 203 beta is the HDR>SDR tone mapping function with luminance slider and 4 modes. It’s remarkable and I can say I really hadn’t experienced hdr/wcg. Plus dynamic iris functions in hdr now which is a very big deal. BvS which was pretty much unwatchable in HDR is now phenomenal. Black and mid tone detail is so resolved and the dynamics are still blindingly real. The Great Wall was stunning with the TM. Star Trek and several others clipped with luminance at 300 nots so I’m using 500. Basically iMovies now look like the Blu-ray plus all the addition benefits. No more dark 4K movies.


----------



## Franin

coolrda said:


> I didn’t know that about 103 or 93. Always did my scaling through the projector.




Yeah I used to do the same. Not anymore though


----------



## ScottAvery

I am interested in the 21:9 cropped mode for potentially using a faux-K projector without lens memory for a CIH zoomed without A-lens. I may invest in a lens later but I have projection distance issues due to a ceiling beam and may not have enough throw for a lens.

Doing the math, the 16:9 image will only use about 56% of the panel (and light), but it will still be higher resolution than the cable TV source for most 16:9 content. What kind of experience should I expect with scaling in this manner?

How would I best handle intermediate aspect ratios like 2.0:1 ?


----------



## CAVX

ScottAvery said:


> How would I best handle intermediate aspect ratios like 2.0:1 ?


This is where your zoom memory will come into play. The main presents are based on 1.33:1 (1.78 is 1.33 x 1.33 and 2.37 is 1.78 x 1.33) so anything outside of that ratio needs special consideration. 

You should be able to set up memory modes for every AR in between.


----------



## coolrda

ScottAvery said:


> I am interested in the 21:9 cropped mode for potentially using a faux-K projector without lens memory for a CIH zoomed without A-lens. I may invest in a lens later but I have projection distance issues due to a ceiling beam and may not have enough throw for a lens.
> 
> Doing the math, the 16:9 image will only use about 56% of the panel (and light), but it will still be higher resolution than the cable TV source for most 16:9 content. What kind of experience should I expect with scaling in this manner?
> 
> How would I best handle intermediate aspect ratios like 2.0:1 ?


If your using a projector w/o a zoom feature, it comes down to the content framing. I would manually zoom if it didn’t fit good cropped to 2.35.


----------



## ScottAvery

coolrda said:


> If your using a projector w/o a zoom feature, it comes down to the *content framing.* I would manually zoom if it didn’t fit good cropped to 2.35.


Good point. Though I may always wonder what I have missed.


----------



## CAVX

I got my OPPO 203 installed yesterday. 
I have to say, the 21:9 mode (I am using fixed lens option) is brilliant. 
The projector is set up in REAL mode and the OPPO does it's thing. Very impressed. 

It seemed to change AR with this title on its own. 

Calibration? Well that is a whole other thing. 

Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk


----------



## CAVX

I know AVS has it's own dedicated calibration section, but are we able to discuss tone mapping and other aspects related to calibration of CIH systems here?

I think I had a win on my own system. 

The image above does not really show it, but HDR content pre-calibration has a sort grey smoke appearance to it. To me, it is almost like they took the 50, 60 70 and even 80 IRE midtones and pulled then all down a notch to allow room at white for highlights. Generally, this darker looking image has annoyed me given SDR does not seem to suffer this. Now I have my cake and am eating it too. 

After several hours of reading and playing, I have been able to get a CR that looks much better than any of my SDR BDs with a brightness far greater than SDR and still maintain deep blacks (or as deep as what my DLP can do). The only issue is I have had to set the player back to 1080 auto for my set up because I don't yet have a 4k projector, so I am getting 1080P rez, not 4K. 

The key differences I am seeing is the extra details in the shadows (because UHD sets video black at 0, not 7.5) and the whites are much brighter than anything SDR offers. 

I even got what might be a case of highlights. In the BATMAN Vs SUPERMAN movie, there is a bright scene where they dive to find kryptonite. There is a sun highlight that on SDR is just either a big white mass (crushed whites) or nothing special. After this rather odd way of calibrating the display, this white had depth and was intense. 

And I think this needs discussion.


----------



## Josh Z

CAVX said:


> After several hours of reading and playing, I have been able to get a CR that looks much better than any of my SDR BDs with a brightness far greater than SDR and still maintain deep blacks (or as deep as what my DLP can do). The only issue is I have had to set the player back to 1080 auto for my set up because I don't yet have a 4k projector, so I am getting 1080P rez, not 4K.
> 
> The key differences I am seeing is the extra details in the shadows (because UHD sets video black at 0, not 7.5) and the whites are much brighter than anything SDR offers.


What else did you do differently other than set the resolution for 1080 Auto? If you don't have a 4k projector, shouldn't the normal "Auto" resolution output setting default to 1080p anyway during the HDMI handshake? I'm not understanding why this made a difference for you.

What is your projector?


----------



## coolrda

CAVX said:


> I know AVS has it's own dedicated calibration section, but are we able to discuss tone mapping and other aspects related to calibration of CIH systems here?
> 
> I think I had a win on my own system.
> 
> The image above does not really show it, but HDR content pre-calibration has a sort grey smoke appearance to it. To me, it is almost like they took the 50, 60 70 and even 80 IRE midtones and pulled then all down a notch to allow room at white for highlights. Generally, this darker looking image has annoyed me given SDR does not seem to suffer this. Now I have my cake and am eating it too.
> 
> After several hours of reading and playing, I have been able to get a CR that looks much better than any of my SDR BDs with a brightness far greater than SDR and still maintain deep blacks (or as deep as what my DLP can do). The only issue is I have had to set the player back to 1080 auto for my set up because I don't yet have a 4k projector, so I am getting 1080P rez, not 4K.
> 
> The key differences I am seeing is the extra details in the shadows (because UHD sets video black at 0, not 7.5) and the whites are much brighter than anything SDR offers.
> 
> I even got what might be a case of highlights. In the BATMAN Vs SUPERMAN movie, there is a bright scene where they dive to find kryptonite. There is a sun highlight that on SDR is just either a big white mass (crushed whites) or nothing special. After this rather odd way of calibrating the display, this white had depth and was intense.
> 
> And I think this needs discussion.


I’m down. We need more discussion of this topic around here IMO. What settings are you using? I assume it’s strip metadata. Or is it HDR>SDR with Off BT709? What your describing is typical of what happens with grading being done on displays with much higher light output. This pic illustrates it best.


----------



## CAVX

When I first connected the player and loaded a disc, the image looked smokey. 
I didn't understand what was going on right away but now I think I have got a pretty good grip on it now. 

OPPO 203 set to 1080 auto. I could set this to straight auto and let the HDMI handshake do it's thing. 

HDR slide is now set at 100 nits and brightness and contrast are set using the player controls. So yes I am converting HDR back to SDR in the player. 

Projector is still the same old BenQ W6000 I have used since 2011. 

I have done a full calibration again this morning. I prefer to use controls in the service menu rather than those in the user menus because there is far greater control there. 

I used the HDR-10 patterns I have on a USB as the source. 

Gamma is currently set to 2.4 but I think you can change that for your environment. 2.4 is working in my room as the projector controls are all default to 50 and the OPPO contrast is only +1. Brightness is 0. 

My projector does not like 2020 patterns at 100%, so I had to use 75% and it mapped out to rec709. I did that percentage thing to set all the colours where if white is 100%, red is 21, green is 72 etc. 

But the biggest differce is having the white point at D6500K or x:0.313, y:0.329. 

There was a new FW update this morning and I believe that is the new tone mapping. I think I prefer mode 2 at this time. 

What I did notice is that the slider rolls off the top end of the curve making it into an S when normally we would have a smooth transition from black to white. 

Yes this preserves the highlights and so the big question on my mind right now is - apart from the extra rez of 4k, why do we even want a HDR capable displays. Surely as long as it does 2020, this level of processing seems to be a winner. 

Right now, the only thing bugging me about using a 1080p over something that is 2160p is I can see jaggies on angles and text. You just don't really see that on 4k. 

So this upgrade has certainly been worth the time and effort. 

The 21:9 mode is doing something weird too. Geometry is perfect using real or 1:1 mapping on the projector. If I go to the FULL mode and use letterbox on the projector, there is a geometry error. 










Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk


----------



## coolrda

Nice. I really hate that HDR to SDR title because your actually compressing the HDR data, remapping for the display. I your case I would use Off bt709. Unless your gamut extends to P3.

While you can get some of the benefits of HDR, there’s a considerable difference between my BenQ and my JVC RS40.

Several generations removed, my RS520 has the necessary light to do HDR conversion really well. The difference between my W5000 and the rs520 is night and day. Being my display does 100nits calibrated, barely, the 300-400nit setting seems to do the best job at avoiding clipping. It gives HDR capable projectors necessary breathing room. Better tone mapping is the future. 

Ive started experimenting with the 100-250nit comparing them to the HDR/2084. 

As far as the geometry issue your having, why are you scaling with your projector? It should be set to full or no scaling mode, then all scaling is done by the 203.


----------



## CAVX

coolrda said:


> Nice. I really hate that HDR to SDR title because your actually compressing the HDR data, remapping for the display. I your case I would use Off bt709. Unless your gamut extends to P3.


I will need to check what it does to highlights. That scene in BMvSM blows my mind. It is not the same on the BD. Right now, I get them and I must say, they add WOW to the picture. The colour is rec709, so I have not gained anything there that, but I have gained blacks that go to 0 and don't stop at 7.5%. To blacks as deep on BD requires a smidth of crush. 



coolrda said:


> While you can get some of the benefits of HDR, there’s a considerable difference between my BenQ and my JVC RS40.
> 
> Several generations removed, my RS520 has the necessary light to do HDR conversion really well. The difference between my W5000 and the rs520 is night and day. Being my display does 100nits calibrated, barely, the 300-400nit setting seems to do the best job at avoiding clipping. It gives HDR capable projectors necessary breathing room. Better tone mapping is the future.
> 
> Ive started experimenting with the 100-250nit comparing them to the HDR/2084.


Something needs looking into is that right now I can push the white level right up because I have 2 sets of contrast controls and the HDR slide expands crushed whites as you go up in its range. Ideally we want 100 nits, so it might be possible to do this by driving the display a bit harder given we now have external video control in the player. 



coolrda said:


> As far as the geometry issue your having, why are you scaling with your projector? It should be set to full or no scaling mode, then all scaling is done by the 203.


I was testing to see what device scales better. As far as straight VS goes, the BenQ wins, but then there is having to grab a 2nd remote, fumble in the dark to find it's light to see the buttons to make sure I actually push letterbox and not something else. The OPPO remotes lights as soon as you pick it up and that button is easy to find. 

However, what I discovered is that there must be some remapping going on as you can't just go from 16:9 full and use VS in the projector. You have to use the 21:9 mode with real or 1:1 mapping. 

It is convenience more than anything.


----------



## coolrda

CAVX said:


> I will need to check what it does to highlights. That scene in BMvSM blows my mind. It is not the same on the BD. Right now, I get them and I must say, they add WOW to the picture. The colour is rec709, so I have not gained anything there that, but I have gained blacks that go to 0 and don't stop at 7.5%. To blacks as deep on BD requires a smidth of crush.
> 
> 
> 
> Something needs looking into is that right now I can push the white level right up because I have 2 sets of contrast controls and the HDR slide expands crushed whites as you go up in its range. Ideally we want 100 nits, so it might be possible to do this by driving the display a bit harder given we now have external video control in the player.
> 
> 
> 
> I was testing to see what device scales better. As far as straight VS goes, the BenQ wins, but then there is having to grab a 2nd remote, fumble in the dark to find it's light to see the buttons to make sure I actually push letterbox and not something else. The OPPO remotes lights as soon as you pick it up and that button is easy to find.
> 
> However, what I discovered is that there must be some remapping going on as you can't just go from 16:9 full and use VS in the projector. You have to use the 21:9 mode with real or 1:1 mapping.
> 
> It is convenience more than anything.


The tone mapping really is spectacular. It will definitely extend the life of prior generation projectors and make them look better than ever. Laying that down on a good calibration is a jaw dropper. I have been analyzing the picture for several days using Prometheus and then rewatched all of BR2049 with mode 2 & 3, 100-400nits and on low/hi lamp. It’s the first UHDBR mastered at 10000 nits. That really is a phenomenal BR in all aspects. It looks perfect spot on with M3/100nit/low lamp settings. The picture was mesmerizing, it had a luminescent look that reminded me of Oled. It’s too bad I can’t get better ansi contrast, but that’s a by product of a wall to wall screen.


----------



## ScottAvery

coolrda said:


> The tone mapping really is spectacular. It will definitely extend the life of prior generation projectors and make them look better than ever. Laying that down on a good calibration is a jaw dropper. I have been analyzing the picture for several days using Prometheus and then rewatched all of BR2049 with mode 2 & 3, 100-400nits and on low/hi lamp. It’s the first UHDBR mastered at 10000 nits. That really is a phenomenal BR in all aspects. It looks perfect spot on with M3/100nit/low lamp settings. The picture was mesmerizing, it had a luminescent look that reminded me of Oled. It’s too bad I can’t get better ansi contrast, but that’s a by product of a wall to wall screen.


I was already sold on getting the BR2049 UHD (for my non-existent future 4K system based on CAVX screenshot of Ana DeArmas, but using it for reference material might be a more acceptable excuse, so thanks for that.

Are all of the tuning measures being discussed here in the Oppo or in your projectors? I was drawn to the Oppo to support an A-lens, but if it turns out my install cannot accommodate the throw for the lens, I was considering goping for a cheaper player or an xbox instead. Is this a case for the Oppo being significantly better than those alternatives?


----------



## coolrda

ScottAvery said:


> I was already sold on getting the BR2049 UHD (for my non-existent future 4K system based on CAVX screenshot of Ana DeArmas, but using it for reference material might be a more acceptable excuse, so thanks for that.
> 
> Are all of the tuning measures being discussed here in the Oppo or in your projectors? I was drawn to the Oppo to support an A-lens, but if it turns out my install cannot accommodate the throw for the lens, I was considering goping for a cheaper player or an xbox instead. Is this a case for the Oppo being significantly better than those alternatives?


They’re in the Oppo. The tone mapping is a huge deal. You can get in the 4K/HDR game now while waiting on a 4K projector.


----------



## ScottAvery

coolrda said:


> They’re in the Oppo. The tone mapping is a huge deal. You can get in the 4K/HDR game now while waiting on a 4K projector.


Thanks for the explanation. Part of me fears the amount of tinkering that will undoubtedly take place. Will drive my wife nuts!


----------



## CAVX

ScottAvery said:


> I was already sold on getting the BR2049 UHD (for my non-existent future 4K system based on CAVX screenshot of Ana DeArmas, but using it for reference material might be a more acceptable excuse, so thanks for that.
> 
> Are all of the tuning measures being discussed here in the Oppo or in your projectors? I was drawn to the Oppo to support an A-lens, but if it turns out my install cannot accommodate the throw for the lens, I was considering goping for a cheaper player or an xbox instead. Is this a case for the Oppo being significantly better than those alternatives?


Normally when I calibrate, I would start with the basic user controls and adjust brightness, contrast etc.

In my case, I did grey scale in service first (this mode has 1024 steps) to get a solid D6500K or x: 0.313, y: 0.329. 

Normally I would use the S&M BD for a source, but this time, I used the UHD HDR-10 patterns on a USB plugged directly into the OPPO 203. 

After grey scale, I measured colours and this is where I found a major problem. My BenQ W6000 can not handle 2020 at 100% as as input, especially the red. It just bombed out looking like a bright pink. Green and blue were OK, so I had to use 75% patterns. I started by measuring white, then used my excel spreadsheet table to work out the levels of RGBYCM. These colours map out the same as REC709 at 100%. 

Then back to grey scale to check those levels again. 

Then onto the OPPO and playing with the HDR mode, brightness and contrast in the player. I left the projector controls at their default settings.

What I did discover however is that SDR content needs it's own user mode. So I copied the settings over and made the appropriate adjustments with the projector's Brightness/Contrast. 

Everything looks pretty darn good.


----------



## Shawn Kelly

Mark, the "21:9 fixed" video output setup mode in the Oppo is intended as a replacement for all anamorphic processing in the projector (particularly for projectors that don't have it). The "Full" mode with that setup is intended as an option to fill the 2.4:1 screen with stretched but uncropped 16:9/1.85:1 content - basically it's a pass through. That mode had a glitch a couple months ago (it H stretched too much) but is corrected in the latest firmware. Conceivably you could use the "Full" mode on 2.4:1 movies and then use the VS on the projector but wouldn't you just use the 21:9 mode from the Oppo instead?


----------



## CAVX

Shawn Kelly said:


> Mark, the "21:9 fixed" video output setup mode in the Oppo is intended as a replacement for all anamorphic processing in the projector (particularly for projectors that don't have it). The "Full" mode with that setup is intended as an option to fill the 2.4:1 screen with stretched but uncropped 16:9/1.85:1 content - basically it's a pass through. That mode had a glitch a couple months ago (it H stretched too much) but is corrected in the latest firmware. Conceivably you could use the "Full" mode on 2.4:1 movies and then use the VS on the projector but wouldn't you just use the 21:9 mode from the Oppo instead?


Thanks for clarifying. I have done the latest FW, but have not since checked the geometry. It is just easier to use 1:1 mapping "REAL" on the projector and 21:9 mode on the OPPO. 

OK makes sense that they have applied basically what would be about 4% scaling to rid the slivers. But they need to get the amount HS correct as well or you get geometry issues as I saw. 

And by holding down the info button and scrolling to the last page you get the full story. On page 1, player is inputting BT2020/10BIT and on page 3, states it is outputting BT709/8BIT.

Still think this way looks better than straight BD.


----------



## CAVX

Picked this up today. 
This is my first time seeing Dolby Vision? I thought Blade Runner 2049 was Dolby Vision as it is credited as such on the back of the cover. 

A couple of things. 
1. This glitched heaps whilst trying to sync. 
2. The 21:9 does not work with this disc. Lucky for me, my projector did scale for CIH using the letter box mode. 
3. Even thought the meta data shows frame rate of 23.97, the out put of the OPPO is locked at 1080/60P. What was really odd here was how smooth the image looked. None of the usual 3/2 pull down nastiest I would get with a BD if 24fps was turned off. 

Anyone else got this yet?









Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk


----------



## Josh Z

CAVX said:


> This is my first time seeing Dolby Vision? I thought Blade Runner 2049 was Dolby Vision as it is credited as such on the back of the cover.


The UHD Blu-ray for Blade Runner 2049 is HDR10. Only the 4k streaming edition of that movie includes Dolby Vision.

From the images on Amazon, I don't see any mention of Dolby Vision on the disc packaging, just Atmos and a generic reference to HDR.


----------



## coolrda

CAVX said:


> Picked this up today.
> This is my first time seeing Dolby Vision? I thought Blade Runner 2049 was Dolby Vision as it is credited as such on the back of the cover.
> 
> A couple of things.
> 1. This glitched heaps whilst trying to sync.
> 2. The 21:9 does not work with this disc. Lucky for me, my projector did scale for CIH using the letter box mode.
> 3. Even thought the meta data shows frame rate of 23.97, the out put of the OPPO is locked at 1080/60P. What was really odd here was how smooth the image looked. None of the usual 3/2 pull down nastiest I would get with a BD if 24fps was turned off.
> 
> Anyone else got this yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk


Nice. I’ll check on this issue when I get my copy.


----------



## ScottAvery

coolrda said:


> Nice. I’ll check on this issues when I get my copy.


How common is it for the 21:9 mode to fail? I was planning to make my 203 the primary scaler for my system. Does it only break on discs with odd encoding or might it fail on streaming sources? 4k60 streaming or gaming will be problematic if I can't rely on the OPPO, which went in the mail today (yay!)


----------



## coolrda

ScottAvery said:


> How common is it for the 21:9 mode to fail? I was planning to make my 203 the primary scaler for my system. Does it only break on discs with odd encoding or might it fail on streaming sources? 4k60 streaming or gaming will be problematic if I can't rely on the OPPO, which went in the mail today (yay!)


Has never failed me.


----------



## ScottAvery

coolrda said:


> Never has never failed for me.


Was actually responding to CAVX claim that it wouldn't work on The Last Jedi, but I was responding from mobile and couldn't delete his image.


----------



## coolrda

I no longer get HDR from my Shield using HDMI in. I did with the latest beta prior to the official F/W upgrade. Will verify tonite. Anyone else try that?


----------



## CAVX

coolrda said:


> Has never failed me.


Have you got SW TLJ yet? Do you have any other DV titles to test? 

I hoped it was just my system, and yesterday, spoke to a client of mine with the SONY 4K projector and he CAN NOT scale using the OPPO 203 or his SONY 520 projector for SW TLJ or any of the few DV titles he has. 

I know the JVCs can scale even the troublesome JAVA encoded 3D titles. I really need to know about these DV titles now.


----------



## CAVX

Josh Z said:


> The UHD Blu-ray for Blade Runner 2049 is HDR10. Only the 4k streaming edition of that movie includes Dolby Vision.
> 
> From the images on Amazon, I don't see any mention of Dolby Vision on the disc packaging, just Atmos and a generic reference to HDR.


Here is a close up of the BR2049 jacket. 
Even though there is a bigger HDR logo, this is kind of misleading.









Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk


----------



## coolrda

CAVX said:


> Have you got SW TLJ yet? Do you have any other DV titles to test?
> 
> I hoped it was just my system, and yesterday, spoke to a client of mine with the SONY 4K projector and he CAN NOT scale using the OPPO 203 or his SONY 520 projector for SW TLJ or any of the few DV titles he has.
> 
> I know the JVCs can scale even the troublesome JAVA encoded 3D titles. I really need to know about these DV titles now.


Yes. I will check it out after work in a couple hours and let you know.


----------



## coolrda

CAVX said:


> Have you got SW TLJ yet? Do you have any other DV titles to test?
> 
> I hoped it was just my system, and yesterday, spoke to a client of mine with the SONY 4K projector and he CAN NOT scale using the OPPO 203 or his SONY 520 projector for SW TLJ or any of the few DV titles he has.
> 
> I know the JVCs can scale even the troublesome JAVA encoded 3D titles. I really need to know about these DV titles now.


Ok. I tried the SW:TLJ UHDBR and both the Oppo(16:9, 21:9 and full) and JVC(off, anamorphic A and B) scale properly and work as any other title I have. All my other disc with DV work fine as well, Despicable Me 3, lastest F&F and Transformers 5, Spider-Man:Homecoming and Red. It loads as quickly as any title I own. I only tested the uhd disc.


----------



## CAVX

coolrda said:


> Ok. I tried the SW:TLJ UHDBR and both the Oppo(16:9, 21:9 and full) and JVC(off, anamorphic A and B) scale properly and work as any other title I have. All my other disc with DV work fine as well, Despicable Me 3, lastest F&F and Transformers 5, Spider-Man:Homecoming and Red. It loads as quickly as any title I own. I only tested the uhd disc.


Thanks for doing that. 

I can understand my system having some issues, but this does not explain the guy with the Sony 520. His pre-pro is HDMI 2.0 and his projector is HDR 4K. So why can't his OPPO not scale this same title?


----------



## Josh Z

CAVX said:


> Here is a close up of the BR2049 jacket.
> Even though there is a bigger HDR logo, this is kind of misleading.


Your photo does not match the image of the back cover found on Amazon US. 

I see from your profile that you're in Australia. Blade Runner 2049 is distributed by Warner Bros. in North America but by Sony overseas. Perhaps Sony messed up the packaging?


----------



## CAVX

Josh Z said:


> Your photo does not match the image of the back cover found on Amazon US.
> 
> I see from your profile that you're in Australia. Blade Runner 2049 is distributed by Warner Bros. in North America but by Sony overseas. Perhaps Sony messed up the packaging?


It is weird how SONY and WARNER work here. Take T3 from a few years back, it was Warner in the US and SONY in AU. Then Warner Bros Movie World has an add featuring the clip of the TX punching her way out of rubble. Apparently here, they are in bed with Universal as well and call themselves United International Pictures. 

The UHD of BR2049 is indeed a SONY release here. It even has the test patterns if you punch SONY (7669) into the numeric keypad of the OPPO remote. 

There is a collection if short snips from the movie as an extra on the UHD disc. I would have preferred that they put the prequel short films on instead. To see those, I have load the BD.


----------



## Josh Z

CAVX said:


> The UHD of BR2049 is indeed a SONY release here. It even has the test patterns if you punch SONY (7669) into the numeric keypad of the OPPO remote.


IIRC, Sony initially announced that Blade Runner 2049 would have Dolby Vision, but later backtracked on that - possibly because Warner did all the mastering and only provided them with an HDR10 version. The marketing department may not have gotten that memo when throwing together the package art.


----------



## coolrda

CAVX said:


> Thanks for doing that.
> 
> I can understand my system having some issues, but this does not explain the guy with the Sony 520. His pre-pro is HDMI 2.0 and his projector is HDR 4K. So why can't his OPPO not scale this same title?


I did some more playing around with the settings to see if I could duplicate your issue and when I set the Oppo to source direct I lose the scaling. It only works when set to auto.


----------



## CAVX

coolrda said:


> I did some more playing around with the settings to see if I could duplicate your issue and when I set the Oppo to source direct I lose the scaling. It only works when set to auto.


I get to have another play on Monday. So these are things I will on the lookout for. 

Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk


----------



## blastermaster

The new Star Wars movie apparently killed my old UHD player, so I ended up getting the 203. I didn't even discover this thread until after I bought the player. Now I'm so glad I got it (still in the mail). Currently I'm using my lens in place the whole time for all content. When watching 16:9 I use 4:3 mode on my projector and letterbox for 21:9 content. When using the Oppo, though, I just set my projector to 16:9 mode and then use the scaling in the Oppo? If this is the case that opens up a whole new plethora of potential projectors. Namely the Sony 285ES which doesn't have the anamorphic stretch on the projector. You would normally have to move up to the 385 which is significantly more. As a side note, has anyone tried the 285? I was scared away from it a bit because of some banding issue I'd read about...

As far as making current projectors look great using the Oppo...how do you do that (what settings)? I'm so excited about getting this player. All I wanted initially was something that was reliable - having friends over and having to turn off the player twice and restart things made me want to take the player outside and smash it with a sledgehammer.

PS - if you celebrate it...Happy Easter! It's frickin' snowing outside! Yes, I'm from Canada, but this is ridiculous even for this area of the globe.


----------



## coolrda

blastermaster said:


> The new Star Wars movie apparently killed my old UHD player, so I ended up getting the 203. I didn't even discover this thread until after I bought the player. Now I'm so glad I got it (still in the mail). Currently I'm using my lens in place the whole time for all content. When watching 16:9 I use 4:3 mode on my projector and letterbox for 21:9 content. When using the Oppo, though, I just set my projector to 16:9 mode and then use the scaling in the Oppo? If this is the case that opens up a whole new plethora of potential projectors. Namely the Sony 285ES which doesn't have the anamorphic stretch on the projector. You would normally have to move up to the 385 which is significantly more. As a side note, has anyone tried the 285? I was scared away from it a bit because of some banding issue I'd read about...
> 
> As far as making current projectors look great using the Oppo...how do you do that (what settings)? I'm so excited about getting this player. All I wanted initially was something that was reliable - having friends over and having to turn off the player twice and restart things made me want to take the player outside and smash it with a sledgehammer.
> 
> PS - if you celebrate it...Happy Easter! It's frickin' snowing outside! Yes, I'm from Canada, but this is ridiculous even for this area of the globe.


Yes. You’ll set your player to 21:9 Fixed and the Oppo will scale. 

The other important feature is the tone mapping. I use Off/BT2020 and 200-300nits depending on content.


----------



## CAVX

I hope Dolby releases test patterns for DV sooner than later. 

This title locks up all control of the OPPO and I ended up recalibrating HDR-10 to better match the setting I found worked well for DV. This meant raising the HDR slide control to 250.









Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk


----------



## coolrda

Shawn Kelly said:


> FWIW, we've been working closely with Oppo to get all these modes in and working properly but we're still fine tuning. The "Full" mode when video output is set to 21:9 fixed or movable is still off - it horizontally stretches and therefore crops the sides. This will be fixed in the next firmware update.


Is there any chance of them implementing an 18:9 mode, or better yet, adjustable scaling?


----------



## coolrda

CAVX said:


> I hope Dolby releases test patterns for DV sooner than later.
> 
> This title locks up all control of the OPPO and I ended up recalibrating HDR-10 to better match the setting I found worked well for DV. This meant raising the HDR slide control to 250.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk


Are these from your Sony 520? I didn't think there was any projectors that had DV capability yet? Or are you comparing to a DV panel? 

What your seeing is HDR10 minus the DV metadata. You can't get DV unless all components in the chain are DV capable. As long as your peak light output is close to 100nits you should be able to compare it too a bluray running at 48nits/SDR and adjust the nit level accordingly. 

Are you using the newest Oppo app for control? Thats pretty sweet because you have direct control over all these function without bringing up an onscreen menu. You can adjust on the fly.


----------



## CAVX

coolrda said:


> Are these from your Sony 520? I didn't think there was any projectors that had DV capability yet? Or are you comparing to a DV panel?


Unfortunately no. The SONY belongs to a client. He also has a DV complaint LG 65" OLED and damn that is bright when the DOLBY VISION flag is displayed. But no where near as wide as his projection screen. I made him stand close (about 1x the image height) and suddenly, it is not so bright. I wanted him to see that when a display occupies most of the field of view, how different it looks and why big screen projection is so much fun, even though it is really dull in comparison. 

No DV projectors at this time and the SONY has the ability to turn HDR off. So unlike many JVC owners that have use the custom gamma, have set up user modes to switch to after the HDR syncs, this mode is already off. And thanks to the OPPO's tone mapping, fixes all the previous issues we had with this system including the nasty red push and excessive grain. The images are sharp, smooth and clean and look really nice and are all set to the standard now. 

Ready for a laugh? These SW images came from my BenQ W6000.

Given that the HDR and tone mapping was disabled with this title, I decided to find a work around. AFAIK, there are no test patterns for DV yet, so I simply broke the rules (again) and used actual program to make the adjustments.  

I pushed contrast up using the scene where Kylo smashes his helmet into the glass in the elevator. The broken glass acted as a peak white test pattern allowing me to push contrast up to the point of white crush and then find that sweet spot where the peak white was as bright as possible without crush or colour temp shift. 

For brightness, I used the black of space against the black letterbox bar. I set brightness as high as I could without raising the black floor - IE once the black bar raises in level, you have gone too far and it needs to be pulled down. 

This film now looks good and had POP. I was so impressed, that I decided to tweak up HDR-10 to the same peak white light levels and I think I have achieved close results by raising the HDR slide from 150 to 250. Point is, both formats are bright, have deep blacks and great shadow details and no crushing in the whites. 




> What your seeing is HDR10 minus the DV metadata. You can't get DV unless all components in the chain are DV capable. As long as your peak light output is close to 100nits you should be able to compare it too a bluray running at 48nits/SDR and adjust the nit level accordingly.


I understand DV is the full chain from source to display. It will actually control the player. With the OPPO, SW seems to display OK and on the SONY and the Info key displayed it like you have suggested, HDR-10 with the min/max lumance figures displayed. On my system, it is locked up and simply shows colour space as DOLBY VISION 12BIT. All the HDR stuff is greyed out in the menus and can not be adjusted and this is because the BenQ is a 1080P display, not UHD. 



> Are you using the newest Oppo app for control? Thats pretty sweet because you have direct control over all these function without bringing up an onscreen menu. You can adjust on the fly.


I have it on my phone (which is also an OPPO by the way) but no, have not used it yet.


----------



## CAVX

coolrda said:


> Is there any chance of them implementing an 18:9 mode, or better yet, adjustable scaling?


Adjustable scaling would be amazing. Maybe they can also add in UHD CMS as well. 

Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk


----------



## ScottAvery

coolrda said:


> Is there any chance of them implementing an 18:9 mode, or better yet, adjustable scaling?





CAVX said:


> Adjustable scaling would be amazing. Maybe they can also add in UHD CMS as well.


That would be awesome, but today's announcement may make that unlikely. My OPPO just arrived 2 days ago, inspired by this thread. I was hoping to make it the core of my system.

Does the latest official firmware have the updated tone mapping and 21:9 or do I still need to find a beta? Not sure if I am going to open the player, but may as well be prepared.


----------



## CAVX

ScottAvery said:


> That would be awesome, but today's announcement may make that unlikely. My OPPO just arrived 2 days ago, inspired by this thread. I was hoping to make it the core of my system.
> 
> Does the latest official firmware have the updated tone mapping and 21:9 or do I still need to find a beta? Not sure if I am going to open the player, but may as well be prepared.


I am sure the latest FW is the one you want. 

Yes sad news to read today. And I just don't get why. Have they been losing money? Or are phones just more viable? 

Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk


----------



## CAVX

And don't we get used to the new fast. 

Currently watching a Blu-ray and wow, SDR is really bad now. I have set up 3 profiles - SDR, HDR and DV. 

Because the Video Black levels of SDR are at 7.5%, shadow detail is really poor in comparison to HDR or DV, both of which have black at 0. And yeah whites have to be set lower as well or they crush. 

Amazing that we have watched this for years and thought it was great. Bright scenes are nice but you see the limits of the older 8 bit colour system once it gets dark. 

Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk


----------



## coolrda

CAVX said:


> And don't we get used to the new fast.
> 
> Currently watching a Blu-ray and wow, SDR is really bad now. I have set up 3 profiles - SDR, HDR and DV.
> 
> Because the Video Black levels of SDR are at 7.5%, shadow detail is really poor in comparison to HDR or DV, both of which have black at 0. And yeah whites have to be set lower as well or they crush.
> 
> Amazing that we have watched this for years and thought it was great. Bright scenes are nice but you see the limits of the older 8 bit colour system once it gets dark.
> 
> Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk


I know just what you mean with the Blu-ray comparisons. It’s astonishing. 

I have a new appreciation for the outdoors as I compare what I see in real life with on screen footage. It’s remarkable in how it’s captured in HDR.


----------



## CAVX

coolrda said:


> I know just what you mean with the Blu-ray comparisons. It’s astonishing.
> 
> I have a new appreciation for the outdoors as I compare what I see in real life with on screen footage. It’s remarkable in how it’s captured in HDR.


And those highlights. 

Funny thing is, when we see the sun reflect off glass, we generall get annoyed by the bright light, yet when we see this in a HDR or DV video, it is good because is taking us closer to how things look in the real world. 

This Planet Earth 2 is something else.









Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk


----------



## CAVX

Almost forgot to post this.









Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk


----------



## Josh Z

CAVX said:


> Yes sad news to read today. And I just don't get why. Have they been losing money?


The physical media market is dying, and OPPO players are a high-end product with a high price tag. It's a tough business model to sustain in the current market.


----------



## Franin

What a damn shame. I've still got my region A oppo 93, Region B Oppo 93 oppo 103 and the Oppo 203. Good players still going strong. 

Regarding streaming yes it is the future but hopefully one day the audio will be good as the disc. I remember watching Tarzan on Apple TV 3 and the audio was only 5.1 DD and sounded like crap. Watched the blu ray version and it was night and day difference.

Might have to start considering a HTPC .

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk


----------



## CAVX

Josh Z said:


> The physical media market is dying, and OPPO players are a high-end product with a high price tag. It's a tough business model to sustain in the current market.


I understand where you are coming from. Not sure about the US or parts of the world, but our internet here struggles with 4K video. 

I don't want to see packaged media dye, but Joe average just does not get it. In fact, it astounds me, that the number of people that buy 4K UHD TVs are still watching their DVD collection. They never upgraded to BD and certainly have no intention of upgrading to UHD discs. They think because they have a new TV that everything is perfect now and that streaming is now the answer. Most TVs I calibrate are not even running the HD package of Netflix much less the premium that they should be. They all think that the optic fibre of the NBN will be their saviour and it is proving to be the biggest fail.


----------



## CAVX

Franin said:


> What a damn shame. I've still got my region A oppo 93, Region B Oppo 93 oppo 103 and the Oppo 203. Good players still going strong.
> 
> Regarding streaming yes it is the future but hopefully one day the audio will be good as the disc. I remember watching Tarzan on Apple TV 3 and the audio was only 5.1 DD and sounded like crap. Watched the blu ray version and it was night and day difference.
> 
> Might have to start considering a HTPC .
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk


And that is it. If people have only heard DD5.1 (typical DVD users), then they just don't know what they are missing out on. 

Hopefully the HTPC arena has sorted itself out since the days I played with it. It should have step 1 2 3, and it was for the first 5 times, then something wouldn't work and it take 6 restarts just to get it up and running again. I gave it away because, i just wanted to watch a movie, not have to battle to the death with the redundant tech. 

OPPO to me has always been a HTPC in a box that just works!


----------



## Josh Z

I can unfortunately confirm that the OPPO 203's 21:9 aspect ratio controls do not work with The Last Jedi. The entire picture control section of the setup menu is locked out when playing any disc authored with Dolby Vision. This is a requirement mandated by Dolby, who don't want users messing with the Dolby Vision signal.


----------



## CAVX

I have been loaned a BenQ W1700 UHD projector with HDR. 

This thing is bright and does the highlights of HDR really well. It also seems to support P3 colour. Black floor is poor and there is no lens shift or vertical stretch feature. Lucky the OPPO does a full CIH processing.









Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk


----------



## ScottAvery

Josh Z said:


> I can unfortunately confirm that the OPPO 203's 21:9 aspect ratio controls do not work with The Last Jedi. The entire picture control section of the setup menu is locked out when playing any disc authored with Dolby Vision. This is a requirement mandated by Dolby, who don't want users messing with the Dolby Vision signal.


Seems shortsighted, punishing those who actually would care to use it, and pay for it.


----------



## CAVX

Josh Z said:


> I can unfortunately confirm that the OPPO 203's 21:9 aspect ratio controls do not work with The Last Jedi. The entire picture control section of the setup menu is locked out when playing any disc authored with Dolby Vision. This is a requirement mandated by Dolby, who don't want users messing with the Dolby Vision signal.


I don't understand why, but running the HDMI direct to the W1700 caused The Last Jedi to be converted back to HDR at 12bit and the OPPO scaling worked. 

This also happened to the clients SONY and OPPO. 

The problem I have is that it seems like the Electro Optical Transfer Function seems to be a straight line and not the normal S Curve of HDR-10. It looks ghastly unless you push contrast and pull the brightness. 

The HDR slide thing seems to be locked but the user controls allow toggling between the 3 modes that you can customize. 

Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk


----------



## CAVX

And slightly OT but still OT is the results of the latest playing around with this OPPO and what it can do.









Because Dolby Vision over-rides all the OPPO controls, I have made adjustments for that in the projector menus and found that I can really push the limits, especially contrast without white crush. For blacks, I went to the 4 x 3 mode and used the letter box black (0IRE) against the side pillars (also 0IRE) and pushed brightness as high as I could without raising the black floor. This was done using a gamma of 2.4 and I think that using a higher value may allow the brightness to be pushed even higher. 

HDR-10 was set in the OPPO using those HDR-10 patterns (I have my copy on a USB that is plugged directly into the OPPO.). SDR was checked and adjusted using reference discs like S&M Vol 2 and JPK DVE. Initially I had set up Mode 1 and 2 for SDR and HDR but what I found out was that the black levels adjust for each where I can see down to 2.5% (the lowest the BenQ W6000 can display) for HDR and can only see above video black for SDR on the same mode. This means I can change out program without having to change modes in either the player of the projector.


----------



## Clark Burk

ScottAvery said:


> Seems shortsighted, punishing those who actually would care to use it, and pay for it.


Did you try forcing HDR? Switch to Force HDR and change player to Energy Efficient versus Network Standby. Turn player off and back on again and see if you can change your aspect setting. At least I think that is the process for forcing HDR. If I'm in error if another OPPO owner can chime in thanks.


----------



## coolrda

CAVX said:


> I have been loaned a BenQ W1700 UHD projector with HDR.
> 
> This thing is bright and does the highlights of HDR really well. It also seems to support P3 colour. Black floor is poor and there is no lens shift or vertical stretch feature. Lucky the OPPO does a full CIH processing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk


Nice cal. Whats the screen area?


----------



## CAVX

coolrda said:


> Nice cal. Whats the screen area?


Small. 100 inch on the diagonal. 

Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk


----------



## tractng

Help me understand this. I just got to the 203 unit last night and played briefly.

I have a Sony 40es (not 4k) and a Yamaha Aventage 2040 (4k scaling). I just made a 2.35:1 AT screen (87"x37"). So prior to the purchase of the Oppo 203, I just zoomed the image to fill the screen.

Now with the Oppo 203, lets say if I were to watch a movie with 2.35 format, what would be my setting for the video output and zoom button? I tried the "21:9 cropped" and left the zoom at "full". Basically I tried all the combo but want to make sure which should be the correct choice.

Thanks.
Tt


----------



## coolrda

tractng said:


> Help me understand this. I just got to the 203 unit last night and played briefly.
> 
> I have a Sony 40es (not 4k) and a Yamaha Aventage 2040 (4k scaling). I just made a 2.35:1 AT screen (87"x37"). So prior to the purchase of the Oppo 203, I just zoomed the image to fill the screen.
> 
> Now with the Oppo 203, lets say if I were to watch a movie with 2.35 format, what would be my setting for the video output and zoom button? I tried the "21:9 cropped" and left the zoom at "full". Basically I tried all the combo but want to make sure which should be the correct choice.
> 
> Thanks.
> Tt


Set your projector to Full or 16x9. Zoom to fill your screen Width and enable 21:9 Cropped/Zoomed. Now scale through the three modes. 16x9 content will now be scaled to fit the CIH with side pillar boxing. You basically have a 21:9 cropped projector with proper scaling.


----------



## tractng

coolrda said:


> Set your projector to Full or 16x9. Zoom to fill your screen Width and enable 21:9 Cropped/Zoomed. Now scale through the three modes. 16x9 content will now be scaled to fit the CIH with side pillar boxing. You basically have a 21:9 cropped projector with proper scaling.


So for a 2.35 format movie, I just leave it as 21:9 cropped/21.9 zoom?

Btw, the Sony projector doesn't have memory zoom/lens (just manual).


----------



## CAVX

tractng said:


> Help me understand this. I just got to the 203 unit last night and played briefly.
> 
> I have a Sony 40es (not 4k) and a Yamaha Aventage 2040 (4k scaling). I just made a 2.35:1 AT screen (87"x37"). So prior to the purchase of the Oppo 203, I just zoomed the image to fill the screen.
> 
> Now with the Oppo 203, lets say if I were to watch a movie with 2.35 format, what would be my setting for the video output and zoom button? I tried the "21:9 cropped" and left the zoom at "full". Basically I tried all the combo but want to make sure which should be the correct choice.
> 
> Thanks.
> Tt



You have not mentioned if you are using an anamorphic lens or not. For the 21:9 mode to work properly, your display needs to be 21:9. Of course we live in a predominately 16:9 world, and so why we use a 1.33x A-Lens with our 16:9 projectors. 

Once selected, the normal range of zoom modes on the OPPO are disabled. The 21:9 mode (Fixed Lens) does three modes only - 16:9, 21:9 and full. 

You need to set the projector up so that the 16:9 image fills the height of the Scope screen, not the width (unless you are using a Vertical Compression Lens). The optics of the anamorphic are what optically stretch the light to fill the screen width. 

If you have a VC lens, you fill the screens width and let the VC optics compress the light to the correct height. 

I normally start in the 16:9 mode and switch to 21:9 as soon as I play the film. In the past (and for DV titles on my system) I have to use the letterbox mode on the projector. Now with the OPPO, I hit the zoom key and I get 21:9 on screen. 

If you set this up and use it without the A-Lens, your image geometry will be distorted!


----------



## CAVX

ScottAvery said:


> Seems shortsighted, punishing those who actually would care to use it, and pay for it.


All I am grateful for is that my projector still scales for this movie. I know some projectors won't scale like the true 4K SONY.


----------



## tractng

CAVX said:


> You have not mentioned if you are using an anamorphic lens or not. For the 21:9 mode to work properly, your display needs to be 21:9. Of course we live in a predominately 16:9 world, and so why we use a 1.33x A-Lens with our 16:9 projectors.
> 
> Once selected, the normal range of zoom modes on the OPPO are disabled. The 21:9 mode (Fixed Lens) does three modes only - 16:9, 21:9 and full.
> 
> You need to set the projector up so that the 16:9 image fills the height of the Scope screen, not the width (unless you are using a Vertical Compression Lens). The optics of the anamorphic are what optically stretch the light to fill the screen width.
> 
> If you have a VC lens, you fill the screens width and let the VC optics compress the light to the correct height.
> 
> I normally start in the 16:9 mode and switch to 21:9 as soon as I play the film. In the past (and for DV titles on my system) I have to use the letterbox mode on the projector. Now with the OPPO, I hit the zoom key and I get 21:9 on screen.
> 
> If you set this up and use it without the A-Lens, your image geometry will be distorted!



I don't have a anamorphic lens.


----------



## ScottAvery

tractng said:


> I don't have a anamorphic lens.


Since you have neither A-lens nor lens memory there are two possible uses of the 21:9 for you:

1) Primary advantage is being able to move subtitles for disk-based media into your scope frame.

2) Secondary option is that it will also allow you to display a 16x9 image that is scaled down into the center of your scope frame so that it looks like you ARE using a lens. It will be sized to the height of the scope image and centered. Given that you are on a 1080p projector, however, it will be at a significant resolution hit that you may not want to take. But it is still an option for when you don't feel like manually adjusting zoom.


----------



## aeneas01

i have a scope screen and a 16:9 1080p projector, no a-lens, and use my lumagen's fixed zoom method (tech tip 16) to display widescreen content in full (non-active image spills over the top and bottom of the screen), while displaying 16:9 content using non-linear stretch, which also fills the scope screen...it seems that oppo's cih mode can get me halfway there, i.e. it can fill my screen with widescreen content in the same manner as the lumagen, but displays 16:9 content with pillar bars on the left and right as opposed to also offering a non-linear stretch setting for 16:9 material, is this correct?


----------



## Josh Z

aeneas01 said:


> it seems that oppo's cih mode can get me halfway there, i.e. it can fill my screen with widescreen content in the same manner as the lumagen, but displays 16:9 content with pillar bars on the left and right as opposed to also offering a non-linear stretch setting for 16:9 material, is this correct?


Correct, no non-linear stretch in the OPPO.

Doesn't the fisheye effect during horizontal motion ever disturb you? I find it nauseating, personally.


----------



## aeneas01

Josh Z said:


> Correct, no non-linear stretch in the OPPO.
> 
> Doesn't the fisheye effect during horizontal motion ever disturb you? I find it nauseating, personally.


 have never noticed any fisheye during paining or horizontal motion when using lumagen's non-linear stretch, then again i've never noticed rainbow effects from dlps, maybe i have early onset cataracts? in fact i dig the heck out of lumagen's non-linear stretch for 16:9 content, especially live sports, especially nfl games, especially after dialing in the non-linear stretche's center focus parameters... altho i would be happy to have one less piece of gear if the 203 could do non-linear stretch.


speaking of the lumagen, have any owners of both, the lumagen and 203, compared their video processing prowess, in terms of noise reduction, sharpness, contrast, gamma, color, b/w levels settings?


----------



## Josh Z

Fisheye effect is unavoidable with any non-linear stretch. Motion will be exaggerated more at the sides of the image (which are stretched more) than at the center (which is stretched less) during any horizontal movement. I'd think this would be maddening while watching any sports that feature a lot of side-to-side camera panning action.


----------



## aeneas01

Josh Z said:


> Fisheye effect is unavoidable with any non-linear stretch. Motion will be exaggerated more at the sides of the image (which are stretched more) than at the center (which is stretched less) during any horizontal movement. I'd think this would be maddening while watching any sports that feature a lot of side-to-side camera panning action.


i have my setup in my restaurant and show major sporting events in non-linear stretch only, all of the time, and customers absolutely love it, i'm always asked how the heck it's accomplished, how the heck i'm able to show games in widescreen, never once has anyone said "hey, why do all of the players look short and squat?" or "what's up with the panning, what's going on with the odd the horizontal motion, the fisheye?", of course i can't vouch for my customers' eyesight! anyway, nls is clearly not for everyone, but for me, and my setup, it's fantastic, wold have been great news to me if oppo offered nls as an option in ar modes but, alas...


----------



## CAVX

ScottAvery said:


> Since you have neither A-lens nor lens memory there are two possible uses of the 21:9 for you:
> 
> 1) Primary advantage is being able to move subtitles for disk-based media into your scope frame.
> 
> 2) Secondary option is that it will also allow you to display a 16x9 image that is scaled down into the center of your scope frame so that it looks like you ARE using a lens. It will be sized to the height of the scope image and centered. Given that you are on a 1080p projector, however, it will be at a significant resolution hit that you may not want to take. But it is still an option for when you don't feel like manually adjusting zoom.


He doesn't need or want to activate the 21:9 mode to use these features. The standard 16:9 mode will allow both ST repositioning and a half zoom mode for 16:9 when the projector is zoomed out to fill the Scope screen.


----------



## ScottAvery

CAVX said:


> He doesn't need or want to activate the 21:9 mode to use these features. The standard 16:9 mode will allow both ST repositioning and a half zoom mode for 16:9 when the projector is zoomed out to fill the Scope screen.


True, but the feature I missed was scaling the menu to fit the screen, which might be useful afterall.


----------



## lizrussspike

Thanks @coolrda, and everyone else on this thread! I do not have a scope, but did recently get a 2.35 screen with my Oppo 203 and RS420! Really enjoying this modified version of CIH! Just got done with Saving Private Ryan, and also The Matrix! Wow, a couple of great 4K releases for the weekend!


----------



## coolrda

lizrussspike said:


> Thanks @coolrda, and everyone else on this thread! * I do not have a scope*, but did recently get a 2.35 screen with my Oppo 203 and RS420! Really enjoying this modified version of CIH! Just got done with Saving Private Ryan, and also The Matrix! Wow, a couple of great 4K releases for the weekend!


I assume you meant you don't have an A lens. You do have a Scope setup since you've gone 2.35. Enjoy your CIH!


----------



## lizrussspike

Thanks *coolrda*, that is what I meant. Probably a few too many pork chops in the bottle that night. May have to look into a lens at some point.


----------



## CAVX

ScottAvery said:


> True, but the feature I missed was scaling the menu to fit the screen, which might be useful afterall.


The half zoom thing will move the menu to be in the screen. Correct, the menu will be projecting onto the black bars in Scope mode. 

If he goes 21:9 mode, he loses the ability to do the half height. So there is a bit of a trade off.


----------



## Franin

Ive just purchased a JVC X5900 (X590r) and being that it accepts the 4K signal has anyone had issues where Oppo 203 cannot stretch on certain UHD titles when playing 4K movies ? And am I meant to strip metadata ? Sorry guys about the questons coming from a JVC X35 which Ive had for awhile this is my first venture into the 4K world ( I know its not true 4K but it looks damn good )


----------



## coolrda

Franin said:


> Ive just purchased a JVC X5900 (X590r) and being that it accepts the 4K signal has anyone had issues where Oppo 203 cannot stretch on certain UHD titles when playing 4K movies ? And am I meant to strip metadata ? Sorry guys about the questons coming from a JVC X35 which Ive had for awhile this is my first venture into the 4K world ( I know its not true 4K but it looks damn good )


Cool. I haven’t run across any 4K that couldnt be scaled with the 203. With your setup never use strip metadata. 

Here’s is my streamlined process I use currently for my movie nights. I preview 20-30 mins of each 4K/UHD disc using auto in the 203 which sets everything to normal HDR mode. It it’s problematic, too dark typically, I switch From Auto(HDR) to SDR/rec2020. This does desaturate color when compared to HDR(2020 color closer to 709, a known problem with the firmware) just a bit. Sometimes this is a plus as the color is too much. The other thing you can try is turn up Picture and Dark a little on the HDR gamma. Be careful to not overdo that. Javs and Dominic have some nicely done files to correct these issues if you spend some time learning the process.


----------



## Franin

coolrda said:


> Cool. I haven’t run across any 4K that couldnt be scaled with the 203. With your setup never use strip metadata.
> 
> Here’s is my streamlined process I use currently for my movie nights. I preview 20-30 mins of each 4K/UHD disc using auto in the 203 which sets everything to normal HDR mode. It it’s problematic, too dark typically, I switch From Auto(HDR) to SDR/rec2020. This does desaturate color when compared to HDR(2020 color closer to 709, a known problem with the firmware) just a bit. Sometimes this is a plus as the color is too much. The other thing you can try is turn up Picture and Dark a little on the HDR gamma. Be careful to not overdo that. Javs and Dominic have some nicely done files to correct these issues if you spend some time learning the process.


Thanks coolrda. I watched a bit of Black Panther in UHD in Natural and Auto iris 2 with the Oppo as doing the stretch and the pq was amazing. I'm glad I did the upgrade.


----------



## CAVX

Franin, most titles that are HDR-10 should be OK and scale with the OPPO's 21:9 mode. System pending, you may experience an issue with Dolby Vision encodes. In most cases, DV is converted to HDR-10 when the OPPO is connected to a 4K (including FAUX 4K) projectors. In my case, where I am still using a 1080P projector, DV remains intact but is converted to REC709. However, it locks up the players processing including the ability to scale. Lucky for me, the BenQ can provide VS and HS. 

Do you have the ability to measure the brightness off the screen? 

HDR typically wants 100 nits, but most large screen projectors are going to struggle to get much over 50 nits. This is where the OPPO's HDR to SDR converter comes in to play. I have found that setting the slider to 200 nits and using MODE 3 works best on my aging lamp. I really need to replace it and sooner than later. 

Whilst everything is converted to REC709 for my system, you want to select HDR OFF BT 2020 to preserve the wide colour as your projector should be able to do P3 colour. 

Doing this is impressive. You gain the extra detail in the darks and the system preserves the highlights. 

I noticed that you were asking about Arves Gamma Curves in the Aussie forums. This software is good but can be a bit weird to use. It does give a good result and I wish software like this was available for other projectors. 

Basically, regardless if you use Arves or not, you want an S gamma curve and roll off the top end to prevent hard clipping. I have been able to create one for my older projector and it works to make everything including, SDR look better.


----------



## Franin

CAVX said:


> Franin, most titles that are HDR-10 should be OK and scale with the OPPO's 21:9 mode. System pending, you may experience an issue with Dolby Vision encodes. In most cases, DV is converted to HDR-10 when the OPPO is connected to a 4K (including FAUX 4K) projectors. In my case, where I am still using a 1080P projector, DV remains intact but is converted to REC709. However, it locks up the players processing including the ability to scale. Lucky for me, the BenQ can provide VS and HS.
> 
> Do you have the ability to measure the brightness off the screen?
> 
> HDR typically wants 100 nits, but most large screen projectors are going to struggle to get much over 50 nits. This is where the OPPO's HDR to SDR converter comes in to play. I have found that setting the slider to 200 nits and using MODE 3 works best on my aging lamp. I really need to replace it and sooner than later.
> 
> Whilst everything is converted to REC709 for my system, you want to select HDR OFF BT 2020 to preserve the wide colour as your projector should be able to do P3 colour.
> 
> Doing this is impressive. You gain the extra detail in the darks and the system preserves the highlights.
> 
> I noticed that you were asking about Arves Gamma Curves in the Aussie forums. This software is good but can be a bit weird to use. It does give a good result and I wish software like this was available for other projectors.
> 
> Basically, regardless if you use Arves or not, you want an S gamma curve and roll off the top end to prevent hard clipping. I have been able to create one for my older projector and it works to make everything including, SDR look better.



Hey Mark,
Thanks for your reply. I dont have a light meter to measure the brightness I will need to get one. I was curious about the Arves Gamma Curves but not sure what am Im going to do yet. Will have to familiarise myself with the JVC Calibration Tool. Ive got the Calman Meter which has been upagraded to HDR ( Brand New ) im might have to sell as Calman doesnt support the new JVC Projectors. Yeah..Yeah i can manually calibrate it but Im lazy and I prefer to Autocal.


----------



## CAVX

Franin said:


> Hey Mark,
> Thanks for your reply. I dont have a light meter to measure the brightness I will need to get one. I was curious about the Arves Gamma Curves but not sure what am Im going to do yet. Will have to familiarise myself with the JVC Calibration Tool. Ive got the Calman Meter which has been upagraded to HDR ( Brand New ) im might have to sell as Calman doesnt support the new JVC Projectors. Yeah..Yeah i can manually calibrate it but Im lazy and I prefer to Autocal.


So is this the new version of Eye One Pro that is supposed to measure out to 2000 nits? 
Will you be using CalMan Software or the free HCFR? 

With the Auto Cal, for a JVC, you are supposed to use a SPIDER and their software and measure the light path direct, not the reflected light off the screen. I have two problems with this - 

1. The SPIDER is known to have a green chanel error and
2. If you measure the in the direct lightpath, you do not take into account any bias that the screen material may introduce. All screens are different and even those claiming perfect RGB reflectivity can be affected by the environment itself. 

So once you have run the Auto Cal, you then can run the Arves software. 

What I find quirky about the Arves Curves software is that you need to read each line of the "code" and it is sort of like the DOS system (pre-windows) in a tiny window. It is interactive with some specialized test patterns (actually short HDR encoded video clips - if you don't these, you will need them) and you create an IP address in your JVC to send the file to (even though it is a cable connection from a PC to the JVC by the data port). So I use the same IP address for every JVC I calibrate. Each projector is stand alone anyway, so it does not matter. 

You follow the instructions and you will see some weird stuff happen, but then BAM! The magic that is the S curve and how it maps out the tone in the picture is really cool. 

What I don't like about the Arves curves is that is forces the contrast/brightness controls to be at their default of 50 and this (especially contrast) needs to go higher in order to get more light on screen. 

So when you calibrate other brands or with the ARVES - 

So based on older SDR calibration, my contrast would be around default 50 as well. Or it crushed the whites. 

With the OPPO, you have brightness contrast controls that work independently from the projector controls. 

So in SDR, setting black level was finding the point in which the "below black bars" were not visible against the video black back ground. 

In HDR, we need to see all the way to 0, so I found the best way to set a black floor (especially when using an anamorphic lens) is to go the 4 x 3 mode where the side pillars generated by the projector are absolute black or as black as the display will allow. It was not known if the black bars of a BD were at 0 or slightly above, but we know that the black bars of Dolby Vision encoded HDR disc are 0, so I use them against the side pillars of the projector's 4 x 3 mode and set the black floor at the point where there is no difference between them. 

Next is the black clip test pattern. What I found for HDR was I needed to increase the brightness control. If I do this on the projector, the black floor raises, so I use the brightness control in the OPPO to raise the brightness to allow me to see as far down the range to 0 that the system will allow. My DLP caps out at 2%. 

On to white. So the first time I watched THE LAST JEDI (which was also my first Dolby Vision encoded disc), it looked greyish as if you were using HDR FORCED in the OPPO. So I decided to play and see what happens. Because my system displays "video adjustments can not be made for Dolby Vision content", I used a scene with bright whites (kylo smashing his helmet) and pushed the contrast way up to the point of crush and then backed it off. So contrast went up from 50 (based on SDR calibration) to over 70 (currently 73!) and there is no crush on Dolby Vision content, but I have gained significant light output from the projector. A good 25%!

However, there is crush in HDR-10 and SDR content, so I used the OPPO contrast and backed it all the way back to the point where I could clearly see up to 10,000 nits on the white clip test pattern. In my case, that is -16 on the OPPO contrast and +3 on the OPPO brightness). I also found Tone Mapping MODE 3 to work the best. 

When I checked this using a reference SDR BD, these setting still worked, so what I have is essentially one user setting that works for SDR, HDR and DV. 

When I ran the 11 step grey scale, I got an S shape that seems to peak at 80% and flat line out to 100%. Blacks start at 0 and ramp up quicker than they would for SDR only content, but it works. The IMAGE HAS POP that is lacked before. 

The HDR slider is on 200
I also selected HDR off BT2020 and even though my system is only REC709, it gives the colours a nice boost. 

Also once you have your peak white light reading, you need to set the colours based on that. 

Took a few hours, but well worth it.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Franin

CAVX said:


> So is this the new version of Eye One Pro that is supposed to measure out to 2000 nits?
> Will you be using CalMan Software or the free HCFR?
> 
> With the Auto Cal, for a JVC, you are supposed to use a SPIDER and their software and measure the light path direct, not the reflected light off the screen. I have two problems with this -
> 
> 1. The SPIDER is known to have a green chanel error and
> 2. If you measure the in the direct lightpath, you do not take into account any bias that the screen material may introduce. All screens are different and even those claiming perfect RGB reflectivity can be affected by the environment itself.
> 
> So once you have run the Auto Cal, you then can run the Arves software.
> 
> What I find quirky about the Arves Curves software is that you need to read each line of the "code" and it is sort of like the DOS system (pre-windows) in a tiny window. It is interactive with some specialized test patterns (actually short HDR encoded video clips - if you don't these, you will need them) and you create an IP address in your JVC to send the file to (even though it is a cable connection from a PC to the JVC by the data port). So I use the same IP address for every JVC I calibrate. Each projector is stand alone anyway, so it does not matter.
> 
> You follow the instructions and you will see some weird stuff happen, but then BAM! The magic that is the S curve and how it maps out the tone in the picture is really cool.
> 
> What I don't like about the Arves curves is that is forces the contrast/brightness controls to be at their default of 50 and this (especially contrast) needs to go higher in order to get more light on screen.
> 
> So when you calibrate other brands or with the ARVES -
> 
> So based on older SDR calibration, my contrast would be around default 50 as well. Or it crushed the whites.
> 
> With the OPPO, you have brightness contrast controls that work independently from the projector controls.
> 
> So in SDR, setting black level was finding the point in which the "below black bars" were not visible against the video black back ground.
> 
> In HDR, we need to see all the way to 0, so I found the best way to set a black floor (especially when using an anamorphic lens) is to go the 4 x 3 mode where the side pillars generated by the projector are absolute black or as black as the display will allow. It was not known if the black bars of a BD were at 0 or slightly above, but we know that the black bars of Dolby Vision encoded HDR disc are 0, so I use them against the side pillars of the projector's 4 x 3 mode and set the black floor at the point where there is no difference between them.
> 
> Next is the black clip test pattern. What I found for HDR was I needed to increase the brightness control. If I do this on the projector, the black floor raises, so I use the brightness control in the OPPO to raise the brightness to allow me to see as far down the range to 0 that the system will allow. My DLP caps out at 2%.
> 
> On to white. So the first time I watched THE LAST JEDI (which was also my first Dolby Vision encoded disc), it looked greyish as if you were using HDR FORCED in the OPPO. So I decided to play and see what happens. Because my system displays "video adjustments can not be made for Dolby Vision content", I used a scene with bright whites (kylo smashing his helmet) and pushed the contrast way up to the point of crush and then backed it off. So contrast went up from 50 (based on SDR calibration) to over 70 (currently 73!) and there is no crush on Dolby Vision content, but I have gained significant light output from the projector. A good 25%!
> 
> However, there is crush in HDR-10 and SDR content, so I used the OPPO contrast and backed it all the way back to the point where I could clearly see up to 10,000 nits on the white clip test pattern. In my case, that is -16 on the OPPO contrast and +3 on the OPPO brightness). I also found Tone Mapping MODE 3 to work the best.
> 
> When I checked this using a reference SDR BD, these setting still worked, so what I have is essentially one user setting that works for SDR, HDR and DV.
> 
> When I ran the 11 step grey scale, I got an S shape that seems to peak at 80% and flat line out to 100%. Blacks start at 0 and ramp up quicker than they would for SDR only content, but it works. The IMAGE HAS POP that is lacked before.
> 
> The HDR slider is on 200
> I also selected HDR off BT2020 and even though my system is only REC709, it gives the colours a nice boost.
> 
> Also once you have your peak white light reading, you need to set the colours based on that.
> 
> Took a few hours, but well worth it.
> 
> Hope that helps.


It's there C6 meter which I sent in for upgrade to their new one which apparently is now call C6 HDR.

What is HCFR ?

Thanks for the tip Mark feels like I'm starting all over again with this HDR.


----------



## CAVX

Franin said:


> It's there C6 meter which I sent in for upgrade to their new one which apparently is now call C6 HDR.
> 
> What is HCFR ?
> 
> Thanks for the tip Mark feels like I'm starting all over again with this HDR.


This is a learning curve for all of us. The whole industry seems to have been turned on its head. 

So AFAIK, the C6 and Eye One are supposedly the same meter, but the C6 does cost more. The older version is limited to 1000 nits and the new is now rated out to 2000 nits. Useful to you if you ever get a flat panel over 1000 nits. No projector will get that bright. 

HCFR = Home Cinema France. It colorimeter software that was created in France by some enthusiasts but they dropped it after a few years and apparently it has been picked up by a member at AVS who has done several good upgrades. It is essentially free software, but the guy does have a patreon page to make a donation for the hard work he has put into this. Make sure you get the latest version as older versions do not update. 

Where SDR was essentially 16 - 235 at about 40 nits (full white field), HDR is 0 - 1024 (? Steps are finer to eliminate banding) at 100 nits (full white field). The problem is of course, it is hard to find a projector that can produce that much light on a big screen. If you can get 50+ nits from your JVC, consider that good. 

Where for SDR we wanted a Gamma of 2.35 (Gamma 2.2 was often thought to be correct) that ramps out of black fairly smoothly, HDR wants to ramps out of black much faster and starts to peak at about 70% rolling off at 90% to form a big S shape. I think my curve actually clips at 80%, yet the detail in the highlights is still visible and looks good on MODE 3 on the OPPO. 

Because projection systems will never be as bright as a flat panel, we have had to make up a work around for projection systems. For a time, removing the meta data was considered the best approach. Now it is tone mapping which the OPPO does well. 

When I tested the BenQ W1700 (above), it produced 128 nits on screen, so I was able to use AUTO and it looked good. Once you dip below 100 nits, you need to compensate for the lack of light that HDR needs.


----------



## coolrda

Isn’t HDR calibrated to 64-940 with below and above black and white? 

I use the i1D3 which is essentially an uncal’d C6 plus a Spider 5 to Autocal. The S5 does wonders on JVC gamma droop but isn’t as good with color, though I’ve had decent success with that. I agree with color being set off the screen as that makes a big difference. HCFR works very well and color checker between HCFR and Calman matches pretty good.


----------



## CAVX

coolrda said:


> Isn’t HDR calibrated to 64-940 with below and above black and white?
> 
> I use the i1D3 which is essentially an uncal’d C6 plus a Spider 5 to Autocal. The S5 does wonders on JVC gamma droop but isn’t as good with color, though I’ve had decent success with that. I agree with color being set off the screen as that makes a big difference. HCFR works very well and color checker between HCFR and Calman matches pretty good.


Black clip had 2 patterns but display pending on how far down you will see. 

The Epson Tw9300 will show below the 0 line and so in that case, you do have below black to drop into. 

There are 3 white clip patterns with the first going up to 1000 nits and pattern 3 showing out to 10,000.

Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk


----------



## Rengozu

Would seem I'm late to the party on this one. Was just told about it in another topic and then found my way here, but after playing with it for a day so far so good. Haven't had any issues yet and while it didn't bother me, it sure beats having to always toggle back and forth between Anamorphic B and Off. Not to mention finally got to see what Billy Lynn looked like in 60fps as I didn't realize it was the JVC Anamorphic modes holding it back. Hit me up if there's any other options I need to make sure are in check. 

Oppo 203 -> Marantz 8802a -> JVC RS600 with Paladin


----------



## CAVX

Rengozu said:


> Hit me up if there's any other options I need to make sure are in check.
> 
> Oppo 203 -> Marantz 8802a -> JVC RS600 with Paladin


What does your system do with Dolby Vision?


----------



## Franin

CAVX said:


> This is a learning curve for all of us. The whole industry seems to have been turned on its head.
> 
> 
> 
> So AFAIK, the C6 and Eye One are supposedly the same meter, but the C6 does cost more. The older version is limited to 1000 nits and the new is now rated out to 2000 nits. Useful to you if you ever get a flat panel over 1000 nits. No projector will get that bright.
> 
> 
> 
> HCFR = Home Cinema France. It colorimeter software that was created in France by some enthusiasts but they dropped it after a few years and apparently it has been picked up by a member at AVS who has done several good upgrades. It is essentially free software, but the guy does have a patreon page to make a donation for the hard work he has put into this. Make sure you get the latest version as older versions do not update.
> 
> 
> 
> Where SDR was essentially 16 - 235 at about 40 nits (full white field), HDR is 0 - 1024 (? Steps are finer to eliminate banding) at 100 nits (full white field). The problem is of course, it is hard to find a projector that can produce that much light on a big screen. If you can get 50+ nits from your JVC, consider that good.
> 
> 
> 
> Where for SDR we wanted a Gamma of 2.35 (Gamma 2.2 was often thought to be correct) that ramps out of black fairly smoothly, HDR wants to ramps out of black much faster and starts to peak at about 70% rolling off at 90% to form a big S shape. I think my curve actually clips at 80%, yet the detail in the highlights is still visible and looks good on MODE 3 on the OPPO.
> 
> 
> 
> Because projection systems will never be as bright as a flat panel, we have had to make up a work around for projection systems. For a time, removing the meta data was considered the best approach. Now it is tone mapping which the OPPO does well.
> 
> 
> 
> When I tested the BenQ W1700 (above), it produced 128 nits on screen, so I was able to use AUTO and it looked good. Once you dip below 100 nits, you need to compensate for the lack of light that HDR needs.




I watched the Darkest hour on UHD last night through the Samsung UHD player I didn't realise my projector showed the nits. Is was above 100 ( I think it was 125 ) but not sure if the info coming from the JVC projector is accurate. I don't have any measuring tools. It was HDR and bloody hell the pq was fantastic. I entered the screen number which corresponded to my Stewart Studio Tek G3 screen do you think that it takes the screen gain into account ? 


Sent from my Nokia 1610


----------



## CAVX

Franin said:


> I watched the Darkest hour on UHD last night through the Samsung UHD player I didn't realise my projector showed the nits. Is was above 100 ( I think it was 125 ) but not sure if the info coming from the JVC projector is accurate. I don't have any measuring tools. It was HDR and bloody hell the pq was fantastic. I entered the screen number which corresponded to my Stewart Studio Tek G3 screen do you think that it takes the screen gain into account ?
> 
> 
> Sent from my Nokia 1610


How big is the screen?

I got 128 nits from the BenQ W1700 on my screen but, my screen is only 100" diagonal.

I know that a fully calibrated JVC with Arves Curves applied on a 150" screen gave about 77 nits and less for a similar projector without the anamorphic on the same size screen. 

I measured externally with both a light meter and the colorimeter.


----------



## Franin

CAVX said:


> How big is the screen?
> 
> 
> 
> I got 128 nits from the BenQ W1700 on my screen but, my screen is only 100" diagonal.
> 
> 
> 
> I know that a fully calibrated JVC with Arves Curves applied on a 150" screen gave about 77 nits and less for a similar projector without the anamorphic on the same size screen.
> 
> 
> 
> I measured externally with both a light meter and the colorimeter.




The screen size is 117" 2:37:1 projector only has 20 hours under its belt. 


Sent from my Nokia 1610


----------



## ScottAvery

Franin said:


> I watched the Darkest hour on UHD last night through the Samsung UHD player I didn't realise my projector showed the nits. Is was above 100 ( I think it was 125 ) but not sure if the info coming from the JVC projector is accurate. I don't have any measuring tools. It was HDR and bloody hell the pq was fantastic. I entered the screen number which corresponded to my Stewart Studio Tek G3 screen do you think that it takes the screen gain into account ?
> 
> 
> Sent from my Nokia 1610


I think the OPPO sends a report of nits that are in the source material if the metadata is included in the media. On a JVC it reports that on the projector info screen with other details about the source. My understanding is that is entirely about the source media and has nothing to do with your actual output, which will be limited by capability and calibration of your projector.


----------



## Franin

ScottAvery said:


> I think the OPPO sends a report of nits that are in the source material if the metadata is included in the media. On a JVC it reports that on the projector info screen with other details about the source. My understanding is that is entirely about the source media and has nothing to do with your actual output, which will be limited by capability and calibration of your projector.




Thanks for that Scott. I need to buy a light metre to get an idea 


Sent from my Nokia 1610


----------



## CAVX

Franin said:


> Thanks for that Scott. I need to buy a light metre to get an idea
> 
> 
> Sent from my Nokia 1610


Your C6 should be able to take a reading.


----------



## Franin

CAVX said:


> Your C6 should be able to take a reading.




I sold it. Calman is not supporting the Jvc 2018 so I’m deciding whether to go Spyder 5 Elite or the i2pro 

On another note the Oppo 203 HDR Modes are they designed for bluray ?

Watched the matrix last night on HDR 10 and it was very dark I had to put the gamma to normal.


Sent from my Nokia 1610


----------



## CAVX

Franin said:


> I sold it. Calman is not supporting the Jvc 2018 so I’m deciding whether to go Spyder 5 Elite or the i2pro
> 
> On another note the Oppo 203 HDR Modes are they designed for bluray ?
> 
> Watched the matrix last night on HDR 10 and it was very dark I had to put the gamma to normal.
> 
> 
> Sent from my Nokia 1610


Did they fix the green channel issue with the Spyder? You apparently need this for the JVC auto cal. 

The HDR modes are for HDR. 1080p BD is SDR, so they don't do anything. 

Does your system convert Dolby Vision to HDR-10? 

My system keeps it as Dolby Vision and locks up the OPPO user controls including the 21:9 mode. This is why I had to drive up the contrast as explained above.

I don't find the move dark, but it does have some inky blacks.


----------



## Franin

CAVX said:


> Did they fix the green channel issue with the Spyder? You apparently need this for the JVC auto cal.
> 
> 
> 
> The HDR modes are for HDR. 1080p BD is SDR, so they don't do anything.
> 
> 
> 
> Does your system convert Dolby Vision to HDR-10?
> 
> 
> 
> My system keeps it as Dolby Vision and locks up the OPPO user controls including the 21:9 mode. This is why I had to drive up the contrast as explained above.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't find the move dark, but it does have some inky blacks.




Honestly Mark I have no idea ( regarding the green issue with the Spyder )should of kept my JVC X35 it was easy to calibrate ( auto cal with Calman ) now I’m spending time trying to figure out how this all works. I don’t think JVC accepts Dolby Vision I know the accept HDR 10. My HDR 10 needs calibration. Oh well I’ll learn again. 


Sent from my Nokia 1610


----------



## CAVX

Franin said:


> Honestly Mark I have no idea ( regarding the green issue with the Spyder )should of kept my JVC X35 it was easy to calibrate ( auto cal with Calman ) now I’m spending time trying to figure out how this all works. I don’t think JVC accepts Dolby Vision I know the accept HDR 10. My HDR 10 needs calibration. Oh well I’ll learn again.
> 
> 
> Sent from my Nokia 1610


From what I have seen Dolby Vision + OPPO + projector can give some different results. 

Because I am running 1080p, Dolby Vision locks the OPPO and is then converted to REC709, but with the highlights and extended blacks preserved. 

On a customers 4K projector (real 4096) he get DV converted to HDR-10 so it works like any other UHD title. 

I was reading about the calibration of JVC's auto cal on the Australian forum and they had to measure the light path directly, not the reflected light off the screen. This makes no sense to me as we see the reflected light off the screen and don't stare into the lens. They had to use the Spyder. It is what JVC has chosen for the latest generation projectors.


----------



## Franin

CAVX said:


> From what I have seen Dolby Vision + OPPO + projector can give some different results.
> 
> 
> 
> Because I am running 1080p, Dolby Vision locks the OPPO and is then converted to REC709, but with the highlights and extended blacks preserved.
> 
> 
> 
> On a customers 4K projector (real 4096) he get DV converted to HDR-10 so it works like any other UHD title.
> 
> 
> 
> I was reading about the calibration of JVC's auto cal on the Australian forum and they had to measure the light path directly, not the reflected light off the screen. This makes no sense to me as we see the reflected light off the screen and don't stare into the lens. They had to use the Spyder. It is what JVC has chosen for the latest generation projectors.




I’m with you Mark I don’t understand why we are having the meter stare into the lens. Stupid, but hey they say it works. The only other option is ipro2 but that is very $$$


Sent from my Nokia 1610


----------



## lizrussspike

Franin,
I used Javs curves he uploaded here below at post #2977 :
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/24-di...x9900-rs540-x790-x7900-owners-thread-100.html 
This made quite a difference in the picture when using Javs curve. I am using the Oppo with the 21:9 as well. Will try to load a picture. I am using a JVC RS 420.


----------



## Franin

lizrussspike said:


> Franin,
> I used Javs curves he uploaded here below at post #2977 :
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/24-di...x9900-rs540-x790-x7900-owners-thread-100.html
> This made quite a difference in the picture when using Javs curve. I am using the Oppo with the 21:9 as well. Will try to load a picture. I am using a JVC RS 420.


That pic looks very nice. Ive got look into this, some scenes where great and some were so dark I literally has to put the gamma back to normal so I can watch the film.


----------



## lizrussspike

Franin ,
This is the 4K release, and the Atmos is great too! With Javs curves, the image does seem a bit brighter. Well worth the time and effort.


----------



## Franin

lizrussspike said:


> Franin ,
> This is the 4K release, and the Atmos is great too! With Javs curves, the image does seem a bit brighter. Well worth the time and effort.




I just read that I needed to have my lamp in high mode as well. Yes I agree with the audio it awesome, they did a great job. 


Sent from my Nokia 1610


----------



## Franin

My daughter asked to watch PP3 tonight on 4K so I thought okay and the pic was amazing on HD10. Maybe it’s me, these old films ( like the Matrix ) I’m expecting to be the same quality standards of today standard in 4K. Oppo did a great job. 


Sent from my Nokia 1610


----------



## ScottAvery

Franin said:


> My daughter asked to watch PP3 tonight on 4K so I thought okay and the pic was amazing on HD10. Maybe it’s me, these old films ( like the Matrix ) I’m expecting to be the same quality standards of today standard in 4K. Oppo did a great job.
> 
> 
> Sent from my Nokia 1610


Are you using tone mapping in your OPPO? I found HDR unwatchable out of the box with my rs540. Colors were off (orange skin tones and worse) and the brightness/contrast were out of whack. My first fix was to do the tone mapping in OPPO using the HDR Off BT2020 settings, but I couldn't find a setting I liked, so I tried Javs curves using the Arve tool for JVC. I am honing in on acceptable settings for low lamp mode using elevated black levels per Jav's instructions.


----------



## lizrussspike

ScottAvery said:


> Are you using tone mapping in your OPPO? I found HDR unwatchable out of the box with my rs540. Colors were off (orange skin tones and worse) and the brightness/contrast were out of whack. My first fix was to do the tone mapping in OPPO using the HDR Off BT2020 settings, but I couldn't find a setting I liked, so I tried Javs curves using the Arve tool for JVC. I am honing in on acceptable settings for low lamp mode using elevated black levels per Jav's instructions.



that's what I'm talking about ScottAvery


----------



## CAVX

Basically you need to create a big S curve. How you get there is up to what your gear can do. 










Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk


----------



## Franin

ScottAvery said:


> Are you using tone mapping in your OPPO? I found HDR unwatchable out of the box with my rs540. Colors were off (orange skin tones and worse) and the brightness/contrast were out of whack. My first fix was to do the tone mapping in OPPO using the HDR Off BT2020 settings, but I couldn't find a setting I liked, so I tried Javs curves using the Arve tool for JVC. I am honing in on acceptable settings for low lamp mode using elevated black levels per Jav's instructions.




No orange skin tones on mine it looked really good Anna Kendrick skin was white even the night scenes looked impressive, mind you I have the X590r ( not sure if they have fixed that issue with these new JVC ) but I use the HDR Auto on the Oppo. I realised last night mine went on high lamp mode when on HDR . 
Even the darkest hour looked good. 
The only issue I had was with the matrix on UHD not sure if that had to do with the age of the movie who knows spent all night playing with setting on Oppo and JVC with that movie. 


Sent from my Nokia 1610


----------



## CAVX

Is it the JVC or the older Panny that has the 11 step adjustable gamma curve?


----------



## Franin

CAVX said:


> Is it the JVC or the older Panny that has the 11 step adjustable gamma curve?




With my older JVC X35 it used to have 11 step but I was able to to do 21 step with Calman Software . I have not calibrated my X590r so not sure how the Jvc software will work.

That’s why I’m annoyed Calman doesn’t support the new JVC . 


Sent from my Nokia 1610


----------



## CAVX

Franin said:


> With my older JVC X35 it used to have 11 step but I was able to to do 21 step with Calman Software . I have not calibrated my X590r so not sure how the Jvc software will work
> 
> 
> Sent from my Nokia 1610


Even if you can adjust manually, you should be able to get a curve close to the reference. That curve I just posted was simply by adjusting brightness/contrast on the BenQ LED (latest thing they came out with - X12000 or something). 

Notice how it seems flat line at 70IRE to 100IRE?. Yet there is not white crush in the image. If I move contrast, only 80IRE moves up or down and I end with a peak or a dip, so it was case of real time measures and adjusting until I got it as flat as I could.

This projector was actually producing over 100 nits on the 120" 16:9 screen, so I was able to leave the OPPO 203 on Auto.

If it had been less than 100 nits, I would have set the player to OFF 2020. 

Almost full P3 colour as well. I was quite impressed with this. Shame about the 5 figure price tag.


----------



## Franin

CAVX said:


> Even if you can adjust manually, you should be able to get a curve close to the reference. That curve I just posted was simply by adjusting brightness/contrast on the BenQ LED (latest thing they came out with - X12000 or something).
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how it seems flat line at 70IRE to 100IRE?. Yet there is not white crush in the image. If I move contrast, only 80IRE moves up or down and I end with a peak or a dip, so it was case of real time measures and adjusting until I got it as flat as I could.
> 
> 
> 
> This projector was actually producing over 100 nits on the 120" 16:9 screen, so I was able to leave the OPPO 203 on Auto.
> 
> 
> 
> If it had been less than 100 nits, I would have set the player to OFF 2020.
> 
> 
> 
> Almost full P3 colour as well. I was quite impressed with this. Shame about the 5 figure price tag.




Thanks Mark I should have a look into that. I’ve never gone into look at the gamma curve on my JVC might have a look ( if I can ) to see what is happening.


Sent from my Nokia 1610


----------



## CAVX

Franin said:


> Thanks Mark I should have a look into that. I’ve never gone into look at the gamma curve on my JVC might have a look ( if I can ) to see what is happening.
> 
> 
> Sent from my Nokia 1610


Do you have the HDR-10 test patterns? 

These are actually short videos encoded with a HDR flag.


----------



## Franin

CAVX said:


> Do you have the HDR-10 test patterns?
> 
> 
> 
> These are actually short videos encoded with a HDR flag.




Don’t they have them built in the JVC ? But on disc no. This is my first time with HDR and I’m learning. Where can you buy the disc ?


Sent from my Nokia 1610


----------



## CAVX

Franin said:


> Don’t they have them built in the JVC ? But on disc no. This is my first time with HDR and I’m learning. Where can you buy the disc ?
> 
> 
> Sent from my Nokia 1610


HERE and down load them. Then save to a USB and put that into the front USB of the OPPO.


----------



## Franin

CAVX said:


> HERE and down load them. Then save to a USB and put that into the front USB of the OPPO.




Will do. Thanks Mark. Do they tell you what we need to achieve in the patterns ?


Sent from my Nokia 1610


----------



## CAVX

Franin said:


> Will do. Thanks Mark. Do they tell you what we need to achieve in the patterns ?
> 
> 
> Sent from my Nokia 1610


If you can calibrate SDR, you should be OK to work what is going on with the HDR patterns. 

The key difference is black in SDR is PC values of RGB 16:16:16. In HDR, black is now PC values of 0:0:0 but as was pointed out, it is not absolute black or the absence of light on a flat panel. In projection, if you can even see down to 0, it should be. My projector does 2% at best. A JVC should be able to show all the way to 0 and if you can see it, there is stuff below zero that you DO NOT want to see. 

On the white end, I like to be able to see out past 4000 nits and if I can, out to 10,000. 

Colours are bit of weird one as the 100% saturation generally can't be used for calibration. These are supposed to be BT2020, but the best any of our current display seem to be able to do is P3 or DCI. And that is not even a HT spec.


----------



## Franin

CAVX said:


> If you can calibrate SDR, you should be OK to work what is going on with the HDR patterns.
> 
> The key difference is black in SDR is PC values of RGB 16:16:16. In HDR, black is now PC values of 0:0:0 but as was pointed out, it is not absolute black or the absence of light on a flat panel. In projection, if you can even see down to 0, it should be. My projector does 2% at best. A JVC should be able to show all the way to 0 and if you can see it, there is stuff below zero that you DO NOT want to see.
> 
> On the white end, I like to be able to see out past 4000 nits and if I can, out to 10,000.
> 
> Colours are bit of weird one as the 100% saturation generally can't be used for calibration. These are supposed to be BT2020, but the best any of our current display seem to be able to do is P3 or DCI. And that is not even a HT spec.


Thank you Mark you been a great help. Until I get my meter i can just adjust my brightness and contrast to the Patterns. The colours I wont touch as the skin tones seem fine on my projector.


----------



## Franin

I’ve read been reading many people are preferring the Zoom method over the lens ( some have even sold their lens ). I’m curious how do they combat the Aspect ratio change in some movies ? Is the Oppo 203 able to do that ?


Sent from my Nokia 1610


----------



## CAVX

Franin said:


> I’ve read been reading many people are preferring the Zoom method over the lens ( some have even sold their lens ). I’m curious how do they combat the Aspect ratio change in some movies ? Is the Oppo 203 able to do that ?
> 
> 
> Sent from my Nokia 1610


The high end market retired their lenses for a time, but check back, they have reinstalled them. 

No, the MAR are just better to be watched in 16:9 if you don't have an A-lens.


----------



## Franin

CAVX said:


> The high end market retired their lenses for a time, but check back, they have reinstalled them.
> 
> 
> 
> No, the MAR are just better to be watched in 16:9 if you don't have an A-lens.




Yeah I have tried zooming in my X35 ( before I sold it ), yeah the pic looked good but I felt cheated I wasn’t utilising all the pixels.

Yeah that’s the beauty of MAR with a lens you don’t notice the change unless your looking for it.

The other forum at StereoNET some members believe in JVC thread it’s not worth buying a Lens anymore 


Sent from my Nokia 1610


----------



## Josh Z

Franin said:


> I’ve read been reading many people are preferring the Zoom method over the lens ( some have even sold their lens ). I’m curious how do they combat the Aspect ratio change in some movies ? Is the Oppo 203 able to do that ?



In the OPPO 203 setup menu, set aspect ratio for "21:9 Cropped." This will automatically pillarbox the 16:9 source signal into the center of the 2.35:1 safe zone. Then hit the Zoom button on the remote one time until the display on screen says 21:9. This will zoom the picture to fill the width of the screen and will mask off the top and bottom with black bars. A variable aspect ratio movie like The Dark Knight will appear on screen as constant 2.35:1.


----------



## Franin

Josh Z said:


> In the OPPO 203 setup menu, set aspect ratio for "21:9 Cropped." This will automatically pillarbox the 16:9 source signal into the center of the 2.35:1 safe zone. Then hit the Zoom button on the remote one time until the display on screen says 21:9. This will zoom the picture to fill the width of the screen and will mask off the top and bottom with black bars. A variable aspect ratio movie like The Dark Knight will appear on screen as constant 2.35:1.




Thanks Josh I’m going to give that a try. 


Sent from my Nokia 1610


----------



## lizrussspike

@Franin, I do exactly as @Josh Z has posted, as I do not have a lens, but enjoy the 21:9 cropped with zoom for my 115" 2:35:1 screen.


----------



## CAVX

Josh Z said:


> In the OPPO 203 setup menu, set aspect ratio for "21:9 Cropped." This will automatically pillarbox the 16:9 source signal into the center of the 2.35:1 safe zone. Then hit the Zoom button on the remote one time until the display on screen says 21:9. This will zoom the picture to fill the width of the screen and will mask off the top and bottom with black bars. A variable aspect ratio movie like The Dark Knight will appear on screen as constant 2.35:1.


So is this essentially the shrink method?


----------



## Franin

CAVX said:


> So is this essentially the shrink method?




Hi Mark what is the shrink method ?


Sent from my Nokia 1610


----------



## CAVX

Franin said:


> Hi Mark what is the shrink method ?
> 
> 
> Sent from my Nokia 1610


You set up the projector to fill the scope screen width. When first done, you needed a PC or good scaler. Now it seems OPPO has built this into their player. 
All we need now is the BDA to turn on the 21:9 mode and everyone can be happy.

Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk


----------



## Franin

CAVX said:


> You set up the projector to fill the scope screen width. When first done, you needed a PC or good scaler. Now it seems OPPO has built this into their player.
> All we need now is the BDA to turn on the 21:9 mode and everyone can be happy.
> 
> Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk




Do you lose any image on the side ?


Sent from my Nokia 1610


----------



## CAVX

Franin said:


> Do you lose any image on the side ?
> 
> 
> Sent from my Nokia 1610


No. And it seems that the OPPO can crop MAR to look like a CIH using an A-lens. 

Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk


----------



## Franin

CAVX said:


> No. And it seems that the OPPO can crop MAR to look like a CIH using an A-lens.
> 
> Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk




I’m going to give it a try and check it out


Sent from my Nokia 1610


----------



## CAVX

Franin said:


> I’m going to give it a try and check it out
> 
> 
> Sent from my Nokia 1610


I would keep my A-Lens, but that's just me. 

Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk


----------



## Franin

CAVX said:


> I would keep my A-Lens, but that's just me.
> 
> Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk




Edit : Okay I tried it again and have to admit the zooming isnt too bad at all. They both have their pro and cons but I can see why people are not going to A lens anymore especially when there going to 2:35.

I have a Schneider lens and I find it quite good but still cannot beat the quality without the lens. The oppo has done a great job in able to offer 21:9 etc.




Sent from my Nokia 1610


----------



## CAVX

Franin said:


> Edit : Okay I tried it again and have to admit the zooming isnt too bad at all. They both have their pro and cons but I can see why people are not going to A lens anymore especially when there going to 2:35.
> 
> I have a Schneider lens and I find it quite good but still cannot beat the quality without the lens. The oppo has done a great job in able to offer 21:9 etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my Nokia 1610


Na, my A-lens is sharper than my projector's optics. It stays. What to upgrade the projector to is the question. 
There seems to be a few projectors coming out with a VC option and ONLY reason you'd even want that is for anamorphic BD. Please let it be.


----------



## crazy4daisy

Best thing I ever did (besides going CIH) was sell my A-lens and buy a Lumagen.


----------



## Dandion

Is there another blu ray player on the market offering similar feature (21:9 Aspect Ratio Modes) than OPPO 203?


----------



## blastermaster

crazy4daisy said:


> Best thing I ever did (besides going CIH) was sell my A-lens and buy a Lumagen.


You piqued my interest. Then I looked at the price. No thanks.


----------



## Killroy

crazy4daisy said:


> Best thing I ever did (besides going CIH) was sell my A-lens and buy a Lumagen.


Little confused. If you went with CIH with a Lumagen, why did you sell your A-lens. Those two are like a marriage made in heaven.


----------



## Craig Peer

Franin said:


> Edit : Okay I tried it again and have to admit the zooming isnt too bad at all. They both have their pro and cons but I can see why people are not going to A lens anymore especially when there going to 2:35.
> 
> I have a Schneider lens and I find it quite good but still cannot beat the quality without the lens. The oppo has done a great job in able to offer 21:9 etc.
> 
> Sent from my Nokia 1610


I used the zooming method for a long time, but I had to admit that the A lens I currently have ( Panamorph Paladin DCR lens ) does beat the quality of zooming. No loss in sharpness, and a lot brighter for HDR. So never say never. I had to eat my words.


----------



## coolrda

Craig Peer said:


> I used the zooming method for a long time, but I had to admit that the A lens I currently have ( Panamorph Paladin DCR lens ) does beat the quality of zooming. No loss in sharpness, and a lot brighter for HDR. So never say never. I had to eat my words.


Same here. If I had never bought a lens, then maybe. Since I have a lens, no way I’m selling mine. Picture quality, sharpness and brightness are better when using the lens.


----------



## nonstopdoc1

Craig Peer said:


> I used the zooming method for a long time, but I had to admit that the A lens I currently have ( Panamorph Paladin DCR lens ) does beat the quality of zooming. No loss in sharpness, and a lot brighter for HDR. So never say never. I had to eat my words.





coolrda said:


> Same here. If I had never bought a lens, then maybe. Since I have a lens, no way I’m selling mine. Picture quality, sharpness and brightness are better when using the lens.


Does Cambridge CXUHD Blu-ray Player have a similar mode? or any other player?


----------



## Marc Alexander

The CXUHD does not have the 21:9 modes yet. I'm going to request it and suspect CA will add them.


----------



## CAVX

coolrda said:


> Same here. If I had never bought a lens, then maybe. Since I have a lens, no way I’m selling mine. Picture quality, sharpness and brightness are better when using the lens.


It is actually possible Panamorph were just ahead of their time when they came out with their original 752 (oil filled) VC adapter. 

With the need for brighter images and many projectors having shorter throws, a VC lens might just be the answer for some. 

If you can get 100nits on screen zoomed for Scope, then you should be getting about 114 for a HE Lens and about 130 for a VC.

Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk


----------



## ScottAvery

CAVX said:


> It is actually possible Panamorph were just ahead of their time when they came out with their original 752 (oil filled) VC adapter.
> 
> With the need for brighter images and many projectors having shorter throws, a VC lens might just be the answer for some.
> 
> If you can get 100nits on screen zoomed for Scope, then you should be getting about 114 for a HE Lens and about 130 for a VC.
> 
> Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk


I do not understand how there is that much difference. Only if your projector is at the same mount position so the zoom is wider on VC? Panamorph requires longer throw than most other options, so I don't see how this would be an apples to apples comparison. The PJ with HE lens could be mounted closer and zoomed wider to get more light. They should be effectively the same light on screen.


----------



## CAVX

ScottAvery said:


> I do not understand how there is that much difference. Only if your projector is at the same mount position so the zoom is wider on VC? Panamorph requires longer throw than most other options, so I don't see how this would be an apples to apples comparison. The PJ with HE lens could be mounted closer and zoomed wider to get more light. They should be effectively the same light on screen.


I used 100nits because it is a nice round number. Most HTs are going to struggle to get past 80 nits. 

When you zoom, you expand the light in both the x and y axis by 33%each way or 78% in total.

When you use a HE lens, you expand in x axis ONLY. There is a measurable increase in light of about 14%. If I remember correctly, my measure was 13.5%.

When you use a VC lens, you DO NOT expand, rather compress the light. So that 33% zoom in the y axis is now on screen and why it is so much brighter. 

There are still going to be small light losses from the optics etc, but that is it in it simplest form.


----------



## ScottAvery

CAVX said:


> I used 100nits because it is a nice round number. Most HTs are going to struggle to get past 80 nits.
> 
> When you zoom, you expand the light in both the x and y axis by 33%each way or 78% in total.
> 
> When you use a HE lens, you expand in x axis ONLY. There is a measurable increase in light of about 14%. If I remember correctly, my measure was 13.5%.
> 
> When you use a VC lens, you DO NOT expand, rather compress the light. So that 33% zoom in the y axis is now on screen and why it is so much brighter.
> 
> There are still going to be small light losses from the optics etc, but that is it in it simplest form.


The issue with that math is that the HE image is 80% larger than the VC image if you are starting from the same 16x9 size. You need to be measuring the light of equal size final images.


----------



## CAVX

ScottAvery said:


> The issue with that math is that the HE image is 80% larger than the VC image if you are starting from the same 16x9 size. You need to be measuring the light of equal size final images.


Good point. I have not ever had VC shoot out at the the same size.


----------



## nonstopdoc1

Can you connect the HDMI Out from AVR to HDMI IN on Oppo 203 and get scaling benefit on all sources attached to AVR? 

Any issues with that approach?


----------



## ScottAvery

nonstopdoc1 said:


> Can you connect the HDMI Out from AVR to HDMI IN on Oppo 203 and get scaling benefit on all sources attached to AVR?
> 
> Any issues with that approach?


Yes, you can, and the video will be scaled for all, with 21:9 mode available.

edit: You would probably use the secondary audio-only output for your 203 and not run the 203's video through your AVR at all. The circular loop would require some advanced matrixing like secondary zone output - unnecessarily complicated..


----------



## CAVX

nonstopdoc1 said:


> Can you connect the HDMI Out from AVR to HDMI IN on Oppo 203 and get scaling benefit on all sources attached to AVR?
> 
> Any issues with that approach?


That is an awesome question deserving an answer. Would certainly be worth connecting up. 

The only thing that might cause an issue is having the same AVR processing the audio of the OPPO. If you select that input, it might create a feedback loop. 

Basically the AVR acts like a switch and you want to be able to scale through the OPPO. 

Direct connection of video out to the projectors won't be an issue. 

Taking the AVR out and connecting it to you OPPO in may cause sync issues.

Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk


----------



## ScottAvery

I finally got around to building a riser for my projector shelf and installing the lens transport for my ISCO and now I am not sure how best to manage scaling/stretching. Note that herein I only mean the anamorphic portion of the scaling. Actual resolution changes I will always do in the Oppo 203. I previously had the lens clamped in fixed position in front of my JVC rs540 and I used 21:9 fixed mode in the Oppo to manage scaling for both scope and 16x9(pillarbox). I switched the Oppo setting to 21x9 movable, but because my transport uses a 12v trigger, it was easier to have the JVC do the stretch as then it can send the transport trigger when Anamorphic is engaged. In this configuration it seems like maybe the 21x9 mode doesn't do anything for me as I have to leave the Oppo in 16x9 zoom for the JVC to get the right shape to then apply the Anamorphic A stretch. Honestly, I am not sure what I am seeing. It didn't help that I had my progressive lens glasses on (essentially trifocals) that mess up viewing such a large area.

So, what would be the ideal setup to scale with one of these two devices? I get the impression that the Oppo would be a better scaler, but is that less important for just vertical stretch? Or would it be better for me to use the Oppo stretch and find an alternative means of triggering the transport? I could add a device into my Insteon network to either power a 12v wall wart or switch a low voltage signal. I wrote a few notes back and forth with Oppo on whether the trigger on the Oppo could be controlled and, while they didn't seem to understand the question, the answer was probably that it only does power on (always on when Oppo is on) and cannot be toggled.

Is there a way to gain the benefit of 21x9 disc menus when the JVC is doing anamorphic stretch, or does the Oppo have to stretch? Which 21:9 mode should I be in on the Oppo?


----------



## Marc Alexander

Marc Alexander said:


> The CXUHD does not have the 21:9 modes yet. I'm going to request it and suspect CA will add them.


I requested that Cambridge Audio add the 21:9 zoom modes for CIH setups and they confirmed that it will be included in the next firmware release for the CXUHD.


----------



## lizrussspike

@ScottAvery, I use the 21:9 cropped, have you tried that option?


----------



## ScottAvery

lizrussspike said:


> @ScottAvery, I use the 21:9 cropped, have you tried that option?


Thanks, that seems to do it! I had dismissed cropped thinking that was only for CIH without lens memory or a-lens. It does the job, though I wish I could get the Oppo to remember to start in a different zoom setting. Are the individual zoom settings selectable by remote codes or do you have to cycle through them every time?


----------



## lizrussspike

ScottAvery said:


> Thanks, that seems to do it! I had dismissed cropped thinking that was only for CIH without lens memory or a-lens. It does the job, though I wish I could get the Oppo to remember to start in a different zoom setting. Are the individual zoom settings selectable by remote codes or do you have to cycle through them every time?


 @ScottAvery, I end up hitting the zoom button. I think I only have to hit it once, but yes every time.


----------



## ScottAvery

I'm going to have to find another way as I can't handle the limitations of the JVC. If it gets a 4k60 signal, which the Oppo happily sends in auto mode for any streamed/TV content, then the JVC locks up but the lens stays in whatever position it was. Also, streamed content does not always seem to agree with cropped 21:9 - I can't always get a full screen 16x9 view without lens. I have been having to do a lot of fiddling. I will try to come up with an alternative for lens control so I can go back to only the Oppo scaling.


----------



## john hunter

It seems that the Oppo 21:9 fixed settings doesn't work when the disc is Dolby Vision encoded.
DV of course doesn't work with PJ's anyway but what do you do when, as with 2001 4k, the Oppo thinks it is DV and distorts everything?
How do you turn DV off?
All I can find are three options under DV, none of which are "off".
P.S
I have now read thru this thread and if I understand it correctly, because I have a 1080 PJ and using the Oppo to scale, with DV, I am f..ked.
However and I hope I am correct, when I get a 4k faux PJ so that the complete signal path is 4k, the Oppo will be able to scale DV discs.??


----------



## ScottAvery

john hunter said:


> It seems that the Oppo 21:9 fixed settings doesn't work when the disc is Dolby Vision encoded.
> DV of course doesn't work with PJ's anyway but what do you do when, as with 2001 4k, the Oppo thinks it is DV and distorts everything?
> How do you turn DV off?
> All I can find are three options under DV, none of which are "off".
> P.S
> I have now read thru this thread and if I understand it correctly, because I have a 1080 PJ and using the Oppo to scale, with DV, I am f..ked.
> However and I hope I am correct, when I get a 4k faux PJ so that the complete signal path is 4k, the Oppo will be able to scale DV discs.??


 @CAVX uses the 203 as you do, and is probably best able to answer your question. I added an external 12v trigger so I can use either the 203 or the projector to scale as necessary if I have an issue with DV. It seems like sometimes I get the DV lockout and sometimes I don't. I suspect it depends on when the last handshake occurred, but really I have no idea.


----------



## john hunter

Thanks for taking the time to Scott to reply.
Greatly appreciated.
If I understand correctly, when you have acomplete 4k chain (your JVC seems like quite a beast) sometimes the scaler inthe Oppo works and sometimes not?
Am I right?
I have given up on the 203 at the moment withDV but would like to know how Mark fares using the 203 with his 1080 PJ.
I was looking at one of the new lower priced 4k Epsons which,of course, have no anamorphic modes with the 203 to scale.
May have to think again.
Cheers.


----------



## Josh Z

My OPPO 203 is connected to my AV receiver (Denon X8500), which is in turn connected to two displays from separate HDMI outputs - a 1080p TV and a 4k projector. If I watch The Last Jedi (a Dolby Vision encoded disc) on the 1080p TV, aspect ratio control and all other picture settings in the OPPO are grayed out and cannot be adjusted. 

Last night, I watched the disc on the 4k projector, which is only compatible with HDR10. Aspect ratio control within the OPPO was restored and I was able to successfully switch to the various 21:9 modes. In fact, after I turned off the projector, I switched over to the 1080p TV and still had those controls. However, this morning they're locked out again on the TV. The player must have briefly confused the HDMI handshake last night.

Ironically, if the projector were compatible with Dolby Vision (or if I connected to a DV television), I'd totally lose these controls again.


----------



## ScottAvery

Josh Z said:


> Last night, I watched the disc on the 4k projector, which is only compatible with HDR10. Aspect ratio control within the OPPO was restored and I was able to successfully switch to the various 21:9 modes. In fact, after I turned off the projector, I switched over to the 1080p TV and still had those controls. However, this morning they're locked out again on the TV. The player must have briefly confused the HDMI handshake last night.


This is what I was noticing. I think the OPPO can be fooled if the handshake occurs after the DV decision has been made. It makes me wonder if there is any value in figuring out what triggers it. Is there a way you get 12 bit color to a non-DV device? The color metadata is decoded in the OPPO, right?


----------



## ScottAvery

Josh Z said:


> My OPPO 203 is connected to my AV receiver (Denon X8500), which is in turn connected to two displays from separate HDMI outputs - a 1080p TV and a 4k projector. If I watch The Last Jedi (a Dolby Vision encoded disc) on the 1080p TV, aspect ratio control and all other picture settings in the OPPO are grayed out and cannot be adjusted.
> 
> Last night, I watched the disc on the 4k projector, which is only compatible with HDR10. Aspect ratio control within the OPPO was restored and I was able to successfully switch to the various 21:9 modes. In fact, after I turned off the projector, I switched over to the 1080p TV and still had those controls. However, this morning they're locked out again on the TV. The player must have briefly confused the HDMI handshake last night.
> 
> Ironically, if the projector were compatible with Dolby Vision (or if I connected to a DV television), I'd totally lose these controls again.


Discovered some frustrating details about DV in the Oppo while digging through the owners thread:

Basically, if you get the DV lockout it means the Oppo is only sending SDR to a non-DV display like ours.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/149-...udp-203-owner-s-thread-1027.html#post56337628

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/149-...udp-203-owner-s-thread-1027.html#post56337710


----------



## Josh Z

ScottAvery said:


> Discovered some frustrating details about DV in the Oppo while digging through the owners thread:
> 
> Basically, if you get the DV lockout it means the Oppo is only sending SDR to a non-DV display like ours.
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/149-...udp-203-owner-s-thread-1027.html#post56337628
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/149-...udp-203-owner-s-thread-1027.html#post56337710


I only have the DV lockout when downconverting to SDR. When I played The Last Jedi on an HDR10 projector, I was able to use aspect ratio controls and other picture settings in the OPPO without any special combination of buttons to trick it. 

At least, I think so. I will try to check again soon.


----------



## john hunter

Any clarity on the Oppo DV situation will be very gratefully received!!!
Am deciding on a reasonable price PJ which tend not to have anamorphic support so a fully operational Oppo would be just the thing.
Thanks for the review of the Epson 4010 Josh. No longer a contender for me.


----------



## Josh Z

ScottAvery said:


> Discovered some frustrating details about DV in the Oppo while digging through the owners thread:
> 
> Basically, if you get the DV lockout it means the Oppo is only sending SDR to a non-DV display like ours.
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/149-...udp-203-owner-s-thread-1027.html#post56337628
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/149-...udp-203-owner-s-thread-1027.html#post56337710





john hunter said:


> Any clarity on the Oppo DV situation will be very gratefully received!!!



OK, so here's what I did:

The projector I'm currently using is doing Zoom Method for CIH (no lens). But I can still test this out for you.

I fired up the projector and the OPPO 203. Before putting any disc in, I went into the OPPO's setup menu and erased Persistent Storage so as to start fresh without the player remembering having played the disc before.

I put in The Last Jedi (Dolby Vision disc) and skipped forward a couple chapters. Here's what it looks like on my 2.35:1 screen at the default aspect ratio setting.










This is zoomed all the way up, so letterbox bars are on the walls. 

Here's confirmation that the projector is in 4k HDR mode: 










Next, I pulled up the OPPO setup menu:










Video controls including aspect ratio settings are all available. None are grayed out, which is what happens when I play this disc downconverted to SDR on another display. I did not do anything special as far as rebooting or trying to trick the player. This was my first attempt.

I switch to 21:9 Fixed mode, and the vertical stretch is applied:










Wait a second. I was all set to say that all is right with the world here. But no, that's not right. That's not what the 21:9 Fixed setting is supposed to do. I'm at full zoom here. This picture should be stretched to fill the entire 16:9 panel, which in this instance would fill my screen width and project some onto my walls.

When I reduce zoom to 16:9 mode, I have black bars on all four sides of the picture. That's not how 21:9 Fixed is supposed to work. An anamorphic lens won't fix that. 










What the heck is going on here? I checked the regular Blu-ray copy of this movie, and then a different UHD disc with HDR10 (Deadpool 2), and they do the same thing.

I'm up to date on my firmware. Does the vertical stretch mode in the OPPO not actually work?!


----------



## Josh Z

Hold on, hold on, hold on. I think I figured this out. I apparently also have to push the Zoom button on the OPPO remote to switch to the 21:9 mode. 

Here it is with the projector at minimum zoom (16:9) again. Put an anamorphic lens in front of this and it will properly fill the screen. 










False alarm. Crisis averted. Sorry for the brief panic. 

Anyway, the moral of the story is that the OPPO can apply aspect ratio controls to a Dolby Vision disc if played on an HDR10 display that doesn't support DV (and yes, I still have HDR). But those controls are locked out if you try to play it on a Dolby Vision capable display or to downconvert to 1080p SDR.


----------



## ScottAvery

Josh Z said:


> Wait a second. I was all set to say that all is right with the world here. But no, that's not right. That's not what the 21:9 Fixed setting is supposed to do. I'm at full zoom here. This picture should be stretched to fill the entire 16:9 panel, which in this instance would fill my screen width and project some onto my walls.
> 
> When I reduce zoom to 16:9 mode, I have black bars on all four sides of the picture. That's not how 21:9 Fixed is supposed to work. An anamorphic lens won't fix that.


I think you already figured it out, but with 21:9 fixed it expects there to be a lens always in place, so to reduce back to 16:9 you have to scale for pillar boxes.


----------



## Josh Z

ScottAvery said:


> I think you already figured it out, but with 21:9 fixed it expects there to be a lens always in place, so to reduce back to 16:9 you have to scale for pillar boxes.


Right, I understand that 21:9 Fixed mode is intended for use with a lens. I was just trying to demonstrate that the vertical stretch function operates on DV discs in this scenario. But I had a brief panic when it looked like the OPPO wasn't stretching the image in the manner it was supposed to. Fortunately, it was just a misunderstanding on my part because I didn't realize you also have to push the Zoom button on the OPPO remote. With that set properly, it works fine.


----------



## partcrash

On Oppo doing the stretch for other video sources- I have my Nvidia Shield connected via hdmi to the Oppo input which is connected then to my pre/ pro which splits the signal to an lcd tv and a 4K projector. It works like a charm- I select hdmi input on the Oppo to show the Nvidia video and the Oppo does the 21:9 fixed (but yes, you need to press the Zoom button once. The Oppo will pass through Atmos too...


----------



## ScottAvery

partcrash said:


> I have my Nvidia Shield connected via hdmi to the Oppo... The Oppo will pass through Atmos too...


I have read this does not work for Atmos with Apple TV. I have my sources wired to the receiver first then out to the Oppo, and then to the PJ so as to avoid the issue. Oppo sound out of the audio only HDMI as loopback.


----------



## partcrash

Correct. I had a 4K Apple TV and it would not pass Atmos. Got rid of it and bought the Nvidia. Worked like a charm.


----------



## CAVX

Josh Z said:


> Right, I understand that 21:9 Fixed mode is intended for use with a lens. I was just trying to demonstrate that the vertical stretch function operates on DV discs in this scenario. But I had a brief panic when it looked like the OPPO wasn't stretching the image in the manner it was supposed to. Fortunately, it was just a misunderstanding on my part because I didn't realize you also have to push the Zoom button on the OPPO remote. With that set properly, it works fine.


What I have noticed with OPPO, DV and 4k projectors (both HDR and non HDR) is that DV is converted to HDR-10. The 21:9 mode works perfectly fine. 

If the display is only 1080p, then you either put up with the green stripe (happened after the FW that added DV) or you convert to DV. 

The problem here is now it wants to output as 1080/60p and as you guessed, 3:2 pull down issues may be seen. I say maybe because it happening at twice the normal 30Hz. So where 3:2 pull-down normally bugs me, I tend not to notice it as bad at 60Hz. 

The only thing that seems screwy is what it does to blue. 

On the BenQ W6000, the colours mapped out about 10% wider on the red and green side of the triangle. 

On this JVC using wide 2, it maps a perfect P3 colour space for red, an incorrect x,y for green, and an almost rec709 x,y for blue. 

I didn't bother with measuring in HDR-10 modes due to the annoying green stripe. 

Lucky both projectors scale here. 

Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk


----------



## CAVX

john hunter said:


> It seems that the Oppo 21:9 fixed settings doesn't work when the disc is Dolby Vision encoded.
> DV of course doesn't work with PJ's anyway but what do you do when, as with 2001 4k, the Oppo thinks it is DV and distorts everything?
> How do you turn DV off?
> All I can find are three options under DV, none of which are "off".
> P.S
> I have now read thru this thread and if I understand it correctly, because I have a 1080 PJ and using the Oppo to scale, with DV, I am f..ked.
> However and I hope I am correct, when I get a 4k faux PJ so that the complete signal path is 4k, the Oppo will be able to scale DV discs.??


Correct. DV does seem to lock out all controls from the OPPO 203 when connected to a 1080P display. I'm lucky where both the previous BenQ W6000 and now this JVC X3 both scale for CIH regardless of the input. So what I have done is to convert everything to DV and just use projector scaling. 

What I did find when testing 4k projectors like BenQ W1700 (faux 4K) and SONY 520 (real 4K) was that DV is not read as DV (titles like THE MATRIX played back as HDR-10) and the scaling would work fine on the OPPO 203. 

If given the choice, I would just use DV for everything as the conversion seems to level the playing field between formats. Where before, I had to set up profiles for SDR BD, HDR-10 UHD and DV UHD, I can now use the one profile for all discs. 

The ONLY issue I have with it is that is because High Frame Rate is a part of Dolby Vision, all frame rates get converted to 1080/60P. I don't find this anywhere as bad a 1080/30i (3/2 pull down), but it would be nice to still be able to use native 24fps or upconverted 48fps, not 60.


----------



## Purenv

I am interested in buying an Oppo 203. Why are they so expensive? Oppo’s website states the units are discontinued, which I already knew, and retailed at 546 ish. Now they are over 1600?! WTf?!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tedd

High demand and no stock, means there's a bunch of speculators hoping to make an easy buck...


----------



## Purenv

Tedd said:


> High demand and no stock, means there's a bunch of speculators hoping to make an easy buck...







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rbouch8828

*Need Advice! - Setting up Oppo 203, Denon AVR-X6500H & JVC DLA X790R w/Panamorph Lens*



coolrda said:


> Oppo’s 21x9 feature really wasn’t a big deal to me when it was released. It is now. My RS520 locks with 4K/60 and I’m dead in the water when it comes to streaming online content and having aspect control, whether from Netflix, Amazon, YouTube or others. The 21x9 fixed lens feature is huge. It’s so nice having the Oppo default to the 4K 16x9 screen for menus of all sources when shutoff. I’ve always preferred my Oppo remotes over my iRule or harmony hub control for control of the disc. And now it handles all my scaling too. Pretty sweet. I got permanent thumb drives for trailers and cal patterns. Really makes things simple. If you run a fixed lens setup give it a shot. It’s a killer feature that can save you some major cash.


My plan was to have all my sources switch through the Denon and then send them to the Oppo for scaling to get letterboxed programs scaled to the full height of the 16:9 chip in the JVC and then have the Panamorph fill the 2:35 screen. However, I am not sure how people deal with straight 16:9 sources in this scenario. Do you move the lens, or squeeze the 16:9?

Also, we had a hell of a time, getting a direct output of the Oppo to play in 4K on the JVC. No problem if we ran it through the Denon, but if we went directly from the Oppo to the JVC we couldn't get it to play 4K. And at other times, the JVC would lock up and we'd have to re-boot.

Is there a set of instructions for the workflow and settings to be used to make this all work as others have in the past?

All help would be greatly appreciated!!!


----------



## ScottAvery

rbouch8828 said:


> My plan was to have all my sources switch through the Denon and then send them to the Oppo for scaling to get letterboxed programs scaled to the full height of the 16:9 chip in the JVC and then have the Panamorph fill the 2:35 screen. However, I am not sure how people deal with straight 16:9 sources in this scenario. Do you move the lens, or squeeze the 16:9?
> 
> Also, we had a hell of a time, getting a direct output of the Oppo to play in 4K on the JVC. No problem if we ran it through the Denon, but if we went directly from the Oppo to the JVC we couldn't get it to play 4K. And at other times, the JVC would lock up and we'd have to re-boot.
> 
> Is there a set of instructions for the workflow and settings to be used to make this all work as others have in the past?
> 
> All help would be greatly appreciated!!!


There is a reasonable chance you have a cable issue causing poor synching when your chain goes Oppo last. Are they all the same cables or are you swapping when you change the order?

I find that moving the lens is preferable if you have an easy way to do it, so you can then use zoom to accommodate any ratio narrower than 2.35. If you don't have a transport for the lens, then you can setup the 203 for fixed lens position and it will squeeze for you (pillar box).


----------



## rbouch8828

ScottAvery said:


> There is a reasonable chance you have a cable issue causing poor synching when your chain goes Oppo last. Are they all the same cables or are you swapping when you change the order?
> 
> I find that moving the lens is preferable if you have an easy way to do it, so you can then use zoom to accommodate any ratio narrower than 2.35. If you don't have a transport for the lens, then you can setup the 203 for fixed lens position and it will squeeze for you (pillar box).


Every time I went direct hdmi out of Oppo to JVC the only time I got an image was when Oppo was set to 1080p. If it was set to any thing else, (Auto, Custom Auto, UHD Auto, or UHD 20;40;60) the JVC wouldn’t show a picture.

Just reading through the JVC 790 operations manual and on page 53 I see where they call out "Anamorphic" settings with Vertical stretch and Horizontal squeeze. Do you know if the Vertical stretch is filling the imaging chip with the scope image and eliminating the letterbox bars, without just expanding them off the screen?

Maybe that is a solution?


----------



## partcrash

rbouch8828 said:


> Every time I went direct hdmi out of Oppo to JVC the only time I got an image was when Oppo was set to 1080p. If it was set to any thing else, (Auto, Custom Auto, UHD Auto, or UHD 20;40;60) the JVC wouldn’t show a picture.
> 
> Just reading through the JVC 790 manual and I see where they call out "Anamorphic" settings with Vertical stretch and Horizontal squeeze. Do you know if the Vertical stretch is filling the imaging chip with the scope image and eliminating the letterbox bars, without just expanding them off the screen?
> 
> Maybe that is a solution?


try with 4k with 2:2:2 or another safe setting. you most likely do have a crappy hdmi cable. 

i had identical issue with my 205 and it turned out to be my cable... anything over 2:2:2 did not work, got a new expensive 18gb certified hdmi cable and was able to show 4:4:4 with no issues whatsoever.


----------



## rbouch8828

partcrash said:


> try with 4k with 2:2:2 or another safe setting. you most likely do have a crappy hdmi cable.
> 
> i had identical issue with my 205 and it turned out to be my cable... anything over 2:2:2 did not work, got a new expensive 18gb certified hdmi cable and was able to show 4:4:4 with no issues whatsoever.


Actually there are two HDMI cables. Both certified 18GB. There is no problem at all when I run the very same cables from my Denon AVR X6500H. The JVC 790 is quite happy and displays the video from the Oppo in 4K without a problem. It is only when we try to play it directly from the Oppo to the JVC that there is a problem.


I wouldn't think it would be a cable problem if it is fine with the Denon and not with the Oppo. The two cables are going from my in wall rack at the front of the HT thru the walls and over the ceiling to the projector at the back of the room. Everything is sealed off and fully insulated and has double layers of sheetrock and green glue. I do have a conduit if needed for replacing cables, but it means breaking through the finished ceiling to reach it.

What do you think about the JVC Anamorphic Settings?


----------



## ScottAvery

rbouch8828 said:


> What do you think about the JVC Anamorphic Settings?


I have the same equipment as you and I initially used the JVC scaling because it was easier to control my lens transport with it, but the limitation to 4k30 was just too much for me. Any 4k content, or upscaled content, that is not a movie is likely to be at 4k50 or 4k60. The JVC scaling grays out in the menu and you have to force the resolution down to 4k24 or 4k30 to get back control.

Also, I frequently get in a state where there is no image on screen when I know it is sending, and I have to change sources to force it to handshake again. I would recommend continuing to tinker with cables and testing until you sort out the 203 -> JVC link because you will be better off with the 203 scaling.


----------



## rbouch8828

ScottAvery said:


> I have the same equipment as you and I initially used the JVC scaling because it was easier to control my lens transport with it, but the limitation to 4k30 was just too much for me. Any 4k content, or upscaled content, that is not a movie is likely to be at 4k50 or 4k60. The JVC scaling grays out in the menu and you have to force the resolution down to 4k24 or 4k30 to get back control.
> 
> Also, I frequently get in a state where there is no image on screen when I know it is sending, and I have to change sources to force it to handshake again. I would recommend continuing to tinker with cables and testing until you sort out the 203 -> JVC link because you will be better off with the 203 scaling.


OK, I'll have a chat with Tech Support at Oppo.


----------



## ScottAvery

rbouch8828 said:


> OK, I'll have a chat with Tech Support at Oppo.


I am pretty sure the issue is in the JVC, not Oppo and it is a handshake think due to cables. Are you literally taking the HDMI out cable from the receiver and plugging it into the Oppo out instead? You mentioned two cables. There is some quirky handshake issue I have not resolved.


----------



## rbouch8828

ScottAvery said:


> I am pretty sure the issue is in the JVC, not Oppo and it is a handshake think due to cables. Are you literally taking the HDMI out cable from the receiver and plugging it into the Oppo out instead? You mentioned two cables. There is some quirky handshake issue I have not resolved.


Yes, I have just taken the same cable and unplugged it from the receiver out and re-plugged it into the Opposite out and everything is fine at the Denon out and I get "No Input" on the Oppo out.

I have been talking back and forth with Oppo and they had me do some remote control tests with a USB thumb drive plugged into the USB port and then send them the file so they could see it, but I don't think it will show them anything.


----------



## rbouch8828

Oppo just asked me to go into setup and do the following:
Go to Setup Menu > Video Output Setup and change Color Space to YCbCr 4:2:2 and Color Depth to 10-bit. Then change Custom Resolution to UHD 24Hz and Output Resolution to Custom.
After doing the the JVC 790 displayed the picture directly from the Oppo.

So, I went back and re-set each spec to auto, one at a time. When I got to Color Space, the Projector went Black and wouldn’t come back. So I had to go back to the Denon to see it again and reset the Color Space as instructed and then go back to the direct feed from the Oppo to the JVC and finish putting the rest of the settings to auto. There were no other problems and everything seems to be ok. I don’t know what will happen if an auto setting shifts to something that it is running now?


----------



## Danniair23

Hello Guys.

I got the OPPO 203 and a Sony vw320es 4k hdr projector with 2:35:1 screen 130 inch 
With the selections of 21:9 aspect ratio choices, which one should i use? My projector has the 2:35:1 zoom function and that is the one i have used so far, and oppo on 16:9 wide auto mode.
And then the way i use it now, is when watching a 1:78:1 movie i use the 21:9 cropped function, and push the zoom button on OPPO to go from 21:9 to 16:9 and the other way around. It works just fine both.

I am confused if it is better for me to let my pj stay at normal (NOT ZOOM MODE) and the use my OPPO in a different setting. I dont now  Please help me out  

Danni


----------



## ScottAvery

Danniair23 said:


> Hello Guys.
> 
> I got the OPPO 203 and a Sony vw320es 4k hdr projector with 2:35:1 screen 130 inch
> With the selections of 21:9 aspect ratio choices, which one should i use? My projector has the 2:35:1 zoom function and that is the one i have used so far, and oppo on 16:9 wide auto mode.
> And then the way i use it now, is when watching a 1:78:1 movie i use the 21:9 cropped function, and push the zoom button on OPPO to go from 21:9 to 16:9 and the other way around. It works just fine both.
> 
> I am confused if it is better for me to let my pj stay at normal (NOT ZOOM MODE) and the use my OPPO in a different setting. I dont now  Please help me out
> 
> Danni


The Oppo can't make your 16x9 projected image expand out to physically fill a 2.35 screen at the same height. You would need a lens for that. What the Oppo can do, and I believe you have found, is let you view 16x9 content inside the 16x9 area of that 2.35 screen if you have already zoomed it out to fill the full 2.35. In doing so you are blanking out 1/4 of the vertical resolution and 1/4 of the horizontal resolution, giving up 44% of your pixels. With a 1080p source, you are still going to be ahead of a native 1080p projector, but you'd have the full panel if you zoomed. The useful thing that you will get in either case is disc menus scaled to fit your screen.


----------



## Danniair23

Okay thanks. But is mine right by now then? I use on My projector 2:35:1 zoom and I had adjusted My picture to fit with that. Now after these functions on oppo is it then the right Thing to do to choose 21:9 cropped and then press the zoom bottom on oppo to swicht between 16:9 if i watch content of that and then press it again and go 21:9 when i watch that. Do I then waste Any pixel if i want to watch it the right way.


----------



## ScottAvery

Danniair23 said:


> Okay thanks. But is mine right by now then? I use on My projector 2:35:1 zoom and I had adjusted My picture to fit with that. Now after these functions on oppo is it then the right Thing to do to choose 21:9 cropped and then press the zoom bottom on oppo to swicht between 16:9 if i watch content of that and then press it again and go 21:9 when i watch that. Do I then waste Any pixel if i want to watch it the right way.


Sorry, I don't know that model and I don't see lens memory in the manual, so what you are doing maybe the only way. If the projector has an automated function for changing zoom then that would be better than using the Oppo.


----------



## Danniair23

No it dont have memory. So i CANT just save it so it fits for 16 9
When i watch 21 9 movies on My screen. Will it give me better picture just leave it on 16 9 wide auto in the oppo? Or does it matter at All. If you understand My question. It os most IMPORTANT to me that the 21 9 picture looks RIGHT and best. Because i am unsure if i zoom maybe in a way twice now, in My pj and on oppo.


----------



## Danniair23

I mean should i go normal on My projector insteed of 2 35 zoom and then zoom it out so it fits wide. If i want to use the 21 9 cropped funktion on oppo Will it then fit the right way, and AGAIN is that more correct than the way i do it now? Please help me out 🙂 the reason i ask is because i zoom twice now i think, in My pj and My oppo? Or AM I wrong?


----------



## Danniair23

And why Will it be better than using the OPPO if i could switch between formats in My pj. Danni


----------



## rbouch8828

*Not Correct about how Oppo works with Projector Imager.*



ScottAvery said:


> The Oppo can't make your 16x9 projected image expand out to physically fill a 2.35 screen at the same height. You would need a lens for that. What the Oppo can do, and I believe you have found, is let you view 16x9 content inside the 16x9 area of that 2.35 screen if you have already zoomed it out to fill the full 2.35. In doing so you are blanking out 1/4 of the vertical resolution and 1/4 of the horizontal resolution, giving up 44% of your pixels. With a 1080p source, you are still going to be ahead of a native 1080p projector, but you'd have the full panel if you zoomed. The useful thing that you will get in either case is disc menus scaled to fit your screen.


You are not correct about what the Oppo does.

With an anamorphic lens in front of the projector lens, if you have your projector set to project a 16:9 image so that the top and bottom are filling the 2:35 screen vertically, with pillar bars on the right and left, then you would set the Oppo to 21:9 fixed and press the "Zoom" button (The one with the magnifying glass symbol) to stretch a scope picture vertically, with then eliminates the horizontal bars from being fed to your projector's 16:9 imaging chip and instead gives it a stretched image that fills the chip. This uses 100% of the imaging chip's pixels. It does not miss any of them with picture elements. 
Now the anamorphic lens stretches it out horizontally to fill the sides. If the program is a 16:9 or 4:3 program, you continue to press the "Zoom" button through "Full" to "16:9" and the image will give you an unstreched 16:9, or 4:3 image. 

In this configuration, the only change you have to make is to press the Zoom button, depending on whether you are watching a Scope movie or a standard 16:9, or 4:3.


----------



## ScottAvery

rbouch8828 said:


> You are not correct about what the Oppo does.
> 
> With an anamorphic lens in front of the projector lens, if you have your projector set to project a 16:9 image so that the top and bottom are filling the 2:35 screen vertically, with pillar bars on the right and left, then you would set the Oppo to 21:9 fixed and press the "Zoom" button (The one with the magnifying glass symbol) to stretch a scope picture vertically, with then eliminates the horizontal bars from being fed to your projector's 16:9 imaging chip and instead gives it a stretched image that fills the chip. This uses 100% of the imaging chip's pixels. It does not miss any of them with picture elements.
> Now the anamorphic lens stretches it out horizontally to fill the sides. If the program is a 16:9 or 4:3 program, you continue to press the "Zoom" button through "Full" to "16:9" and the image will give you an unstreched 16:9, or 4:3 image.
> 
> In this configuration, the only change you have to make is to press the Zoom button, depending on whether you are watching a Scope movie or a standard 16:9, or 4:3.


I was correct, as are you. The difference is I was responding to a user who does not have an anamorphic lens or lens memory but does have a 2.35 screen. In this case the user is using the 21x9 mode to shrink the 16x9 content into the 16x9 area of a zoomed 2.35 screen, i.e. a 12.5% trim all around for both pillar box and letterbox. I have tried it both ways, with and without a lens, and with and without using the 203 for scaling. The 21x9 mode is flexible enough to handle a lot of configurations.


----------



## ScottAvery

Danniair23 said:


> No it dont have memory. So i CANT just save it so it fits for 16 9
> When i watch 21 9 movies on My screen. Will it give me better picture just leave it on 16 9 wide auto in the oppo? Or does it matter at All. If you understand My question. It os most IMPORTANT to me that the 21 9 picture looks RIGHT and best. Because i am unsure if i zoom maybe in a way twice now, in My pj and on oppo.


It sounds like you are using zoom method for Constant Image Height with a 2.35 screen, but since you do not have lens memory it is actually tedious to zoom back down, so you are using the Oppo to deliver the 16x9 image. That is indeed a viable option, and the zoom button will let you toggle between those. That is working for you, or not?



Danniair23 said:


> I mean should i go normal on My projector insteed of 2 35 zoom and then zoom it out so it fits wide. If i want to use the 21 9 cropped funktion on oppo Will it then fit the right way, and AGAIN is that more correct than the way i do it now? Please help me out 🙂 the reason i ask is because i zoom twice now i think, in My pj and My oppo? Or AM I wrong?


for a 21x9 movie you should have configured the projector to fill the screen and there will be projected black bars that go above the top and below the bottom, which should be essentially invisible. That is the best and only option without an external lens. The Oppo should not be altering/squeezing/stretching the content in this case, but sending the original source out. Frankly, the projector should not be altering it either. In this case you are optimizing for 2.35 and you have a scaler solution to view 16x9 by shrinking it down.



Danniair23 said:


> And why Will it be better than using the OPPO if i could switch between formats in My pj. Danni


If you had the option of lens memory you could get better resolution on a 16x9 image by reconfiguring the zoom/shift/focus to the 16x9 area of the screen. With lens memory you are physically shrinking the projected image instead of digitally shrinking it.


----------



## rbouch8828

ScottAvery said:


> I was correct, as are you. The difference is I was responding to a user who does not have an anamorphic lens or lens memory but does have a 2.35 screen. In this case the user is using the 21x9 mode to shrink the 16x9 content into the 16x9 area of a zoomed 2.35 screen, i.e. a 12.5% trim all around for both pillar box and letterbox. I have tried it both ways, with and without a lens, and with and without using the 203 for scaling. The 21x9 mode is flexible enough to handle a lot of configurations.


Hi Scott,

Ok, sorry for the misunderstanding. With the anamorphic lens, the Oppo makes is so easy to switch from 2:35 to 16:9,4:3, it is a really simple solution, once you get it setup. It was difficult to setup, because the JVC choked on a range of Oppo settings until the folks at Oppo gave me a basic set that the projector was happy with and then the magic happened.


----------



## Danniair23

Yep it works perfect with 16 9 content and 21 9. They both fit as They should on My screen. But another Thing, what if i dont care about 16 9 and only want the 21 9 picture that fits My 2 35 screen. Will it make a different if i go 16 9 wide auto in the OPPO or is the 21 9 mode a better choice for overall quality?


----------



## ScottAvery

Danniair23 said:


> Yep it works perfect with 16 9 content and 21 9. They both fit as They should on My screen. But another Thing, what if i dont care about 16 9 and only want the 21 9 picture that fits My 2 35 screen. Will it make a different if i go 16 9 wide auto in the OPPO or is the 21 9 mode a better choice for overall quality?


I believe 21x9 is correct if you want the disc menus to fit on the screen.


----------



## johnovox

rbouch8828 said:


> Oppo just asked me to go into setup and do the following:
> Go to Setup Menu > Video Output Setup and change Color Space to YCbCr 4:2:2 and Color Depth to 10-bit. Then change Custom Resolution to UHD 24Hz and Output Resolution to Custom.
> After doing the the JVC 790 displayed the picture directly from the Oppo.
> 
> So, I went back and re-set each spec to auto, one at a time. When I got to Color Space, the Projector went Black and wouldn’t come back. So I had to go back to the Denon to see it again and reset the Color Space as instructed and then go back to the direct feed from the Oppo to the JVC and finish putting the rest of the settings to auto. There were no other problems and everything seems to be ok. I don’t know what will happen if an auto setting shifts to something that it is running now?


Hi. I just wanted to thank you for your post. It sounds like I have a similar setup with a fixed lens, but with the Sony VPL-VW665ES. The projector and the Oppo could each make the adjustments needed but only with 1080p material, but those options would not work with 4K blurays. After changing the setting above and switching to Custom UHD, it now works for the Oppo just as you mention.


----------



## Danniair23

Glad to hear that 🙂 do you use limited or full in your projector under dynamic range? I know that is another subject 🙂 

So do you use cropped 21 9 also?


----------



## rbouch8828

johnovox said:


> Hi. I just wanted to thank you for your post. It sounds like I have a similar setup with a fixed lens, but with the Sony VPL-VW665ES. The projector and the Oppo could each make the adjustments needed but only with 1080p material, but those options would not work with 4K blurays. After changing the setting above and switching to Custom UHD, it now works for the Oppo just as you mention.


Glad it worked for you too.

Now I just have to switch with the Oppo Magnifying Glass "Zoom" button, to go from 2:35 to 16:9/4:3. It is a great solution!


----------



## rbouch8828

*Lip Synch Problem with Apple TV through Denon and Oppo*

I am having a strange lip synch problem with Apple TV 4K. It depends on which program sources you choose. If you select Netflix through the Apple TV 4K the lip synch will be off at one amount, if you choose an Apple program it will be off at a different amount, or not at all.

I had set the Denon to Auto Lip Synch correction, but since the video is being processed by the Oppo separately from the audio, which is being handled by the Denon, I don't think the auto lip synch has any way to work.


----------



## Marc Alexander

rbouch8828 said:


> I am having a strange lip synch problem with Apple TV 4K. It depends on which program sources you choose. If you select Netflix through the Apple TV 4K the lip synch will be off at one amount, if you choose an Apple program it will be off at a different amount, or not at all.
> 
> 
> 
> I had set the Denon to Auto Lip Synch correction, but since the video is being processed by the Oppo separately from the audio, which is being handled by the Denon, I don't think the auto lip synch has any way to work.


How is everything connected? What model Denon?


----------



## rbouch8828

Marc Alexander said:


> How is everything connected? What model Denon?


It is connected via HDMI with the video going HDMI to a JVC DLA X790 Projector and the audio going HDMI to the Denon.


----------



## Marc Alexander

rbouch8828 said:


> It is connected via HDMI with the video going HDMI to a JVC DLA X790 Projector and the audio going HDMI to the Denon.


What model Denon? Does it not support 4k?


----------



## ScottAvery

I also have lip synch issues due to the Oppo in the processing path for anamorphic scaling. I end up with nearly 500ms delay and I can never get it quite perfect. I'm using an Onkyo rz830, but otherwise also have ATV4k and the jvc projector.

Does the delay entered in the Oppo config get applied to the HDMI in?


----------



## rbouch8828

I am using a Denon AVR X6500H as an HDMI switch into the Oppo. The video from the Oppo goes to the JVC.


----------



## ScottAvery

rbouch8828 said:


> I am using a Denon AVR X6500H as an HDMI switch into the Oppo. The video from the Oppo goes to the JVC.


I am doing the same audio loop back method, so I can get Atmos from the ATV and use the Oppo for video processing. This lip synch issue seems to be the limitation.


----------



## rbouch8828

*Lip Synch Problem with Apple TV through Denon and Oppo*

I know that you can make individual source lip synch adjustments on the Denon. However, what I have been running into is inconsistency in the lip sync error within a single source. For example in Apple TV 4K I may have one lip sync error with Netflix and yet another with Premier. 

I haven't gone through them all individually yet to see what the extent of the errors are in each case. I need to do that and then see what I can do to bring them as close as possible to each other.


----------



## rbouch8828

rbouch8828 said:


> I know that you can make individual source lip synch adjustments on the Denon. However, what I have been running into is inconsistency in the lip sync error within a single source. For example in Apple TV 4K I may have one lip sync error with Netflix and yet another with Premier.
> 
> I haven't gone through them all individually yet to see what the extent of the errors are in each case. I need to do that and then see what I can do to bring them as close as possible to each other.


Well, it turns out the you can adjust the lip synch for each HDMI input on the Denon separately! This is terrific. Since I am passing all the video through an Oppo 203 and then sending it to the JVC projector, while the audio goes right to the speakers from the Denon, I have had to add delays to each channel. When doing it, I have found that 200ms gives me about what I need to get everything in synch from Apple TV as well as from Comcast, no matter whether it is from Netflix, Prime, YouTube, etc.


----------



## edub90

Hey guys,

Had a question that popped up and maybe it was because I didn’t notice it before. When I have my projector zoomed in and I’m watching a imax scene, when I do 21:9 cropped and zoom in to 21:9 it cuts off some of the picture. Is that normal and I didn’t notice before or should it just be stretching the picture in a different way?


----------



## Josh Z

edub90 said:


> Had a question that popped up and maybe it was because I didn’t notice it before. When I have my projector zoomed in and I’m watching a imax scene, when I do 21:9 cropped and zoom in to 21:9 it cuts off some of the picture. Is that normal and I didn’t notice before or should it just be stretching the picture in a different way?


That's normal. The alternative is to watch the movie with some of the picture projected onto your walls above and below the screen.


----------



## ScottAvery

edub90 said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> Had a question that popped up and maybe it was because I didn’t notice it before. When I have my projector zoomed in and I’m watching a imax scene, when I do 21:9 cropped and zoom in to 21:9 it cuts off some of the picture. Is that normal and I didn’t notice before or should it just be stretching the picture in a different way?


As Josh says, that is normal, even in cropped mode. You probably need to drop out of 21:9 mode in the setup menu and just watch it in 16x9 if you don't want the blanking. All you will lose is the 21:9 menu shape for disc-based material. And I don't mean using the zoom button, as that will give you pillar boxes in cropped mode, if i recall correctly.

I personally, think it is a great feature to automatically apply the blanking. I have not been able to figure out what the "full" option is doing in the zoom cycle. My guess is it is a setting for 4:3 content.


----------



## edub90

Josh Z said:


> edub90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Had a question that popped up and maybe it was because I didn’t notice it before. When I have my projector zoomed in and I’m watching a imax scene, when I do 21:9 cropped and zoom in to 21:9 it cuts off some of the picture. Is that normal and I didn’t notice before or should it just be stretching the picture in a different way?
> 
> 
> 
> That's normal. The alternative is to watch the movie with some of the picture projected onto your walls above and below the screen.
Click to expand...




ScottAvery said:


> edub90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey guys,
> 
> Had a question that popped up and maybe it was because I didn’t notice it before. When I have my projector zoomed in and I’m watching a imax scene, when I do 21:9 cropped and zoom in to 21:9 it cuts off some of the picture. Is that normal and I didn’t notice before or should it just be stretching the picture in a different way?
> 
> 
> 
> As Josh says, that is normal, even in cropped mode. You probably need to drop out of 21:9 mode in the setup menu and just watch it in 16x9 if you don't want the blanking. All you will lose is the 21:9 menu shape for disc-based material. And I don't mean using the zoom button, as that will give you pillar boxes in cropped mode, if i recall correctly.
> 
> I personally, think it is a great feature to automatically apply the blanking. I have not been able to figure out what the "full" option is doing in the zoom cycle. My guess is it is a setting for 4:3 content.
Click to expand...

Thanks guys. Wasn’t sure If I just didn’t notice that the first time or if there was a glitch happening in the system.


----------



## ScottAvery

edub90 said:


> Thanks guys. Wasn’t sure If I just didn’t notice that the first time or if there was a glitch happening in the system.


I made the assumption you are not using a lens since you mentioned cropped mode. Without a lens there is no reason to stretch anything. Do you in fact have a lens? Maybe provide more description of your setup and what ratio you are trying to view when this happens.


----------



## edub90

ScottAvery said:


> edub90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks guys. Wasn’t sure If I just didn’t notice that the first time or if there was a glitch happening in the system.
> 
> 
> 
> I made the assumption you are not using a lens since you mentioned cropped mode. Without a lens there is no reason to stretch anything. Do you in fact have a lens? Maybe provide more description of your setup and what ratio you are trying to view when this happens.
Click to expand...

You are correct. I’m not using a lens. I have a JVC RS1000 on a 115 inch 2:35 screen. For 2:35 films with black bars, I run that in 16:9 and just zoom in on the projector. 

For imax movies and movies shot in 16:9 I thought I could do the 21:9 and save the image instead of cropping it, but my understanding was wrong lol. It still gets rid of the extra light on top and bottom though instead of masking with the JVC


----------



## ScottAvery

edub90 said:


> You are correct. I’m not using a lens. I have a JVC RS1000 on a 115 inch 2:35 screen. For 2:35 films with black bars, I run that in 16:9 and just zoom in on the projector.
> 
> For imax movies and movies shot in 16:9 I thought I could do the 21:9 and save the image instead of cropping it, but my understanding was wrong lol. It still gets rid of the extra light on top and bottom though instead of masking with the JVC


Save the image? Where would it go? Maybe you are thinking of non-linear stretch like in a lumagen?


----------



## edub90

ScottAvery said:


> edub90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct. I’m not using a lens. I have a JVC RS1000 on a 115 inch 2:35 screen. For 2:35 films with black bars, I run that in 16:9 and just zoom in on the projector.
> 
> For imax movies and movies shot in 16:9 I thought I could do the 21:9 and save the image instead of cropping it, but my understanding was wrong lol. It still gets rid of the extra light on top and bottom though instead of masking with the JVC
> 
> 
> 
> Save the image? Where would it go? Maybe you are thinking of non-linear stretch like in a lumagen?
Click to expand...

Sorry for the confusion. Like when I was watching aquaman the other day the scenes that were shot with black bars looked fine but the second the 16:9 scenes showed up, it would chop off some of the image depending on the scene. 

I was under the impression that the oppo would just scale it differently with the 21:9 mode but it seems like all it does is zoom so you don’t see the whole 16:9 image on the 2:35 screen.


----------



## ScottAvery

edub90 said:


> Sorry for the confusion. Like when I was watching aquaman the other day the scenes that were shot with black bars looked fine but the second the 16:9 scenes showed up, it would chop off some of the image depending on the scene.
> 
> I was under the impression that the oppo would just scale it differently with the 21:9 mode but it seems like all it does is zoom so you don’t see the whole 16:9 image on the 2:35 screen.


You are correct, the Oppo is scaling for the screen, not the content. If you want to watch a variable aspect ratio film with expansion you have to play it in the 16x9 area of your screen in 16x9 mode. Or get a full width 16x9 screen, perhaps a pull down in front of your scope screen. There is a thread about variable ratio films and how to view them, and opinions vary considerably. I personally crop them off just as you experienced by mistake.


----------



## Josh Z

edub90 said:


> I was under the impression that the oppo would just scale it differently with the 21:9 mode but it seems like all it does is zoom so you don’t see the whole 16:9 image on the 2:35 screen.


These variable ratio movies are composed to be safe for cropping. They only play with the variable ratio in IMAX theaters. In all other theaters, they have a constant 2.35:1 ratio.


----------



## edub90

Josh Z said:


> edub90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was under the impression that the oppo would just scale it differently with the 21:9 mode but it seems like all it does is zoom so you don’t see the whole 16:9 image on the 2:35 screen.
> 
> 
> 
> These variable ratio movies are composed to be safe for cropping. They only play with the variable ratio in IMAX theaters. In all other theaters, they have a constant 2.35:1 ratio.
Click to expand...

That’s strange because in Aquman it kept cutting off the top of the heads on the 16:9 scenes.


----------



## Josh Z

edub90 said:


> That’s strange because in Aquman it kept cutting off the top of the heads on the 16:9 scenes.


Well, I suppose it's not a 100% guarantee. The footage is sometimes reframed separately for the CIH and VAR versions. The 3D copy of Aquaman has a constant 2.35:1 with no variable ratio.


----------



## Killroy

edub90 said:


> That’s strange because in Aquman it kept cutting off the top of the heads on the 16:9 scenes.


Funny you should mention that... I am in the process of doing some scene-by-scene comparisons of the UHD (variable AR) vs the 3D Blu-ray which only has the scope version. I think some people will be very surprised at the results.


----------



## edub90

Josh Z said:


> edub90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s strange because in Aquman it kept cutting off the top of the heads on the 16:9 scenes.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I suppose it's not a 100% guarantee. The footage is sometimes reframed separately for the CIH and VAR versions. The 3D copy of Aquaman has a constant 2.35:1 with no variable ratio.
Click to expand...

That would make sense. Just have to watch the 3D version instead 😉 



Killroy said:


> edub90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s strange because in Aquman it kept cutting off the top of the heads on the 16:9 scenes.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny you should mention that... I am in the process of doing some scene-by-scene comparisons of the UHD (variable AR) vs the 3D Blu-ray which only has the scope version. I think some people will be very surprised at the results.
Click to expand...

I’d be very interested to hear the differences you are seeing if any.


----------



## Killroy

Josh Z said:


> These variable ratio movies are composed to be safe for cropping. They only play with the variable ratio in IMAX theaters. In all other theaters, they have a constant 2.35:1 ratio.





edub90 said:


> That’s strange because in Aquman it kept cutting off the top of the heads on the 16:9 scenes.





Josh Z said:


> Well, I suppose it's not a 100% guarantee. The footage is sometimes reframed separately for the CIH and VAR versions. The 3D copy of Aquaman has a constant 2.35:1 with no variable ratio.


If you went to see Aquaman in a non-IMAX theater then you saw a full-time scope version of the film.

The UHD has variable AR and just like Josh said...it is 100% scope safe (it was framed with the scope in mind).

The 3D Blu-ray only comes in scope and it is 100% framed exactly how the UHD would look like if it was scope (were using either zooming or using an A-lens to watch it).

I took the UHD and created two screencaps of each scene...one in the original IMAX version and the second one in the scoped version. The 3D Blu-ray is shown with the black bars so you can tell which one is which.

The folder I linked has them in this order for scene: 1) 3D Blu-ray 2) UHD scoped 3) UHD IMAX

As you can see there is no difference in framing between the 3D Blu-ray and the scoped UHD.

BTW....I was NOT able to do an exact same frame-by-frame of the two disks since the intro is different on the 3D Blu-ray and they do not sync.

Folder of all the images: https://imgur.com/a/RYtxpam


----------



## Josh Z

Killroy said:


> If you went to see Aquaman in a non-IMAX theater then you saw a full-time scope version of the film.
> 
> The UHD has variable AR and just like Josh said...it is 100% scope safe (it was framed with the scope in mind).
> 
> The 3D Blu-ray only comes in scope and it is 100% framed exactly how the UHD would look like if it was scope (were using either zooming or using an A-lens to watch it).





edub90 said:


> That’s strange because in Aquman it kept cutting off the top of the heads on the 16:9 scenes.


Keep in mind that with a close-up of someone's face (like the shot Killroy attached to the last post), it's not unusual that the top of the head might get cut off. A close-up should focus on the actor's eyes, not their forehead.


----------



## Josh Z

I expect we'd find that most variable ratio movies are like Killroy describes, where the 2.35:1 version is a direct extraction from the center of the frame. Applying masking to the top and bottom of the VAR version creates a seamless copy of the CIH version.

Selective shot-by-shot reframing does happen. There are screenshots of framing differences in The Dark Knight in posts 134 and 137 of this thread. However, even in that case, a viewer could easily watch the VAR version matted and not notice anything wrong. Even though the framing is slightly different in the dedicated CIH version, the other still looks well composed.


----------



## ScottAvery

Josh Z said:


> I expect we'd find that most variable ratio movies are like Killroy describes, where the 2.35:1 version is a direct extraction from the center of the frame. Applying masking to the top and bottom of the VAR version creates a seamless copy of the CIH version.
> 
> Selective shot-by-shot reframing does happen. There are screenshots of framing differences in The Dark Knight in posts 134 and 137 of this thread. However, even in that case, a viewer could easily watch the VAR version matted and not notice anything wrong. Even though the framing is slightly different in the dedicated CIH version, the other still looks well composed.


There was another striking example in one of these threads that had a Guardians of the Galaxy (1 or 2?) screen shot where there was a character at the bottom of the IMAX frame who would have been cut off in a scope center-crop. It looked like it was intentionally showing vast space above. I wish the aspect ratio changing would stop. It's annoying.


----------



## Gates

I've never used the 21:9 option on my OPPO, I just use the lens memory and zoom for different aspect ratios. Would I be better off to use the 21:9 on the OPPO instead of the lens memory? Would I have better resolution if I did it that way? I also use custom curves as opposed to the functions on the OPPO. Maybe I should play around with that also. Equipment is in my signature. Sorry I'm kind of a noob when it comes to this stuff.


----------



## Josh Z

Gates said:


> I've never used the 21:9 option on my OPPO, I just use the lens memory and zoom for different aspect ratios. Would I be better off to use the 21:9 on the OPPO instead of the lens memory? Would I have better resolution if I did it that way?


The OPPO's 21:9 modes use scaling to either stretch a letterboxed 2.35:1 image to fill the vertical height of the frame (intended to be used with an anamorphic lens that will correct the picture geometry, which you presumably don't have) or to shrink 16:9 content down to fit within the 21:9 portion of the frame.

If you don't have an anamorphic lens, doing the Zoom Method with lens memory is the best way to retain the full original resolution of the image. You don't need the OPPO's 21:9 modes for that.


----------



## Gates

Josh Z said:


> The OPPO's 21:9 modes use scaling to either stretch a letterboxed 2.35:1 image to fill the vertical height of the frame (intended to be used with an anamorphic lens that will correct the picture geometry, which you presumably don't have) or to shrink 16:9 content down to fit within the 21:9 portion of the frame.
> 
> If you don't have an anamorphic lens, doing the Zoom Method with lens memory is the best way to retain the full original resolution of the image. You don't need the OPPO's 21:9 modes for that.


Ah I see, thank you for the explanation.


----------



## ScottAvery

Josh Z said:


> The OPPO's 21:9 modes use scaling to either stretch a letterboxed 2.35:1 image to fill the vertical height of the frame (intended to be used with an anamorphic lens that will correct the picture geometry, which you presumably don't have) or to shrink 16:9 content down to fit within the 21:9 portion of the frame.
> 
> If you don't have an anamorphic lens, doing the Zoom Method with lens memory is the best way to retain the full original resolution of the image. You don't need the OPPO's 21:9 modes for that.


I think you may still be able to benefit from having disc menus shrunk to the 2.35:1 ratio when zooming, or is there no setting to accommodate?


----------



## CAVX

This is the thread I should have posted in first. 

Anyway long story short. 

OPPO FW 60A killed WCG for the off2020 mode. It added a green line if you had the OPPO connected to a 1080p projector. 
It did add Dolby Vision. 

I was having success with the older BenQ W6000. A while back, I upgraded to a JVC X3 1080p DiLA projector. 

I'm now using HDR to SDR conversion with the Dolby Vision mode. The projector has inverse telecine which smooths out the judder caused by 60Hz and maps out most of P3 colour. 

I can't remember the last BD I bought. Everything is UHD and the DV mode has elevated SDR BD playback.









Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk


----------



## Killroy

I'll probably keep using mine solely for the v-stretch and since I have it off-network I am not worried about firmware updates for now.


----------



## Danniair23

I am unsure if i get this right. I dont have any lens in front of My projector, it just have the option of 16:9 or 2:35:1 and I use 2:35:1 since i have a 2:35:1 screen to project on.
My oppo 203 have these aspect ratio options, and I normally use 16:9 wide auto if i watch a movie fits for My screen.
So My question for you is that when i watch a 16:9 movie i use the option in oppo 21:9 cropped and then it fits just as I should with bars on each side, the real question is could or should i just stay on 21 9 cropped and the press the zoom bottom on oppo if i watch a 21 9 movie and then just press it again if a 16 9 movie. My concern with it is AM I better of with 16 9 wide auto option if i am watching a 21.9 movie instead of zoom on oppo in this case. I Hope you know what i mean. 
And the reason i ask is, do I get the better resolution or anything Else like that with One of these two options. Thanks


----------



## Josh Z

Danniair23 said:


> I am unsure if i get this right. I dont have any lens in front of My projector, it just have the option of 16:9 or 2:35:1 and I use 2:35:1 since i have a 2:35:1 screen to project on.
> My oppo 203 have these aspect ratio options, and I normally use 16:9 wide auto if i watch a movie fits for My screen.
> So My question for you is that when i watch a 16:9 movie i use the option in oppo 21:9 cropped and then it fits just as I should with bars on each side, the real question is could or should i just stay on 21 9 cropped and the press the zoom bottom on oppo if i watch a 21 9 movie and then just press it again if a 16 9 movie. My concern with it is AM I better of with 16 9 wide auto option if i am watching a 21.9 movie instead of zoom on oppo in this case. I Hope you know what i mean.
> And the reason i ask is, do I get the better resolution or anything Else like that with One of these two options. Thanks


Do you use your projector's optical zoom to change between 16:9 and 2.35:1, or do you leave it zoomed out to fill the screen width at all times?

When watching a 2.35:1 movie, there should not be any quality difference between using the "16:9 Wide/Auto" setting and the "21:9 Cropped" setting (after you hit the OPPO player's Zoom button). The 21:9 Cropped setting has the benefit of masking off the top and bottom of the frame for movies with variable aspect ratio like The Dark Knight or M:I Fallout. If you watch those using 16:9 Wide/Auto, some movie image will be projected onto your wall during the IMAX scenes.


----------



## Danniair23

Nope it does not have memory so i just stay on 2 35 1 aspect ratio on My pj.


----------



## Vitus4K

Does the Oppo completely blank out, i.e. optically cut away the letterboxing in 21:9 cropped mode?

Is there any mode that accomodates this feature?


----------



## Josh Z

Vitus4K said:


> Does the Oppo completely blank out, i.e. optically cut away the letterboxing in 21:9 cropped mode?



It doesn't cut away the letterboxing. It blanks out the picture above and below the 2.35:1 frame lines, turning anything above that into letterbox bars.


The only way to stop your projector from optically projecting light above or below 2.35:1 is to use an anamorphic lens.


----------



## Vitus4K

Josh Z said:


> It doesn't cut away the letterboxing. It blanks out the picture above and below the 2.35:1 frame lines, turning anything above that into letterbox bars.
> 
> The only way to stop your projector from optically projecting light above or below 2.35:1 is to use an anamorphic lens.



Straight to the point, really appreciate your flat out facts.

I'm quite new with projection, but it amazes me how their image chips are not anamorphic to begin with, it's like we correct for a factory defect.

After all, most of the content nowadays are 2.39:1, to me it doesn't make sense to keep the 16:9 native ratio within the projectors.


Chips should be 4096x1716, or somthing in that manner, just letting the 16:9 content, whenever present, be displayed with pillarboxing.

16:9 resolution would suffer, I guess 16:9 fans and director lovers would disagree with my point on this.


----------



## Vitus4K

Josh Z said:


> It doesn't cut away the letterboxing. It blanks out the picture above and below the 2.35:1 frame lines, turning anything above that into letterbox bars.
> 
> The only way to stop your projector from optically projecting light above or below 2.35:1 is to use an anamorphic lens.


Josh, do you mind sending me a private message with your email, I would like to ask you something, I can't PM due to low post count.

If you don't mind, then please.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> The only way to stop your projector from optically projecting light above or below 2.35:1 is to use an anamorphic lens.


You can put a masking panel a few inches in front of your lens like a gate that will stop most of the overspill. Because it is not at the focus distance and closer to the lens it will mask a fuzzy edge and in that fuzzy edge there will be some light. That fuzzy edge then can be dealt with at the screen with a much narrower masking frame around the image. If you can place the gate a foot away from the lens the screen masking wont look much wider than normal screen masking. It will require some trial and error in figuring it out. 

I used this method for four years successfully. It is a lot less expensive than buying an A-lens and getting a curved screen.


----------



## ScottAvery

Vitus4K said:


> Straight to the point, really appreciate your flat out facts.
> 
> I'm quite new with projection, but it amazes me how their image chips are not anamorphic to begin with, it's like we correct for a factory defect.
> 
> After all, most of the content nowadays are 2.39:1, to me it doesn't make sense to keep the 16:9 native ratio within the projectors.
> 
> 
> Chips should be 4096x1716, or somthing in that manner, just letting the 16:9 content, whenever present, be displayed with pillarboxing.
> 
> 16:9 resolution would suffer, I guess 16:9 fans and director lovers would disagree with my point on this.


You are missing the point on what anamorphic is, both historically and in the realm current technology.

Anamorphic scaling combined with an anamorphic lens allows you to use more of the 16x9 panel when showing 2.39x1 content. 16x9 is the standard for both the media and the display. Your proposal is actually inferior for all aspect ratios. You should probably see a high end JVC being used with lens memory alone before deciding only a lens will do for you. Higher contrast may eliminate your concern, given that you would be happy with a lower resolution.


----------



## Vitus4K

ScottAvery said:


> You should probably see a high end JVC being used with lens memory alone before deciding only a lens will do for you. Higher contrast may eliminate your concern, given that you would be happy with a lower resolution.


For me and my environment it is all about maximizing the 2.39:1 viewing, I cannot use a 16:9 screen, I cannot properly mask the letterboxing.

A lens is the only way forward for a proper setup, projection wall is very limited, 117" 2.39:1 screen.

23" to bottom of screen from floor, I have my receiver, Oppo, center speaker in that space.

A lens is quite future proof, I see it as an investment.


----------



## ScottAvery

Vitus4K said:


> For me and my environment it is all about maximizing the 2.39:1 viewing, I cannot use a 16:9 screen, I cannot properly mask the letterboxing.
> 
> A lens is the only way forward for a proper setup, projection wall is very limited, 117" 2.39:1 screen.
> 
> 23" to bottom of screen from floor, I have my receiver, Oppo, center speaker in that space.
> 
> A lens is quite future proof, I see it as an investment.


Some lenses are future proof. 

I'm suggesting you need to see a lens memory solution because it seems like you are making incorrect assumptions about the letterboxing. Several have tried to advise you in this thread and I can tell you are trying to listen to them but your answers indicate you aren't quite receiving the message. 

You also need to accept that there are MANY more actively used aspect ratios than 16x9 and 2.39:1. You will have bars on some content and you need to design that in to accommodate with separate lens memories or scaling/cropping in the Lumagen. Most in this forum are scaling everything to constant height, as the description suggests. 1.85 is distinctly different from 1.78, and now you very often find content in 1.37, 1.66, 1.78, 1.85, 1.89, 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.35, 2.39, 2.4, 2.55, and 2.76.

I use a lens, so I certainly approve of them, just saying if you are under budget constraints you need to make an informed decision on whether you spend your money on a lesser projector and lens or a much higher native contrast projector and live without the lens, at least for now. An Epson's overscan would concern you without significant masking. I don't think you would feel the same way with a JVC.


----------



## Vitus4K

Thank you for your suggestions on this.

I will definetely perform some testing and see what ultimately suits my constraints.

You've made your point clear, Scott.


----------



## Josh Z

ScottAvery said:


> You also need to accept that there are MANY more actively used aspect ratios than 16x9 and 2.39:1. You will have bars on some content and you need to design that in to accommodate with separate lens memories or scaling/cropping in the Lumagen. Most in this forum are scaling everything to constant height, as the description suggests. 1.85 is distinctly different from 1.78, and now you very often find content in 1.37, 1.66, 1.78, 1.85, 1.89, 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.35, 2.39, 2.4, 2.55, and 2.76.


With the proliferation of new TV shows and movies made specifically for streaming services, we are seeing a huge increase in the use of non-standard aspect ratios that fall outside the traditional cinema formats. 2.0:1 is extremely common now, to the point that even major network TV shows are starting to be broadcast in that ratio.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> With the proliferation of new TV shows and movies made specifically for streaming services, we are seeing a huge increase in the use of non-standard aspect ratios that fall outside the traditional cinema formats. 2.0:1 is extremely common now, to the point that even major network TV shows are starting to be broadcast in that ratio.


It should be noted all these non-cinema AR are somewhat debatable as to what proper presentation heights should be. They are commonly referred to as wider than 16:9 but in reality they are intended for TV and TV sets are all 16:9 so in reality the director knows they will be seen shorter than 16:9. 

That’s not saying some of them don’t cross over to FPHT and do just fine as CIH. I even find a few that are 16:9 cross over as IMAX quite well. 

What comes over TV/Streaming or actually everything that is not intended for commercial theater release can be interpreted anyway the home viewer finds appropriate. 

Of course fitting everything into a scope screen will be the limiting factor.


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> the director knows they will be seen shorter than 16:9.


Do they? The prevalence of features like lens memory and blanking in Home Theater projection certainly shows there is a market here. 21:9 computer monitors continue to be sold and are certainly relevant. Phone displays are frequently wider than 16:9 when viewed in landscape and scale material appropriately.



bud16415 said:


> Of course fitting everything into a scope screen will be the limiting factor.


Odd I haven't found any content to be problematic.


----------



## bud16415

jeahrens said:


> Do they? The prevalence of features like lens memory and blanking in Home Theater projection certainly shows there is a market here. 21:9 computer monitors continue to be sold and are certainly relevant. Phone displays are frequently wider than 16:9 when viewed in landscape and scale material appropriately.
> 
> 
> 
> Odd I haven't found any content to be problematic.


I tried watching a movie on my iPhone 7 but when I got my eyes 5.5” from the screen to get a cinema feel I started going cross-eyed. I found the iPad about the minimum size I could enjoy a movie on and good for me it has a 4:3 AR. 

In reality or at least my reality I think TV show directors realize families are watching on larger and clearer TV sets than they were 10 to 15 years ago. Most people didn’t build new living rooms and have their new TV where the old one was. Now we have a 50-80” TV sitting where the 32-36” used to sit. The increase in resolution allows that to happen. The directors knowing this are developing a more movie like approach to cinematography and are playing around with wider ARs. I doubt very many are assuming home projection with lens or zooming and I doubt they intend people to push their couch closer when they switch from 16:9 to 2:1. They know they are filling less of your screen and are hoping the slightly wider/shorter image will give the image a little prestige. What the heck if they were really committed they would just go scope after all. Then we have a few really thinking outside the box, no pun intended. Take a look at Game of Thrones and some others like Planet Earth etc. that are drifting towards the IMAX1.89 model and filling the 16:9 frame completely. Should we watch Planet Earth the same as Wheel of Fortune but give Stranger Things a bump in immersion only because the director was being cute with 2:1? I find that problematic.


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> Take a look at Game of Thrones and some others like Planet Earth etc. that are drifting towards the IMAX1.89 model and filling the 16:9 frame completely.


Being full-screen does not make something IMAX-like. True IMAX photography is framed with lots of excess headroom and footroom at the top and bottom of the image, because those parts of the frame are meant to fall into your peripheral vision. Not one single episode of Game of Thrones was ever photographed that way. Game of Thrones followed the same rules of composition as every other 16:9 television series. 

You are confusing a show having "epic" subject matter for automatically being IMAX-like. These two things do not correlate.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> Being full-screen does not make something IMAX-like. True IMAX photography is framed with lots of excess headroom and footroom at the top and bottom of the image, because those parts of the frame are meant to fall into your peripheral vision. Not one single episode of Game of Thrones was ever photographed that way. Game of Thrones followed the same rules of composition as every other 16:9 television series.
> 
> You are confusing a show having "epic" subject matter for automatically being IMAX-like. These two things do not correlate.


I do understand what makes IMAX, IMAX and also what is different between IMAX and the newer 1.89 version of IMAX. 

I will say the IMAX people and the Game of Thrones people and most importantly the fans of the show will differ with your opinion on what is worthy of IMAX. (watch the attached video)

On the other hand you are entitled to your opinion as after all it is TV. What I don’t understand is why you would elevate any of the “wider” TV ARs with a show like Stranger Things to a more immersive showing based on its AR and then zoom it larger than any other TV show simply by the nature of its cropping, and not chose to elevate Planet Earth or Game of Thrones keeping them the same size as Wheel of Fortune. It is trying to have it both ways IMO. 

Of course we know the real reason it is done is because you have a scope screen to start with and that makes it imposable to show anything taller than the height of your screen. So it is easy to take one TV show (Stranger Things) and show it taller than the TV it is, and then not be able to show something that has had a primer showing like (Game of Thrones) in IMAX tall enough to make it something special at home. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=108&v=RTGf21535Ls


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> I tried watching a movie on my iPhone 7 but when I got my eyes 5.5” from the screen to get a cinema feel I started going cross-eyed. I found the iPad about the minimum size I could enjoy a movie on and good for me it has a 4:3 AR.


Good for you. Does not negate the point that a good portion of the younger generation consumes content on their phone and phone screens are commonly wider than 1.78:1.



bud16415 said:


> In reality or at least my reality I think TV show directors realize families are watching on larger and clearer TV sets than they were 10 to 15 years ago. Most people didn’t build new living rooms and have their new TV where the old one was. Now we have a 50-80” TV sitting where the 32-36” used to sit. The increase in resolution allows that to happen. The directors knowing this are developing a more movie like approach to cinematography and are playing around with wider ARs. I doubt very many are assuming home projection with lens or zooming and I doubt they intend people to push their couch closer when they switch from 16:9 to 2:1. They know they are filling less of your screen and are hoping the slightly wider/shorter image will give the image a little prestige. What the heck if they were really committed they would just go scope after all. Then we have a few really thinking outside the box, no pun intended. Take a look at Game of Thrones and some others like Planet Earth etc. that are drifting towards the IMAX1.89 model and filling the 16:9 frame completely. Should we watch Planet Earth the same as Wheel of Fortune but give Stranger Things a bump in immersion only because the director was being cute with 2:1? I find that problematic.


You can doubt whatever you like. Game of Thrones and Planet Earth use the default TV AR. As Josh correctly points out this doesn't make them IMAX like. There's nothing avant-garde involved in picking the default AR of a common TV to shoot your program in. And nothing necessarily wrong with doing so either. Again I wouldn't assume what a Directors intent is with choosing an AR unless you've read a statement from them on it. I think you give a 2.00:1 program more immersion vs. 1.78:1 if that is the intent of the director. Nothing problematic about it. The only problem seems to be with your personal conceits with regards to what you feel should or should not be seen with more impact.


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> I do understand what makes IMAX, IMAX and also what is different between IMAX and the newer 1.89 version of IMAX.
> 
> I will say the IMAX people and the Game of Thrones people and most importantly the fans of the show will differ with your opinion on what is worthy of IMAX. (watch the attached video)


Gosh fans of a TV show enjoy seeing their show displayed on a movie screen. What a revelation. Again 1.78:1 TV IMAX. Showing TV on an IMAX screen = $$$. 



bud16415 said:


> On the other hand you are entitled to your opinion as after all it is TV. What I don’t understand is why you would elevate any of the “wider” TV ARs with a show like Stranger Things to a more immersive showing based on its AR and then zoom it larger than any other TV show simply by the nature of its cropping, and not chose to elevate Planet Earth or Game of Thrones keeping them the same size as Wheel of Fortune. It is trying to have it both ways IMO.
> 
> Of course we know the real reason it is done is because you have a scope screen to start with and that makes it imposable to show anything taller than the height of your screen. So it is easy to take one TV show (Stranger Things) and show it taller than the TV it is, and then not be able to show something that has had a primer showing like (Game of Thrones) in IMAX tall enough to make it something special at home.


Newsflash, all screens have a finite height. And all screens don't fare well showing material outside of their borders. This isn't a unique flaw to a wider AR screen. If you sit close enough to a scope screen showing IMAX material you can replicate that feel just as well as you can on a narrow screen 1.78:1 screen. 

Whether TV shot in a wider AR than 1.78:1 should be viewed larger/wider than this content depends largely on what the artistic intent is and whether you choose to honor it. I watch Stranger Things filling the height of my screen because I choose to. As usual your issue revolves around the notion that this somehow this lessens the experience of 1.78:1 content. It really doesn't.


----------



## bud16415

jeahrens said:


> Gosh fans of a TV show enjoy seeing their show displayed on a movie screen. What a revelation. Again 1.78:1 TV IMAX. Showing TV on an IMAX screen = $$$.
> 
> 
> 
> Newsflash, all screens have a finite height. And all screens don't fare well showing material outside of their borders. This isn't a unique flaw to a wider AR screen. If you sit close enough to a scope screen showing IMAX material you can replicate that feel just as well as you can on a narrow screen 1.78:1 screen.
> 
> Whether TV shot in a wider AR than 1.78:1 should be viewed larger/wider than this content depends largely on what the artistic intent is and whether you choose to honor it. I watch Stranger Things filling the height of my screen because I choose to. As usual your issue revolves around the notion that this somehow this lessens the experience of 1.78:1 content. It really doesn't.


Think about what you just said in your last two posts. I’m wrong for assessing that GOT can be displayed as IMAX immersion even after I post a video of the producer / director expounding the virtues of how their filming techniques and sound is enhanced in every manner their creation when shown in IMAX. That’s wrong for me to make that leap at home watching it larger than any old TV show. 

Then on the other hand you are ok watching Stranger Things full height and larger than any old TV show because the director picked an AR other than 16:9. Therefore he must have been using cinematography directed at theater presentation even though the show was never and will never be shown in a theater and clearly 99.98% of the people watching it will be fitting it into a 16:9 TV set, and .01% will watch it on a cell phone that it fits perfect into. The other .01% is projector users and of them 99.9% are doing CIW. 

I do agree in doing what ever you want in the privacy of your own home and in my case I followed your advice that all screens have a finite height limit. I found that constraint to be problematic and created a stealth screen wall that is without finite boundaries in all directions. I guess you are correct you can do the same with moving your seating closer, but that would be giving in if you really feel you have maxed out your vertical immersion.


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> Think about what you just said in your last two posts. I’m wrong for assessing that GOT can be displayed as IMAX immersion even after I post a video of the producer / director expounding the virtues of how their filming techniques and sound is enhanced in every manner their creation when shown in IMAX. That’s wrong for me to make that leap at home watching it larger than any old TV show.


Where did anyone say you can't watch GoT at IMAX levels of immersion if you wish to? All that was said is that TV IMAX and showing TV on an IMAX screen doesn't make it IMAX. Yes showing something that is normally on a ~50" 16:9 TV with the audio going through TV speakers is going to be greatly enhanced showing it on a huge theater screen with a great sound system. No one is debating that.



bud16415 said:


> Then on the other hand you are ok watching Stranger Things full height and larger than any old TV show because the director picked an AR other than 16:9. Therefore he must have been using cinematography directed at theater presentation even though the show was never and will never be shown in a theater and clearly 99.98% of the people watching it will be fitting it into a 16:9 TV set, and .01% will watch it on a cell phone that it fits perfect into. The other .01% is projector users and of them 99.9% are doing CIW.


I never claimed to know the creators of Stranger Things intent with regards to the AR they used. I said I choose to do it that way. Which doesn't make it "right" or "wrong". It also doesn't make 16:9 material feel lesser. Care to link those viewing statistics on how the show is consumed? 



bud16415 said:


> I do agree in doing what ever you want in the privacy of your own home and in my case I followed your advice that all screens have a finite height limit. I found that constraint to be problematic and created a stealth screen wall that is without finite boundaries in all directions. I guess you are correct you can do the same with moving your seating closer, but that would be giving in if you really feel you have maxed out your vertical immersion.


Your screen has finite boundaries. Whether I desire IMAX levels of vertical immersion isn't relevant to the point that you can achieve it on a wider AR screen if you wish.


----------



## bud16415

jeahrens said:


> Where did anyone say you can't watch GoT at IMAX levels of immersion if you wish to? All that was said is that TV IMAX and showing TV on an IMAX screen doesn't make it IMAX. Yes showing something that is normally on a ~50" 16:9 TV with the audio going through TV speakers is going to be greatly enhanced showing it on a huge theater screen with a great sound system. No one is debating that.
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed to know the creators of Stranger Things intent with regards to the AR they used. I said I choose to do it that way. Which doesn't make it "right" or "wrong". It also doesn't make 16:9 material feel lesser. Care to link those viewing statistics on how the show is consumed?
> 
> 
> 
> Your screen has finite boundaries. Whether I desire IMAX levels of vertical immersion isn't relevant to the point that you can achieve it on a wider AR screen if you wish.


Technically nothing we do at home is theatrical, scope, flat, academy or IMAX. Unless of course you have an enormous room and somehow can fit a 40-60’ tall screen in there. All we can do is approximate things and try and show things that consume our vision in a similar amount and deliver sound in similar manner as if it was a real theater. 

When anyone says IMAX at home all they mean is IMAX like immersion of IMAX like media. Even IMAX if you have a half million bucks to spend will build you an IMAX at home theater but it wont be IMAX it will be a scaled down version that will seem kind of like IMAX. The same is true for scope theaters at home. 

And yes everyone is free to do and believe what they like. Josh was going in the right direction when he tried to explain IMAX is different and it is filmed in a manor that allows it to be shown consuming more of our vision. He then went on to say the rules of TV are always followed and are never broken not even with GOT where the producers in the clip are clearly saying they are. More so TV is evolving Watch a few episodes of I Love Lucy or Dragnet or The Brady Bunch and compare to today’s TV. Just watch an old Magnum PI and a new Magnum PI. They know people have larger TVs and are watching them closer. Prestige TV is taking it to the next level some of it these goofy new ARs and some of it in good old 16:9. 

What you are enjoying with Stranger Things would be the same in 16:9 if as Josh suggested they pull back the zoom a little when filming and give us a little more head and foot room just as GOT does. 

That’s what the forum here is about expressing our opinions on such matters and making others aware of things like TV presentation at home in a FP home theater. 

No one has even mentioned sports where we watch little dots running around on a field that are people. Think about the best seats in any sporting event and the level of immersion you view the field of play from. That’s also TV and they know people are watching more immersive than days gone by. Now even the talking heads in the sports show are seated in a panel format and they don’t go from close up to close up. 

Times are changing and if you don’t like the term IMAX like then we need a new term that defines variable immersion.


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> Josh was going in the right direction when he tried to explain IMAX is different and it is filmed in a manor that allows it to be shown consuming more of our vision. He then went on to say the rules of TV are always followed and are never broken not even with GOT where the producers in the clip are clearly saying they are.


I didn't say that the rules of composition are never broken. I said that Game of Thrones didn't break them. Despite the handful of big battle scenes that everybody thinks of first, the show is still primarily dominated by conversation scenes between characters, which are filmed in entirely conventional medium and close-up shots. When you blow that up to true IMAX size, those scenes are uncomfortably large. When an actor speaks, you may not be able to take in both their eyes and mouth at the same time without constantly moving your eyes up and down. 

A show like Mr. Robot breaks every common rule of photographic composition on a regular basis. Often, a character's face will be shoved into the lower corner of the frame with tons of negative space all around them, just to throw viewers off-kilter. That isn't IMAX-like either.

The fact that a lot of non-IMAX material gets played in IMAX theaters these days does not prove that very much (if any) of it was actually photographed with the properties of IMAX immersion in mind. It's more marketing gimmick than artistic intention.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> I didn't say that the rules of composition are never broken. I said that Game of Thrones didn't break them. Despite the handful of big battle scenes that everybody thinks of first, the show is still primarily dominated by conversation scenes between characters, which are filmed in entirely conventional medium and close-up shots. When you blow that up to true IMAX size, those scenes are uncomfortably large. When an actor speaks, you may not be able to take in both their eyes and mouth at the same time without constantly moving your eyes up and down.
> 
> A show like Mr. Robot breaks every common rule of photographic composition on a regular basis. Often, a character's face will be shoved into the lower corner of the frame with tons of negative space all around them, just to throw viewers off-kilter. That isn't IMAX-like either.
> 
> The fact that a lot of non-IMAX material gets played in IMAX theaters these days does not prove that very much (if any) of it was actually photographed with the properties of IMAX immersion in mind. It's more marketing gimmick than artistic intention.


I never said GOT was filmed in any way as an IMAX product or is any other TV show filmed with the intent of being IMAX. The producers of the show GOT did say it played very well on these new IMAX venues and judging by the fans and critiques comments it was well liked when it was shown that way. 

My point was more showing any TV show on a FPHT setup is elevating both the presentation and the immersion to a greater level than the vast majority would view it at on TVs or hand held devices. When you zoom a 2.0:1 TV show you are giving it an additional bump in immersion over that. So when someone zooms to watch Stranger Things on a FPHT they are saying to themselves this is prestige TV and it is first worthy to be shown in the theater and secondly it is worthy enough to be shown larger than it was intended to be on any regular TV as we are going to zoom out the black bars. We are not deeming it IMAX just that it has moved a little bit in that direction. 

This leads me to my point and where you and I will have to agree to disagree. I say TV is evolving both in the displays we watch it on and the way it is filmed. Yes maybe no one is going full on IMAX in their intent, but they know people will be watching 4k/8k on 65-85” TVs they know people are sitting closer or at least that they can sit closer to their TVs. They may not be adjusting every shot to suit greater immersion but I feel they are drifting in that direction. They surely are not using the TV cinematography textbook of the 1960 or even the 80s or 90s for that matter. If you binge watch a series that has covered the last 10 years it is clear at least to me the style has changed. 

Is GOT IMAX? NO. Will it or could it benefit from some additional immersion just like Stranger Things does for some members yourself included? Yes

I watch it roughly CIA and no complaints. I can do that because I have a presentation system that allows that. Of course if you have a scope screen that’s imposable to do. My point is it’s a bit misleading to advise that it is ok to feel Stranger Things is ok to watch slightly more immersive but watching GOT at that same immersion will cause visual problems.


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> I never said GOT was filmed in any way as an IMAX product or is any other TV show filmed with the intent of being IMAX.


Umm....



bud16415 said:


> Take a look at Game of Thrones and some others like Planet Earth etc. that are drifting towards the IMAX1.89 model and filling the 16:9 frame completely.





> My point is it’s a bit misleading to advise that it is ok to feel Stranger Things is ok to watch slightly more immersive but watching GOT at that same immersion will cause visual problems.


I'm sure I've explained this to you before, but here we go again.

Here's a typical, run-of-the-mill character shot from Game of Thrones:










And here's a comparable shot from Carnival Row, which I choose because it has a 2.39:1 ratio:










Notice the way the characters are pretty similarly framed from just above their heads to about mid-chest. That's a basic, fundamental staple of motion picture composition. 

When viewed in Constant Width, the Carnival Row character is much smaller than the Game of Thrones character. However, watching in Constant Height will normalize the scale.


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> Is GOT IMAX? NO. Will it or could it benefit from some additional immersion just like Stranger Things does for some members yourself included? Yes


Again you equate equal vertical immersion of 2.00:1 and 1.78:1 as somehow diminishing 1.78:1. It doesn't. Every person that I have talked with in person that has a wider AR screen is well aware of the vertical immersion level in their setup and has maximized it. Your scenario implies that 1.78:1 has room for additional vertical immersion and it does not in these cases.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> Umm....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure I've explained this to you before, but here we go again.
> 
> Here's a typical, run-of-the-mill character shot from Game of Thrones:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here's a comparable shot from Carnival Row, which I choose because it has a 2.39:1 ratio:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice the way the characters are pretty similarly framed from just above their heads to about mid-chest. That's a basic, fundamental staple of motion picture composition.
> 
> When viewed in Constant Width, the Carnival Row character is much smaller than the Game of Thrones character. However, watching in Constant Height will normalize the scale.



Great examples and we have talked about this before. If you look at the GOT example you posted the left half of the image shows nothing of consequence as does the lower 1/3 of the image unless your eyes get drawn down there for other reasons. The lower area could be easily cropped to 2.35 and the shot would be called a close up not a mid shot and wouldn’t really be uncomfortable to watch. Point being there is or could be a lot of peripheral vision used in the shot as there already is when the director pulls your eyes to the upper right quadrant of the screen. No different than how your eyes are pulled to his face in the other image. 

So the question is did the GOT director envision an IMAX-like close up or a mid-frame TV like image and when he did it was he thinking ahead to the grand battle scene and the impact that would have being IMAX-like immersive. Was he planning the shot for someone watching it on an iPhone or a massive IMAX at home screen? The answer is likely all of the above or none of the above. They are clearly trying to do something different and if you don’t believe me listen to what they say on the you tube video I attached and hear it in their own words. 

Now the intent of the Carnival Row director is clearer. He didn’t mess around with 2.0:1 he wanted to make a scope TV show and filmed it in scope framing. He didn’t care that his viewing audience on their 16:9 TV sets were going to get less immersion without moving closer. He clearly believes as I do a large part of the beauty of scope is in the AR and the use of the space regardless of CIH or CIW presentation. You even posted the two shots as CIW and its clear nothing is lost. 

I would watch Carnival Row as if it were a scope movie just as I would watch GOT larger than regular TV. I’m sure if I scanned thru all of Stranger Things or Carnival Row I could also find close-ups just as I could find grand imagery. I wouldn’t select the presentation based on a few close-ups or a few wide grand images, rather the total overall feeling I get watching something. Unlike a movie where we shouldn’t have to guess the presentation TV is wide open for interpretation. What we really only know is it is supposed to be fit inside a CIW 16:9 rectangle and given black bars to the part that doesn’t fill. Beyond that it is up to the individual based on their experience to decide what to do with it. 

Like the directors of GOT my interpretation is it displays well larger than CIH would allow and CIA is my choice. Just as I enjoy NFL, NBA and NASCAR as IMAXed. The commercials used to be overly large but now thankfully many commercials are filmed in scope or even wider ARs.


----------



## bud16415

jeahrens said:


> Again you equate equal vertical immersion of 2.00:1 and 1.78:1 as somehow diminishing 1.78:1. It doesn't. Every person that I have talked with in person that has a wider AR screen is well aware of the vertical immersion level in their setup and has maximized it. Your scenario implies that 1.78:1 has room for additional vertical immersion and it does not in these cases.


That’s not exactly what I believe. You believe (correct me if I’m wrong) that you should size a scope screen based on the height and give yourself all the height/vertical immersion you would want for any 1.85 flat movie (fill your height totally) and then let scope widen your horizontal immersion as far as it goes. Doing that doesn’t change or spoil how large and immersive you would ever need for a flat movie and just improves scope movies as how the director intended. 

I don’t have any issues with that at all.

Now we are talking TV and we may agree to disagree your method says “constant image height” period. Everything that gets played gets played the same height. Saving Private Ryan gets displayed the same size as any non-movie TV show you chose to watch. Now I know you will tell me you don’t watch the news or wheel of fortune in your theater and you have a TV for such things (many people do view it all on their projectors), but you do streaming and streaming is all over the place some of it is TV shows some is movies some is made to be streamed movies. It is great fun surfing around Netflix or Amazon and finding stuff to binge you maybe haven’t seen in years. The other day we started watching the first few episodes of Cheers and we binged on it for 3 hours. Cheers 1982 was a great so and fun to watch in the theater in the comfortable seats, but in no way do I want to watch it the same size as something epic like Saving Private Ryan on BD. After all one is a motion picture blockbuster filmed in 1.85AR and the other a old TV show filmed in 4:3. IMAX height or scope height is too much for that style of TV. I zoomed it down and it reminded me of TV only better and we laughed and enjoyed it much better than SPR tall. 

Now that I have determined TV is not motion pictures and is on a sliding scale I will also suggest TV can be every bit as fulfilling as motion pictures and film styles of modern TV is playing to an audience with playback equipment better than most movie theaters have. Sure it is not as large but then again its only playing to a few people not hundreds. So I don’t find it far fetched to look at the Emmy award winning BBC show Planet Earth II and see a way to enjoy that as immersive as if it were filmed for IMAX. Sure once or twice Josh will find a close up of a monkey’s face that fills the screen mixed in with hours of breathtaking shots that beg me to be immersed in them. I also know it will look amazing as CIH as well. The point is it can be enjoyed larger. 

I have all the original IMAX movies on DVD 1.43:1 at some time or another I have watched them all on a 19” monitor. They looked great and I enjoyed viewing them that way. But those movies are made to be shown IMAX big, and really in watching them they are not much different than Planet Earth II and that is just TV. 

Last word: I think TV is evolving and has been for a long time. It can be anything the director wants. People reading along don’t take my word watch some old Cheers and some new amazing TV like Planet Earth II and then watch some IMAX like Dunkirk and figure out where it all fits for you.


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> The point is it can be enjoyed larger.


Regardless of what AR your screen is, if you have set your seating placed where your image area fills your vertical immersion it won't be. 

I've not encountered anyone that bothers to go to front projection only to size the picture smaller than they enjoy. They may exist, but it certainly isn't the norm. Again in a normal properly setup room 1.78:1 TV is not diminished by sharing the height of 2.00:1 TV. And if you have a 1.78:1 screen I don't have an opinion on watching 2.00:1 the same width either. As mentioned earlier there is no right/wrong here unless we have something definitive from the show's creator.


----------



## bud16415

jeahrens said:


> Regardless of what AR your screen is, if you have set your seating placed where your image area fills your vertical immersion it won't be.
> 
> I've not encountered anyone that bothers to go to front projection only to size the picture smaller than they enjoy. They may exist, but it certainly isn't the norm. Again in a normal properly setup room 1.78:1 TV is not diminished by sharing the height of 2.00:1 TV. And if you have a 1.78:1 screen I don't have an opinion on watching 2.00:1 the same width either. As mentioned earlier there is no right/wrong here unless we have something definitive from the show's creator.


That’s my point exactly. I’m sitting in my theater right now and I just tested my vertical immersion sitting 8’ from my screen wall. My screen wall is 9’high and my max vertical immersion without moving my eyes is the full height of my wall. If I move my eyes and we all move our eyes when viewing a movie my vertical limits are conservatively stretched 3 more feet in both directions or to 15’ high. 

Everyone at home test this. Look straight ahead and see if you are aware of the floor and ceiling in your vision. 

I don’t want a 15’ high scope screen or even an IMAX screen that tall, but that is what it would take if I expected to be able to project what my eyes see walking around in daily life every day. That’s what true 1.43 IMAX was about and why the screen was 8 stories tall. 

People might say they never built a theater with a screen too small but that is what everyone does, if their expectations are to fully fill their vertical immersion. 

I don’t need all that no one does. The point I’m making is it is there and some media responds better to more or less of it than others. That’s what VR is all about when you think about it. You turn around and there is what was behind you.

Instead of saying IMAX-like I should call it (Beginning of VR-like).


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> People might say they never built a theater with a screen too small but that is what everyone does, if their expectations are to fully fill their vertical immersion.


That's nonsense. They are not sizing it to overwhelm and it is filling their desired vertical immersion. That threshold will depend on the person. Most fall within 2-3x the screen height to seating distance.


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> Great examples and we have talked about this before. If you look at the GOT example you posted the left half of the image shows nothing of consequence as does the lower 1/3 of the image unless your eyes get drawn down there for other reasons. The lower area could be easily cropped to 2.35 and the shot would be called a close up not a mid shot and wouldn’t really be uncomfortable to watch. Point being there is or could be a lot of peripheral vision used in the shot as there already is when the director pulls your eyes to the upper right quadrant of the screen. No different than how your eyes are pulled to his face in the other image.
> 
> So the question is did the GOT director envision an IMAX-like close up or a mid-frame TV like image


It's not a close-up. It's a medium shot. If you want a close-up, the show has plenty of those as well. 










This is NOT how you shoot for IMAX!

You have completely missed the point I made about how in two comparable shots the sense of scale is way off if you view them in Constant Width. When cinematographers compose their shots, they use the height of the frame to determine the scale and where to place their camera in relation to the actors, not the width.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> It's not a close-up. It's a medium shot. If you want a close-up, the show has plenty of those as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is NOT how you shoot for IMAX!
> 
> You have completely missed the point I made about how in two comparable shots the sense of scale is way off if you view them in Constant Width. When cinematographers compose their shots, they use the height of the frame to determine the scale and where to place their camera in relation to the actors, not the width.


Thanks for posting a close up from GOT. 

For anyone reading along please keep in mind all this talk about IMAX and how it is filmed I’m talking about the new IMAX films like Dunkirk and Aquaman that are in the new IMAX AR of 1.89:1 and often 1.77:1 on home media. The old IMAX that is still around but is really reserved for just a few locations and not available on home media was 1.43:1. It is very much taller and is also projected in true IMAX 1.43 theaters super tall thus super immersive. 

It is widely accepted that in playing the new shorter IMAX at home it is presented at the same width as scope and only the small difference in height. If you were to compare even the close up Josh linked the area in question would be a little bit of her forehead and below her chin. That’s what would be in the IMAX framing and her eyes lips and nose would be in the scope safe area. So there may be a little pushing the cinematography calling it IMAX1.89 like and one could decide if those parts of the show outweigh the larger expansive shots that may appeal to stretching your immersion. I think that is how the fans along with the producers of GOT view this. Keeping in mind watching GOT in and actual IMAX venue will likely show it more immersive than showing it at home on what we call IMAX of scope width only taller. 

It is often said if your scope screen is sized to your max vertical height immersion level then something like IMAX1.89 will be as high as needed. That may be true and I actually agree with that, but for my personal tastes doing that would make scope just a little uncomfortably large. Especially some older scope movies that may not be of the same quality as what we are getting now. 

We will always disagree on the difference between IMAX , IMAX1.89 and what we do at home with IMAX1.89 content and what might be IMAX1.89-like or at least fully acceptable.


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> For anyone reading along please keep in mind all this talk about IMAX and how it is filmed I’m talking about the new IMAX films like Dunkirk and Aquaman that are in the new IMAX AR of 1.89:1 and often 1.77:1 on home media.


No, Bud, that's not what we're talking about. You said that Game of Thrones and Planet Earth were "drifting towards the IMAX1.89 model and filling the 16:9 frame completely." 

As I have demonstrated, just because these TV shows have a similar aspect ratio to IMAX does not mean that they are actually photographed like IMAX. That's the *whole conversation* we've been having for the last week. 



> If you were to compare even the close up Josh linked the area in question would be a little bit of her forehead and below her chin. That’s what would be in the IMAX framing and her eyes lips and nose would be in the scope safe area. So there may be a little pushing the cinematography calling it IMAX1.89 like and one could decide if those parts of the show outweigh the larger expansive shots that may appeal to stretching your immersion. I think that is how the fans along with the producers of GOT view this. Keeping in mind watching GOT in and actual IMAX venue will likely show it more immersive than showing it at home on what we call IMAX of scope width only taller.


So now you're saying that the people who made the show were filming secret close-ups that look like medium shots but really aren't? Seriously, that's what you believe?


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> No, Bud, that's not what we're talking about. You said that Game of Thrones and Planet Earth were "drifting towards the IMAX1.89 model and filling the 16:9 frame completely."
> 
> As I have demonstrated, just because these TV shows have a similar aspect ratio to IMAX does not mean that they are actually photographed like IMAX. That's the *whole conversation* we've been having for the last week.
> 
> 
> 
> So now you're saying that the people who made the show were filming secret close-ups that look like medium shots but really aren't? Seriously, that's what you believe?


No, Josh, That is not what I’m talking about. 

Of course TV is not being filmed to be IMAX and you should understand the difference as you have authored a long running thread about TV that is shot in “Wider” than 16:9 AR and the focus of the thread is to figure out these “Wider” ARs so that folks can preset their projectors to show these shows more immersive than TV intended. We all know including the directors of these shows that TV can never be wider than 16:9 by its very nature it is not CIH or CIW it is a constant 16:9 size and shape and things can only fit inside it and be shorter or not as wide but can never expand beyond the size of the TV.

We in the world of projection do not have the limitations of screen size or shape and movies have a clear direction they guide us in, and movie directors follow the standards you talk about. It is fairly clear how one movie AR relates to the others at least in the case of flat, scope and IMAX. 

Here is the funny part. We agree that these oddball AR of prestige TV can play well “Wider” than TV would ever allow because we don’t have TVs we have projectors. We seldom have clues from directors of TV suggesting how to watch something on Non-TV, but we take it on ourselves to decide. 

Now comes the wild and wacky world of GOT. We got the top folks in charge of making the show on camera expounding the virtues of going to a real IMAX theater and watching their TV show “Wider oh and also Taller”. They along with the fans of the show are 100% sure it is a spectacle to behold in IMAX. I don’t recall the Stranger Things folks saying similar but yet you and I both feel it is true playing it “Wider” can be a good thing.

As to your second comment I don’t think GOT were secretly filming a mid-shot to be a close-up. What I’m saying is and the directors seem to agree is that in viewing it as such is not the end of the world and the benefit of having the greater immersion in the parts of the TV show that are not filmed as classic TV can be the benefit they speak of. This is not me speculating it is the fans along with the producers and directors of the show telling us what they think. 

What is me speculating about Planet Earth, no different than you speculating on a few hundred TV shows you call “Wider” than TV in your thread, is the nature of the content of the TV show Planet Earth and its ability to be both “Wider and Taller” than any TV set allows. Surely you would not be opposed to someone pushing their couch ahead 2’ to watch Planet Earth if they wanted to. Then what is the issue if someone wants to relate that they instead because they can make their screen taller and wider for the same reason.

Do you think I’m telling people they have to view Planet Earth this way? I’m not and I really don’t care if you watch it on a 32” TV from 90 feet away if that’s their thing.


----------



## dschulz

bud16415 said:


> Now comes the wild and wacky world of GOT. We got the top folks in charge of making the show on camera expounding the virtues of going to a real IMAX theater and watching their TV show “Wider oh and also Taller”. They along with the fans of the show are 100% sure it is a spectacle to behold in IMAX. I don’t recall the Stranger Things folks saying similar but yet you and I both feel it is true playing it “Wider” can be a good thing.
> 
> As to your second comment I don’t think GOT were secretly filming a mid-shot to be a close-up. What I’m saying is and the directors seem to agree is that in viewing it as such is not the end of the world and the benefit of having the greater immersion in the parts of the TV show that are not filmed as classic TV can be the benefit they speak of. This is not me speculating it is the fans along with the producers and directors of the show telling us what they think.


I think you are overthinking this. The GoT producers thought it would be super awesome for fans of the show to see an episode on IMAX screens. Fans agreed. That's all. They did not change the way they made the show. At all. The IMAX episode of GoT was composed exactly the same as every other episode of GoT (and every other episode of 16:9 television).


----------



## bud16415

dschulz said:


> I think you are overthinking this. The GoT producers thought it would be super awesome for fans of the show to see an episode on IMAX screens. Fans agreed. That's all. They did not change the way they made the show. At all. The IMAX episode of GoT was composed exactly the same as every other episode of GoT (and every other episode of 16:9 television).


I agree totally and I’m suggesting fans of Planet Earth might find it super awesome to watch that TV show IMAX sized at home sometimes. Maybe not every time maybe not with every audience and even maybe not every cut of the show. I have watched it several times on my 17” laptop monitor and enjoyed it. Likewise that shouldn’t make a case that it shouldn’t be played in a proper FP HT. 

I think if when they suggested showing it on IMAX screens they knew everyone was going to be nauseated by the overly immersive image and cinematography pushed beyond its limits they wouldn’t have done it and the fans wouldn’t have approved. I wasn’t at the premier but I doubt everyone funneled in and fought their way to get a seat in the rear of the IMAX. 

I know if I watch a new episode of The Connors or an old episode of Perry Mason with IMAX immersion it is not at all going to benefit my viewing experience and even if I watched them as full height CIH comparing them to say Saving Private Ryan I would feel them larger than I feel comfortable with, where SPR would seem very immersive correct. 

Let me make this point to you as you seem to be more interested in the discussion rather than simply bashing any comment I make. Whenever someone sets up a home theater they are normally confronted with making some compromises one such thing is seating distance. Most of us build our theaters to be enjoyed and showed off and enjoyed by our friends and families. We shoot for some happy medium that most of us would enjoy. We look at commercial theater specs THX and the like. Maybe you like 2X screen height as an acquired taste and your wife likes 2.5X. When you take her to a commercial movie you stop around 1/3 back and she says lets go a few more rows. And you sit down and there you are at 2.25X she’s happy and you are happy along with being happy she’s happy. There is always some compromise and adjusting to every situation. This what I’m talking about is within the margin of compromise IMO. 

GOT, Planet Earth are of course not IMAX productions but they are IMO more IMAX-like than Dr. Phil. Lately I have been watching some of these 4k and 8k demos on YouTube some of them are many hours long and made with drones flying thru jungles and mountain ranges. The imagery is breathtaking and like soaring like a bird. I don’t know what this type of media is called its not motion pictures and its basically internet media / TV. It has no connection to IMAX I know that, and because I can, I have played it at all sorts of immersion levels for all sorts of viewers. Most agree it is super realistic when viewed pushing the edges of the image well into peripheral vision the same as IMAX would. The difference amounts to riding in an airplane watching it out thru a window and riding on an ultra light perched on the end of a pole on a seat. Both are great in their own way but fully immersive is the way that gives the butterflies. 

My suggestion is one of increased options is all.


----------



## Killroy

bud16415 said:


> I know if I watch a new episode of The Connors or an old episode of Perry Mason *with IMAX immersion*....


^What exactly do you mean with "IMAX immersion"?


----------



## bud16415

Killroy said:


> ^What exactly do you mean with "IMAX immersion"?


Well true IMAX immersion and what is widely accepted as IMAX immersion are different things. At home and not in an “IMAX At Home” $500k theater for me is a screen size equal to the width I would show a scope movie at only taller. If you run a CIH presentation setup at home and you play the movie Dunkirk the scope parts of the movie will totally fit your screen when the movie expands in height for the IMAX parts it would overshoot your screen and that is the size I call IMAX immersion. 

I can actually go more immersive than that as I have a stealth screen wall, so I don’t say full screen. There is no boundary with my setup just whatever I deem as CIH+IMAX when you no longer have a frame to fill you figure out it isn’t about how much space you use it is about what makes the presentation best.


----------



## Killroy

bud16415 said:


> If you run a CIH presentation setup at home and you play the movie Dunkirk the scope parts of the movie will totally fit your screen when the movie expands in height for the IMAX parts it would overshoot your screen and that is the size I call IMAX immersion.


Isn't that just a 16:9 screen?


----------



## bud16415

Killroy said:


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


Sure is there are a few type of 16:9 screens. 

There are 16:9 CIW screens there are 16:9 CIA screens and there are 16:9 CIH+IMAX screens. That’s the main ones.


----------



## Killroy

bud16415 said:


> Sure is there are a few type of 16:9 screens.
> 
> There are 16:9 CIW screens there are 16:9 CIA screens and there are 16:9 CIH+IMAX screens. That’s the main ones.


Do you mean 16:9 screens with moveable masking systems? Have fun watching any Transformers IMAX movie with those. Burn out the masking motors in about 15 minutes.


----------



## bud16415

Killroy said:


> Do you mean 16:9 screens with moveable masking systems? Have fun watching any Transformers IMAX movie with those. Burn out the masking motors in about 15 minutes.


What’s this masking you speak of? 

My masking system moves and changes at the speed of light with no moving parts.


----------



## jeahrens

Killroy said:


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


Since it's generally cropped to 1.78:1 at home it ends up being 16:9 that you are supposed to watch at IMAX like immersion (i.e. overwhelming vertical immersion). Or about 1.5x the screen height to seating distance.

If you just watch IMAX at a conventional seating distance, it's just basically a 1.85:1 experience with odd framing.


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> What’s this masking you speak of?
> 
> My masking system moves and changes at the speed of light with no moving parts.


Not having a masking system on your painted wall isn't really a selling point. You'll be dealing with the contrast hit as your DLP isn't stellar here (though still a lot better than an XPR DLP).



bud16415 said:


> There is no boundary with my setup


Yes there is. Just because you didn't buy a conventional screen with a frame doesn't mean your painted screen area doesn't have definable dimensions and an AR like any other screen.


----------



## bud16415

jeahrens said:


> Not having a masking system on your painted wall isn't really a selling point. You'll be dealing with the contrast hit as your DLP isn't stellar here (though still a lot better than an XPR DLP).
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there is. Just because you didn't buy a conventional screen with a frame doesn't mean your painted screen area doesn't have definable dimensions and an AR like any other screen.


If I stick a light meter on my screen with or without a black frame around the image I’m certain it will measure the same CR. So I’m assuming you are talking about some perceived CR improvements similar to sticking some lights behind the screen for some form of bias lighting scheme or that my eyes detecting a much darker black than my projector can make will make my whites appear brighter or something and expand my perception of CR. I have tried these things and IMO nothing works as nice as a low gain neutral gray screen surface and self masking. When the area around the image is the same or very close to the on screen black there is no longer a mental comparison going on as to what is black and what is not black trying to be black. In your case with a scope screen with a black boarder and playing a flat image with no side masking you are seeing unlit screen as a form of black then the black boarder material as black and lastly projected black giving the brain 3 potential blacks to chose from. I have even projected boarders much like what windows does with the frame around a media player. Although those are entertaining and I have some viewers that really like the idea for me nothing can beat doing nothing. Like many things projector related it is subjective to the individual viewer and their level of expectation. All I can say and the above poster alluded to it when I play Dunkirk or any of the AR switcher movies it is imposable to mask for two ARs at once. With my stealth screen and its ND gray starting point I have yet to have a casual viewer notice the transitions let alone notice black bars. I have asked dozens after the movie and no one notices. Could I spend a whole lot more money and get a projector that does a whole lot better in terms of native CR? Of course I could. I could also as you mentioned spend more and do worse. It’s not a question of equipment it is a question of is my CR of a high enough quality to please my needs? And the answer is yes. 

As to if my screen has a defined boundary. I have an infinite number of sizes I can project and an infinite number of ARs. Of course I have side walls and a ceiling and a floor as boundaries but they are well outside my vision so I would have no reason to conceder them limiting or even boundaries. My projector happens to be 16:9 but that is of little consequence as I only use the pixels required to make whatever AR is required. I had a 4:3 projector and then a 16:10 and now 16:9 nothing changes all those shapes can hold all other AR.


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> If I stick a light meter on my screen with or without a black frame around the image I’m certain it will measure the same CR. So I’m assuming you are talking about some perceived CR improvements similar to sticking some lights behind the screen for some form of bias lighting scheme or that my eyes detecting a much darker black than my projector can make will make my whites appear brighter or something and expand my perception of CR. I have tried these things and IMO nothing works as nice as a low gain neutral gray screen surface and self masking. When the area around the image is the same or very close to the on screen black there is no longer a mental comparison going on as to what is black and what is not black trying to be black. In your case with a scope screen with a black boarder and playing a flat image with no side masking you are seeing unlit screen as a form of black then the black boarder material as black and lastly projected black giving the brain 3 potential blacks to chose from. I have even projected boarders much like what windows does with the frame around a media player. Although those are entertaining and I have some viewers that really like the idea for me nothing can beat doing nothing. Like many things projector related it is subjective to the individual viewer and their level of expectation. All I can say and the above poster alluded to it when I play Dunkirk or any of the AR switcher movies it is imposable to mask for two ARs at once. With my stealth screen and its ND gray starting point I have yet to have a casual viewer notice the transitions let alone notice black bars. I have asked dozens after the movie and no one notices. Could I spend a whole lot more money and get a projector that does a whole lot better in terms of native CR? Of course I could. I could also as you mentioned spend more and do worse. It’s not a question of equipment it is a question of is my CR of a high enough quality to please my needs? And the answer is yes.


Masking is employed either to cover areas that are lit by the panel with letterbox/pillarbox bars or lens pollution (light leaking out the front of the projector around the lens area). None of what you've typed changes the point that with no masking the letterboxing or pillarboxing being lit by panel is negatively impacting perceived contrast. And having seen DC2/3 DLPs, it most definitely is whether it's good enough for you or not. I also wouldn't be surprised if you have lens pollution on the screen as most DLPs suffer with this. That isn't to say you can't still be satisfied with it. But it isn't a win or advantage compared to a setup employing masking. 

Pillarboxing when viewing 1.85:1 content on my particular setup is not lit by the panel and there is no lens pollution. So, there's no difference between the border and the unused area, all of it's simply black. Letterbox bars are never in the active area and are never visible.



bud16415 said:


> As to if my screen has a defined boundary. I have an infinite number of sizes I can project and an infinite number of ARs. Of course I have side walls and a ceiling and a floor as boundaries but they are well outside my vision so I would have no reason to conceder them limiting or even boundaries. My projector happens to be 16:9 but that is of little consequence as I only use the pixels required to make whatever AR is required. I had a 4:3 projector and then a 16:10 and now 16:9 nothing changes all those shapes can hold all other AR.


You can zoom/shift different sized images into a conventional screen too. Doesn't really matter how you consider it, you have a finite limit to the size of image you display whether that is determined by the zoom and throw distance of the projector or the dimension of the painted area you want to fill.


----------



## Vitus4K

I'm new to these forums, I've been reading this thread thoroughly, but been unable to determine certain scenarios by using the aspect ratio control.

I'm using the JVC-NX5/RS1000, with 4096x2160 panels, no Lumagen, no anamorphic lens, playing everything through the Oppo.

I've attached an image below for easier understanding, I'll list each scenario followed by a question, see below:


A) Zooming the projector to fit 2.39:1 content to my 2.39:1 screen, letterbox being overscanned, slight pillarboxing due to the 4096 panels.

*Question:* Which 21:9 mode puts menus back on the screen?


B) Full panel utilization, all the available light from the projector, image vertically and horizontally stretched.

*Question:* I assume full panel utilization is impossible without an anamorphic lens, be it vertical or horizontal, correct?


C) Presentation of 1.78:1 content on my 2.39:1 screen, pillarboxing due to natural reasons.

*Question: *Can the 1/2x zoom feature zoom the image down from *Scenario A *to *Scenario C*, within the height constraints of my 2.39:1 screen?


D) Horizontally stretched 1.78:1 content, zoomed down from *Scenario A* to *Scenario C*, then horizontally stretched to fill the width of my 2.39:1 screen.

*Question: *Is there a feature to horizontally stretch pillarboxed 1.78:1 content to fill my 2.39:1 screen?

_Note: I think I need to zoom out the projector for *Scenario D*, there is simply too much zooming/stretching for the Oppo alone._


Please guide me in the right path, which settings can I use in the Oppo to achieve for each scenario, what is required from my projector?

I'm trying to achieve this without an anamorphic lens, no Lumagen.


Thanks for being awesome.


----------



## CAVX

Vitus4K said:


> I'm trying to achieve this without an anamorphic lens, no Lumagen.


Good to see another OPPO owner. 
So many dumped them after the announcement that OPPO would discontine these amazing players. 

The mode you want is 21:9 cropped. 
You can't use full panel for Scope without the anamorphic lens but you can do the "shrink method" using the OPPO in 21:9 cropped which allows AR changes with the press of the zoom button. 

You need to zoom the projector to fill the screen width. Make sure you are vertically centred and activate the OPPO 21:9 cropped mode. 

Then enjoy CIH. 

Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk


----------



## Vitus4K

CAVX said:


> The mode you want is 21:9 cropped.



Awesome, thank you.

How is 16:9 / 1.78:1 content handled when zooming the projector to utilize 21:9 cropped?

Do I stay in 21:9 cropped, or do I need to zoom the projector back out to keep the 16:9 / 1.78:1 frame within the height of my 2.39:1 screen?

Please sketch an image or explain how 16:9 / 1.78:1 content would be presented, and let us know which mode/zoom to use.

Thanks!


----------



## CAVX

Vitus4K said:


> Awesome, thank you.
> 
> How is 16:9 / 1.78:1 content handled when zooming the projector to utilize 21:9 cropped?
> 
> Do I stay in 21:9 cropped, or do I need to zoom the projector back out to keep the 16:9 / 1.78:1 frame within the height of my 2.39:1 screen?
> 
> Please sketch an image or explain how 16:9 / 1.78:1 content would be presented, and let us know which mode/zoom to use.
> 
> Thanks!


Your projector generates 2160 vertical pixels and about 1620 are active image. All the images are scaled down to work within that height. 
You Scope image is 3840 x 1620 and 16:9 will be 2884 x 1620. 
Menus and subtitles should also be positioned inside this window. 
It is the most cost effective scaling ever. 

Merry Christmas 

Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk


----------



## Vitus4K

CAVX said:


> Your projector generates 2160 vertical pixels and about 1620 are active image. All the images are scaled down to work within that height.
> You Scope image is 3840 x 1620 and 16:9 will be 2884 x 1620.
> Menus and subtitles should also be positioned inside this window.
> It is the most cost effective scaling ever.
> 
> Merry Christmas


 Wow, what an amazing feature.

Basically means that I never need to alter the zoom of the projector, once settled in, saves wear and tear on the lens memory.

Sure, one could argue that I wouldn't benefit of the full panel in either case, be it scope or flat.

But it sure means less hassle, less money spent, and ease of operation.


I'll see what equipment I can add furhter on to make more use of the panel, but right now Oppo is king.

Cheers man, Merry Christmas!


----------



## CAVX

Vitus4K said:


> Wow, what an amazing feature.
> 
> Basically means that I never need to alter the zoom of the projector, once settled in, saves wear and tear on the lens memory.
> 
> Sure, one could argue that I wouldn't benefit of the full panel in either case, be it scope or flat.
> 
> But it sure means less hassle, less money spent, and ease of operation.
> 
> 
> I'll see what equipment I can add furhter on to make more use of the panel, but right now Oppo is king.
> 
> Cheers man, Merry Christmas!


Yes it is an amazing player. It is a real shame that the BDA can't move beyond 16:9. 

Despite the flack, the OPPO is still the king of BD players. 

I recently upgrade to a JVC X7000 DiLA projector and I do have a 1.33x anamorphic lens. This 21:9 mode allows me to switch ARs with the press of a button. I chose "fixed lens" as the set up option. 

Because I am using the full panel I get a solid 11 percent gain in light output. 

I am also using the HDR mode on auto becsuse I have 92nits on screen, low lamp mode. 

Despite the feeling about JVC D Gamna, I have made it work and am loving HDR I'm it's native form.









Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk


----------



## Vitus4K

CAVX said:


> Yes it is an amazing player. It is a real shame that the BDA can't move beyond 16:9.
> 
> I recently upgrade to a JVC X7000 DiLA projector and I do have a 1.33x anamorphic lens. This 21:9 mode allows me to switch ARs with the press of a button. I chose "fixed lens" as the set up option.
> 
> Because I am using the full panel I get a solid 11 percent gain in light output.



I don't think the issue is with BDA, I think the issues are with the panels inside the projectors.

There will probably always be 16:9 presentations, no matter what BDA says, directors are directors, they all think different.


The only beneficial way would be if projector manufacturers stepped out and made 3840x1716 panels, focusing the light output for higher brightness.


Then you could have the Oppo for a faux 16:9, maybe future projectors could have this feature built in, when Oppo is taking on age.


Panamorph says up to 38% more brightness with the Paladin DCR lens for the 4096x2160 panels, but hard to justify the cost.

I have no clue how dim the image will be in 16:9 when using 21:9 cropped, I can imagine the image being twice as bright in native 16:9 by the projector.


It might be worth to zoom back out for 16:9, I'll have to test and see.

It amazes me though, how many enthusiasts, how much money, how many developers there are within the film business.


Yet, nobody seems to have solved the AR question where you're beneficial only by purchasing a projector.

There seems to be a lack of cooperation and interest, everyone just taking their piece out of the market whenever possible.


I did think about getting the X7900 instead of the NX5, but then I wanted native 4K, a better HDR interpretation, and a somewhat future proofed investment.


Your images is looking good, did you calibrate?


----------



## lizrussspike

Yea @Vitus4K, the 21:9 cropped option is the main reason that I have the OPPO 203 still. It is amazing. I have had a few offers, but it just works and is solid. I have never had an issue with the 203, and use the HDMI for my Roku Ultra.


----------



## CAVX

Vitus4K said:


> I don't think the issue is with BDA, I think the issues are with the panels inside the projectors.


I'm pretty sure you will find it was the BDA that told OPPO that their players no longer met the requirements, and they had to stop production. And I believe it was OPPO introduction of both 21:9 and Tone Mapping, that no player at the time had. 

Panasonic of course now had tone mapping once it was proven how useful it is. 



Vitus4K said:


> There will probably always be 16:9 presentations, no matter what BDA says, directors are directors, they all think different.


It is not a director choice thing. 
Have you noticed on BD packaging, the part that shows the AR 2.40 also says 16:9?
There is provision in the spec for 21:9. BDA has not approved it because at this time, the display market is stuck in 16:9. 



Vitus4K said:


> I
> The only beneficial way would be if projector manufacturers stepped out and made 3840x1716 panels, focusing the light output for higher brightness.


Does not work. Scope projectors were made back in 2010 and failed. At the time, a 20k projector and ISCO III was a cheaper, brighter option. 



Vitus4K said:


> I
> Then you could have the Oppo for a faux 16:9, maybe future projectors could have this feature built in, when Oppo is taking on age.


???
I can either move my lens or scale for 16:9.
I scale because it is easier. 
With 1080, 1:1 was important. With UHD, it does not matter. 



Vitus4K said:


> I
> Panamorph says up to 38% more brightness with the Paladin DCR lens for the 4096x2160 panels, but hard to justify the cost.


Their lens is VC, not HE. That is why it is brighter. 



Vitus4K said:


> I
> I have no clue how dim the image will be in 16:9 when using 21:9 cropped, I can imagine the image being twice as bright in native 16:9 by the projector.
> 
> It is the same brightness as the 21:9 image, just not as wide.
> 
> 
> 
> Vitus4K said:
> 
> 
> 
> I
> It might be worth to zoom back out for 16:9, I'll have to test and see.
> 
> It amazes me though, how many enthusiasts, how much money, how many developers there are within the film business.
> 
> 
> Yet, nobody seems to have solved the AR question where you're beneficial only by purchasing a projector.
> 
> There seems to be a lack of cooperation and interest, everyone just taking their piece out of the market whenever possible.
> 
> 
> I did think about getting the X7900 instead of the NX5, but then I wanted native 4K, a better HDR interpretation, and a somewhat future proofed investment.
> 
> 
> Your images is looking good, did you calibrate?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, but I did not use JVC auto cal and I am not using arve curves either.
> 
> All done with eye1 display pro and some "out of the box" thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


----------



## Josh Z

CAVX said:


> I'm pretty sure you will find it was the BDA that told OPPO that their players no longer met the requirements, and they had to stop production. And I believe it was OPPO introduction of both 21:9 and Tone Mapping, that no player at the time had.



Where did you get this from? The BDA didn't tell OPPO to stop production. OPPO left the home theater market because that division was no longer profitable at a time when physical media is dying, and the parent company wanted to focus on its core cell phone business.


----------



## CAVX

Josh Z said:


> Where did you get this from? The BDA didn't tell OPPO to stop production. OPPO left the home theater market because that division was no longer profitable at a time when physical media is dying, and the parent company wanted to focus on its core cell phone business.


I'm sure phones are the answer for their future. I gave up my Samsung for an OPPO. 

Regardless of why, I do feel in some way that they could have stayed in the market if they had released a digital only version. Call it 201, HDMI only and no analogue outs.

Packaged media won't die as soon as some would like because the quality is not there. 

In Australia, our internet is fair from the task. Quality cones from buying the UHD. 

Of course, whilst DVD still exists, people will buy the cheaper option then post about how good streaming looks in comparison. 



Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk


----------



## Vitus4K

Is there a way to horizontally zoom/stretch the 2884 x 1620 16:9 image in the 21:9 cropped configuration to achieve a 3840 x 1620 16:9 distorted picture?

Could the 1:1 zoom accomodate this, maybe full zoom?

They cannot be used simultaneously with the 21:9 cropped feature?


Could probably just adjust the lens mode in the JVC NX5/RS1000 and use the blanking feature to avoid distortion, but there would be a massive content loss.

Best approach would probably be a Lumagen with the NLS feature, or the more expensive anamorphic lens option.


----------



## Vitus4K

Can you guys zoom the image from 3840 to 4096 horizontally with the latest JVC projector series (NX5/NX7/NX9) and still have Oppo 203/205 handling the 21:9 cropped feature?

Will the added 256 pixels horizontally, and 108 vertically remain within the 2.37:1 container, or will they overscan (get cropped away by the Oppo) if you're playing 2.39:1 content?

Does the Oppo 203/205 handle and playback 4096 horizontal content correctly, what is the reported resolution in HDMI (Main) Output Information if you long-press the Info button?


You can try the material below:

Direct link: https://we.tl/t-rPoVSce7HY

https://thedigitaltheater.com/2019/12/22/tenet-2020-trailer-2-1080p-and-4k-dts-hd-ma-and-ac3-5-1/


Video: AVC, H264, 32Mbps
Audio: Official Mix, DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1, AC3 5.1
Image: 4096×1716, 2.39:1
Format: MKV


----------



## Josh Z

Vitus4K said:


> Can you guys zoom the image from 3840 to 4096 horizontally with the latest JVC projector series (NX5/NX7/NX9) and still have Oppo 203/205 handling the 21:9 cropped feature?
> 
> Will the added 256 pixels horizontally, and 108 vertically remain within the 2.37:1 container, or will they overscan (get cropped away by the Oppo) if you're playing 2.39:1 content?
> 
> Does the Oppo 203/205 handle and playback 4096 horizontal content correctly, what is the reported resolution in HDMI (Main) Output Information if you long-press the Info button?


Current JVC projectors default to using the 3840x2160 (16:9) portion of the pixel panel, with small black bars projected on the sides to fill out the 4096x2160 (17:9) panel. However, if you use the Zoom aspect ratio preset, that will switch to using the full 4096x2160 panel. This will fill the width of the panel, while cropping a small amount of picture off the top and bottom of the image. You probably don't want to do this for actual 16:9 video content, but on anything with a wider aspect ratio (such as a 2.35:1 movie), all you lose is a smidge of the letterbox bars.

The 21:9 Cropped setting on the OPPO players is useful for two things:

(1) Shrinking 16:9 content down to the center of the 2.35:1 image area without using the projector's optical zoom. You throw away resolution from the source when you do this, reducing a 3840x2160 image to 2880x1620, but it's sometimes a little more convenient and you may not notice the difference.

Or

(2) Blanking out any image above and below the 2.35:1 area, effectively cropping everything to 2.35:1. This is helpful for movies with a variable aspect ratio (The Dark Knight, M:I Fallout, etc.) so that you don't wind up with picture projected off your screen onto the walls. These movies are composed to be safe for this cropping. 

(If you're just planning to watch a regular 2.35:1 letterboxed movie with no variable ratios, there's no need to use the 21:9 Cropped setting. The OPPO's default 16:9/Auto setting will look exactly the same. The player doesn't know whether the movie has letterboxing or not; only your eyes do.)

The OPPO 203 player outputs a 3840x2160, 16:9 signal at all times. The 21:9 Cropped setting just uses scaling or blanking to turn some of those pixels into letterbox or pillarbox bars. As far as the OPPO player knows, the projector also has a 3840x2160 panel. The player does not have any special scaling or programming designed for 4096x2160 projectors.

Option (2) is safe to use in combination with the JVC's "Zoom" setting. You're cropping everything to 2.35:1 anyway. Just set the projector's optical zoom so that the edges of the panel fill the width of your 2.35:1 screen and everything will appear with a constant 2.35:1 ratio. 

Option (1), unfortunately, will result in some image loss when combined with the JVC's "Zoom" setting. The OPPO will scale the picture into the 16:9 center of the frame, and then the projector will zoom that up to 17:9, cropping some image from the top and bottom.

Don't fret about the difference between 2.35:1, 2.37:1, 2.39:1, and 2.40:1. You can easily adjust for any of those with a tiny nudge of the projector's optical zoom.


----------



## Vitus4K

Josh Z said:


> Current JVC projectors default to using the 3840x2160 (16:9) portion of the pixel panel, with small black bars projected on the sides to fill out the 4096x2160 (17:9) panel. However, if you use the Zoom aspect ratio preset, that will switch to using the full 4096x2160 panel. This will fill the width of the panel, while cropping a small amount of picture off the top and bottom of the image. You probably don't want to do this for actual 16:9 video content, but on anything with a wider aspect ratio (such as a 2.35:1 movie), all you lose is a smidge of the letterbox bars.


Makes total sense, 4096 (17:9) horizontally wide 16:9 content is taller than 3840 wide 16:9 (1.777:1) content.

Also, since the OPPO 203/205 is creating the 2.37:1 container before the signal enters the projector, it has no impact on the 17:9 (1.896:1) zoom that it does.




Josh Z said:


> The 21:9 Cropped setting on the OPPO players is useful for two things:
> 
> (1) Shrinking 16:9 content down to the center of the 2.35:1 image area without using the projector's optical zoom. You throw away resolution from the source when you do this, reducing a 3840x2160 image to 2880x1620, but it's sometimes a little more convenient and you may not notice the difference.


I thought the OPPO 203/205 defaulted to a 2.370:1 container when using the 21:9 Cropped feature, not 2.347:1?

3840/2160 = 1.777 (1.777:1)

1620*1.777 = 2878, not 2880 as you mentioned?




Josh Z said:


> (2) Blanking out any image above and below the 2.35:1 area, effectively cropping everything to 2.35:1. This is helpful for movies with a variable aspect ratio (The Dark Knight, M:I Fallout, etc.) so that you don't wind up with picture projected off your screen onto the walls. These movies are composed to be safe for this cropping.


Again, 2.370:1, not 2.347:1?

Secondly, I don't understand the difference between the two options/scenarios you provided.

I was under the impression that the 21:9 Cropped feature was a CIH (Constant Image Height) mode, meaning, exactly option/scenario 1, and option/scenario 2, fit under the same feature, namingly 21:9 Cropped?




Josh Z said:


> The OPPO 203 player outputs a 3840x2160, 16:9 signal at all times. The 21:9 Cropped setting just uses scaling or blanking to turn some of those pixels into letterbox or pillarbox bars. As far as the OPPO player knows, the projector also has a 3840x2160 panel. The player does not have any special scaling or programming designed for 4096x2160 projectors.


The OPPO 203/205 has no support for 4096 horizontal playback?

Can you please check my above post and confirm?

What happens when you playback such a file, is the playback not supported, please check and report back.

Also, does it output 3840x2160 eventhough you playback a 1920x1080 source, I think your statement is rather generally put, confuses me.




Josh Z said:


> Option (2) is safe to use in combination with the JVC's "Zoom" setting. You're cropping everything to 2.35:1 anyway. Just set the projector's optical zoom so that the edges of the panel fill the width of your 2.35:1 screen and everything will appear with a constant 2.35:1 ratio.


Again, I'm cropping everything to 2.370:1, not 2.347:1, OPPO 203/205 is 2.370:1.

You're basically telling me that a 3840x1608, 2.39:1 (2.388:1) source can be zoomed to 4096x1716 (4096/2.388 = 1716ish) and the expanded/zoomed image by the projector still fits the 2.370:1 container?

Confused here, because that means your first section of your reply is invalid.

What I take from your statement here is that the OPPO 203/205 electronically scales the expanded/zoomed image, eventhough the OPPO has no control of what's happening in the projector.

Please explain further.




Josh Z said:


> Option (1), unfortunately, will result in some image loss when combined with the JVC's "Zoom" setting. The OPPO will scale the picture into the 16:9 center of the frame, and then the projector will zoom that up to 17:9, cropping some image from the top and bottom.


This statement is directly in argument with option/scenario 2, or am I not getting this correctly?

What's the difference here than from expanding scope content, they both are expanded/zoomed vertically, beyond the 2.370:1 container designated by the OPPO (3840x1620, 2.370:1)

I have a hard time here, lol.

The 16:9 to 17:9 expansion makes sense, and that information gets cropped off with 16:9 content, I fully understand that, but not when we throw OPPO in the mix which seem to do one thing, but not the other, when they're basically the same thing.

I bet if I read this tomorrow morning, I'll fully understand, am I just not getting it?

Also, why would the projector do any cropping once zoomed to 17:9, wouldn't the zoomed content just overscan the 2.370:1 container?


----------



## Josh Z

Vitus4K said:


> I thought the OPPO 203/205 defaulted to a 2.370:1 container when using the 21:9 Cropped feature, not 2.347:1?


 The container that the OPPO outputs is always 3840x2160 when connected to a 4k display (or 1920x1080 if a 1080p display). The player is not capable of outputting custom resolutions. It does not add or remove pixels outside those two standard containers. The player's various aspect ratio settings (including 21:9 Cropped) are video processing features that can zoom or shrink the image within the 16:9 container. The player is always sending out a 16:9 signal, but some of those pixels get turned into black bars if you don't want to see them.



> 3840/2160 = 1.777 (1.777:1). 1620*1.777 = 2878, not 2880 as you mentioned?


You're rounding by shortening the number to three decimal places. The actual number is 1.7777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777~ ad infinitum. 

Picture it this way. You want to watch a standard 16:9 TV show, but you have a scope screen. You can either leave everything set for 16:9 and use the projector's optical zoom to reduce the image size, or you can leave the projector zoomed up to fill the screen width and then scale the image down so that it only occupies the center of the frame.

For the latter, the "shrink" mode within the OPPO's 21:9 feature scales down the active image by 1/4. A 16:9 image now only uses 2880x1620 of the original pixels, while everything else becomes black bars. The player is still outputting 3840x2160 pixels in all, but you can let some of them spill off the screen. 



> Again, 2.370:1, not 2.347:1?


 You're getting hung up on the math here. A "scope" image can be anything from 2.35:1 to 2.40:1. Original CinemaScope in the 1950s started at 2.55:1. That got reduced to 2.35:1 a few years later in order to add stereo sound. The spec was later revised to 2.3942:1 in 1970 after CinemaScope itself went defunct and Panavision became the new standard. It was amended again later to 2.3912:1 in the '80s and is about 2.3869463:1 in the current Digital Cinema spec. 

Most people in the filmmaking industry call all of these numbers "2.35:1" for shorthand. Most filmmakers are creative types, not mathematicians. 

When you're watching a "scope" movie or TV show transferred to home video, it could measure anywhere from about 2.30:1 to 2.40:1, often with little rhyme or reason for the exact number chosen. Some studios are pretty precise about hitting 2.40:1 every time (even for old movies originally 2.35:1). Others are hit-and-miss about it, depending on the scanner used and how it's calibrated. Some studios just plain don't give a flip. To be honest, neither do most filmmakers. Any of these numbers is within the expected tolerances for variances in theatrical projection, and almost no viewers watching on 16:9 TVs will ever notice a couple pixels of difference in height. It's only us CIH home theater types who get obsessed over this.



> Secondly, I don't understand the difference between the two options/scenarios you provided.
> 
> I was under the impression that the 21:9 Cropped feature was a CIH (Constant Image Height) mode, meaning, exactly option/scenario 1, and option/scenario 2, fit under the same feature, namingly 21:9 Cropped?


 "21:9 Cropped" is OPPO's chosen name for the output mode that effectively tells the video processor, "I have a scope screen and I'm always going to leave the projector zoomed all the way to fill the width. I don't ever want to see picture above or below my screen. Please make that happen for me."

The player is still outputting a full 16:9 container, but you will let some of those pixels spill off the top and bottom of the screen, and the player will blank out those pixels so that you don't notice them shining on your wall.

After you're chosen "21:9 Cropped," you'll use the Zoom button on the OPPO remote to tell the player whether you want to use the full width of the panel (for scope content) or shrink the image down to be windowboxed (black bars on all sides) in the middle of the frame. You'd do the latter for a 16:9 TV show, for example. The image will fill the height of your screen with pillarbox bars on the sides, and the rest of the letterboxing will spill off the top and bottom onto your walls.



> The OPPO 203/205 has no support for 4096 horizontal playback?


 No, it outputs a 3840x2160 signal.



> What happens when you playback such a file, is the playback not supported, please check and report back.


 What files do you have that are 4096x2160 resolution? All "4K Ultra HD" home media is 3840x2160. If you have custom video files, or you've found something in that resolution on YouTube or something, assuming that the OPPO supports playback at all (which I can't confirm, because I've never tried it), the player would scale it to 3840x2160. 



> Also, does it output 3840x2160 eventhough you playback a 1920x1080 source, I think your statement is rather generally put, confuses me.


 The player will scale 1920x1080 up to 3840x2160, unless you turn on "Source Direct" mode, which outputs everything in its original native res. But the OPPO has an excellent scaler, so there's really no point to doing that.



> You're basically telling me that a 3840x1608, 2.39:1 (2.388:1) source can be zoomed to 4096x1716 (4096/2.388 = 1716ish) and the expanded/zoomed image by the projector still fits the 2.370:1 container?


 Your video source is 3840x2160 pixels (if Ultra HD, or 1920x1080 if standard HD). Any non-16:9 aspect ratios within that are achieved by adding letterbox or pillarbox bars within the 16:9 container. There is no such thing as a 3840x1608 source. Doesn't exist. The source is 3840x2160, period. If the movie has a wider aspect ratio, some of those pixels are displayed as black bars. You will project those black bars off the top and bottom of the screen.

The JVC projector has a native 4096x2160 panel. You may choose to use only 3840x2160 of those pixels for 1:1 mapping with no scaling, and the projector will blank out the unused pixels on the sides. They're still shining from the projector, but as black bars that you will let spill off the sides of your screen.

OR you can zoom up to 4096x2160. Because 4096x2160 is not the same shape as 3840x2160, something has to give. During the zoom, the projector will crop pixels off the top and bottom of the image to make it a 17:9 shape. If the content you're watching is already letterboxed, this is no big deal because all you lose is a little of the black bars. If the content were full-screen 16:9, however, you may notice picture loss. For example, the score or player stats on a sports broadcast may not be readable. In that case, you'd want to switch back to the projector's 3840x2160 mode.



> What I take from your statement here is that the OPPO 203/205 electronically scales the expanded/zoomed image, even though the OPPO has no control of what's happening in the projector.


 Essentially correct. The OPPO scales the image within its own 3840x2160 output container. Anything you do in the projector after that is out of OPPO's hands. 



> The 16:9 to 17:9 expansion makes sense, and that information gets cropped off with 16:9 content, I fully understand that, but not when we throw OPPO in the mix which seem to do one thing, but not the other, when they're basically the same thing.


 What you're doing is scaling twice – once in the OPPO and then again in the projector. If the idea of double-scaling bothers you, don't use the "Zoom" setting in the projector. It's not required.



> Also, why would the projector do any cropping once zoomed to 17:9, wouldn't the zoomed content just overscan the 2.370:1 container?


 The projector's panel is 4096x2160 pixels at all times. There is no home video content that natively fits that. "Overscanning" in this case means cropping the 16:9 source to fit the 17:9 panel. You can't shine extra picture where there are no pixels.


----------



## Vitus4K

Josh Z said:


> What files do you have that are 4096x2160 resolution?


Here is a direct download link from www.thedigitaltheater.com

https://we.tl/t-rPoVSce7HY

It's a 4096x1716 trailer of Tenet (2020, Nolan).

Would you please try play that and tell me exactly what happens in the Oppo?

I'm on my cell now, I'll have a full reply to your post tomorrow.

Thanks for helping me.


Why do I insist with 4096?

It's an increase in brightness, expanding the image to the full 4096 width of the D-ILA chip.

The JVC Zoom maintains the aspect ratio eventhough you zoom.

It's an interesting set of tools for scope content.


----------



## Josh Z

Vitus4K said:


> Here is a direct download link from www.thedigitaltheater.com
> 
> https://we.tl/t-rPoVSce7HY
> 
> It's a 4096x1716 trailer of Tenet (2020, Nolan).
> 
> Would you please try play that and tell me exactly what happens in the Oppo?
> 
> I'm on my cell now, I'll have a full reply to your post tomorrow.


I'm not able to test this right now. Honestly, though, the question is academic at best. Is this all you plan to watch, trailers downloaded off the internet that were ripped from a DCP intended for theaters? Any official "4K Ultra HD" content released to home media (either disc or streaming) will be 3840x2160. When Tenet is eventually released on 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray disc or streams on your choice of provider (Apple, VUDU, whatever...), it will be 3840x2160. That is the standard for home video. 



> Why do I insist with 4096?
> 
> It's an increase in brightness, expanding the image to the full 4096 width of the D-ILA chip.


Yeah, I get it. That's exactly what I do on my JVC. But the source is still 3840x2160 and you're zooming that up within the projector to fill the panel.



> The JVC Zoom maintains the aspect ratio even though you zoom.


No, it does not. It crops the 16:9 source to 17:9. 

If the movie's aspect ratio is letterboxed to wider than 17:9, the cropping won't matter to you. If the aspect ratio is 16:9 or less, however, you will notice visible picture loss.


----------



## Vitus4K

Josh Z said:


> The container that the OPPO outputs is always 3840x2160...


Josh, I'll stop quoting us to boredom, instead share my now increased understanding.

You have 25,341 posts, your knowledge is greater than mine, I respect you.


Nevertheless, to skip confusing other rookies like me, I will still refer to the exact mathematical numbers.

16:9, 17:9, 21:9 (exception of 16:9) will yield false results when calculating brightness/performance.

Instead I will refer to the exact resolution of the active image within the total signal container, be it letterboxed or pillarboxed content.

This will allow for easier calculations for increased brightness.


Also, I highly assume that people have their own ways of handling letterboxing/pillarboxing, as these are masked/overscanned.

By overscanned, I mean overscanned outside of the screen aspect ratio and size you choosed to install.

In no way will I ever refer to a video signal, including the letterboxing or pillarboxing, please note this.


To help others, and myself, I'll explain which, when, and how to use the features we've discussed.

I'll start by stating that increasing the horizontal width to 4096 from 3840 yields a brightness increase.

I'm sure maths is not what people like to discuss on this forum, but it helps alot to understand it all.


In example, 3840x1608, 2.388:1, 2.39:1 Ultra HD content, zoomed to 4096x1716, yields the following brightness increase:

(3840/1608=2.388) > (4096/2.388=1716) > (4096-3840=256) (256/3840=0,0666=6.66%) (1716-1608=108) (108/1608=0,0671=6.71%)

The increase from 3840 to 4096 horizontal pixels yields a 6.66% brightness increase.

The increase from 1608 to 1716 vertical pixels yields a 6.71% brightness increase.

The zoom feature within the JVC NX5/NX7/NX9 keeps the content aspect ratio intact when using Zoom, hence the vertical increase.

The correctly calculated added brightness from using Zoom, is (6.66+6.71=13.37=13.37) around 13%, more detail on this later.

For me, and I'm sure for others, this is a welcomed increase, to the cost of nothing, it's totally free.


For reference, the different aspect settings found in the JVC NX5/NX7/NX9 can be found at Page 26 in the manual, see below:

http://www33.jvckenwood.com/pdfs/B5A-2809-01.pdf

Zoom is the feature that zooms the image horizontally to 4096, any vertical aspect beyond 2160 will be cropped by the chip.

Auto is probably not suitable for Constant Image Height.

Native is a waste of time, the OPPO 203/205 probably scales better.


As a follow-up to our previous conversation, below I will list a few examples of which, when and how to use the features.

Note, all the below examples are based on having a 2.370:1 screen, which follows the OPPO 203/205 21:9 Cropped feature.

All calculations are in direct comparison with the original 3840x1620 resolution, and 2.370:1 container offered by 21:9 Cropped.

Note: 21:9 is a loose term for the feature, and is generally used incorrect in marketing (21/9=2.333).

Note: The 21:9 Cropped feature is based on a 2.370:1 container, and a 3840 horizontal resolution (3840/2.370=1620).


1.777:1, 1.78:1 (Example: Planet Earth 2 UHD)

21:9 Cropped: Will electronically shrink the 1.777:1 content to fit the 2.370:1 vertical height constraint, yielding pillarboxing.

Pros/Cons: Keeps within your 2.370:1 screen height, resolution loss, brightness loss, better off with a 1.777:1 screen.

Zoom: Will zoom to 4096 width, however, 1.777:1 content is taller than the native 1.896:1 (4096/2160=1.896) image chip, it will overscan vertically.

It will also overscan your 2.370:1 (4096/2.370=1728) 1728 vertical container produced by the OPPO 203/205 (4096/1.777=2304)

Pros/Cons: No benefits here, the image will not be presented fully, constant image height is not achieved.

Alternative: You can always mask the 557 pixel vertical overscan (2305-1728=557) with masking in the projector, valuable content is lost.

If you can, and your throw ratio allows, zoom the projector lens down to fit the height of your screen for 1.777:1 content.


1.849:1, 1.85:1 (Example: American Gangster UHD)

21:9 Cropped: Will electronically shrink the 1.849:1 content to fit the 2.370:1 vertical height constraint, yielding pillarboxing.

Pros/Cons: Keeps within your 2.370:1 screen height, resolution loss, brightness loss, better off with a 1.777:1 screen.

Zoom: Will zoom to 4096 width, however, 1.849:1 content is taller than the native 1.896:1 (4096/2160=1.896) image chip, it will overscan vertically.

It will also overscan your 2.370:1 (4096/2.370=1728) 1728 vertical container produced by the OPPO 203/205 (4096/1.849=2216)

Pros/Cons: No benefits here, the image will not be presented fully, constant image height is not achieved.

Alternative: You can always mask the 487 pixel vertical overscan (2215-1728=487) with masking in the projector, valuable content is lost.

If you can, and your throw ratio allows, zoom the projector lens down to fit the height of your screen for 1.849:1 content.


2.000:1, 2.00:1 (Example: Jurassic World UHD)

21:9 Cropped: Will electronically shrink the 2.000:1 content to fit the 2.370:1 height constraint, yielding pillarboxing.

Pros/Cons: Keeps within your 2.370:1 screen height, resolution loss, brightness loss, better off with a 1.777:1 screen.

Zoom: Will zoom to full 4096 width, furthermore, 2.000:1 content is wider than the native 1.896:1 (4096/2160=1.896) image chip, it will introduce letterboxing.

It will also overscan your 2.370:1 (4096/2.370=1728) 1728 vertical container produced by the OPPO 203/205 (4096/2.000=2048)

Pros/Cons: No benefits here, the image will not be presented fully, constant image height is not achieved.

Alternative: You can always mask the 320 pixel vertical overscan (2048-1728=320) with masking in the projector, valuable content is lost.

If you can, and your throw ratio allows, zoom the projector lens down to fit the height of your screen for 1.200:1 content.


2.200:1, 2.20:1 (Example: Dunkirk UHD)

21:9 Cropped: Will electronically shrink the 2.200:1 content to fit the 2.370:1 vertical height constraint, yielding pillarboxing.

Pros/Cons: Keeps within your 2.370:1 screen height, avoids IMAX-switching, resolution loss, brightness loss, better off with a 1.777:1 screen.

Zoom: Will zoom to full 4096 width, furthermore, 2.200:1 content is wider than the native 1.896:1 (4096/2160=1.896) image chip, it will introduce letterboxing.

It will also overscan your 2.370:1 (4096/2.370=1728) 1728 vertical container produced by the OPPO 203/205 (4096/2.200=1862)

Pros/Cons: No benefits here, the image will not be presented fully, constant image height is not achieved.

Alternative: You can always mask the 134 pixel vertical overscan (1862-1728=134) with masking in the projector, valuable content is lost.

Information: For me personally, the breaking point of beginning to zoom to full 4096 horizontal width is right around here.

You can either have 134 pixel vertical overscan masked, or run by 294 pixel horizontal pillarboxing (1728*2.200=3802) > (4096-3802=294)

Zoom to full 4096 width yields a 14.92% horizontal brightness increase (1620*2.200=3564) > (4096-3564=532) > (532/3564=0,1492=14.92%)

Zoom to full 4096 width yields a 6.66% vertical brightness increase (3564/2.200=1620) > (4096/2.200=1862) > (1728-1620=108) > (108/1620=0.0666=6.66%)

The total added brightness is 21.58% (14.92+6.66=21.58=21.58%) given you are cropping the 134 vertical pixel overscan.

Could of been total of 23.19% (134/1620=0.0827=8.27%) > (14.92+8.27=23.19=23.19%) brightness increase if using Zoom on a 1.777:1 screen.

However, the 1.61% possible vertical brightness increase loss (8.27-6.66=1.61) is the price you pay, for a completely filled, immersive 2.370:1 screen, cropped and masked.

Please note, you need to mask 134 pixel vertical overscan if you're planning on using Zoom.

Hit or miss, really, choose whatever you prefer.


2.347:1, 2.35:1 (Example: Gladiator UHD)

21:9 Cropped: Will electronically shrink the 2.347:1 content to fit the 2.370:1 vertical height constraint, yielding slight pillarboxing.

Pros/Cons: Keeps within your 2.370:1 screen height, avoids IMAX-switching, disc menus are kept within the active image area, brightness loss, slight pillarboxing.

Zoom: Will zoom to full 4096 width, furthermore, 2.347:1 content is wider than the native 1.896:1 (4096/2160=1.896) image chip, it will introduce letterboxing.

It will also overscan your 2.370:1 (4096/2.370=1728) 1728 vertical container produced by the OPPO 203/205 (4096/2.347=1746)

Information: 2.347:1 is very close to 2.370:1, the below example will show you why zooming to full 4096 horizontal width is beneficial.

Example: (1620*2.347=3802) > (4096-3802=294) (294/3802=0.0773=7,73%) Zoom yields a 7,73% horizontal brightness increase.

(4096/2.347=1746) > (1746-1620=126) > (126/1620=0.7777=7.77%) 7.77% vertical brightness increase by using Zoom to full 4096 width.

However, the 1746 vertical height is outside of the 2.370:1 screen by (4096/2.370=1728) > (1746-1728=18) 18 pixels vertically, these needs to be cropped/masked to maintain the 2.370:1 aspect ratio

(18/126=0.1428=14.28%) > (7.77/100=0.0777) > (0.0777*14.28=1.1095=1.11%) > (7.77-1.11=6.67=6.66%) 6.66% of the original 7.77% vertical brightness increase is utilized after the 18 pixel vertical masking is applied.

The total brightness increase is (7.73+6.66=14.39=14.39%) 14.39%.

Should you zoom? Yes.

There is a very minor vertical cropping/masking required, it will most likely not impact the directors intent.


2.388:1, 2.39:1 (Example: Blade Runner UHD)

21:9 Cropped: Will electronically shrink the 2.388:1 content to fit the 2.370:1 horizontal width constraint, yielding slight letterboxing.

Pros/Cons: Keeps within your 2.370:1 screen width, avoids IMAX-switching, disc menus are kept within the active image area, brightness loss, slight letterboxing.

Zoom: Will zoom to full 4096 width, furthermore, 2.388:1 content is wider than the native 1.896:1 (4096/2160=1.896) image chip, it will introduce letterboxing.

It will not overscan your 2.370:1 (4096/2.370=1728) 1728 vertical container produced by the OPPO 203/205 (4096/2.388=1716) like 2.347:1 does.

Information: 2.388:1 is very close to 2.370:1, the below example will show you why zooming to full 4096 horizontal width is beneficial.

Example: (4096-3840=256) (256/3840=0,0666=6.66%) Zoom yields a 6.66% horizontal brightness increase.

(3840/2.388=1608) > (4096/2.388=1716) > (1716-1608=108) > (108/1608=0.0671=6.71%) 6.71% vertical brightness increase by using Zoom to full 4096 width.

However, this is where the content is starting to become wide enough to introduce letterboxing.

The 1716 vertical height leaves (1728-1716=12) 12 vertical pixels letterboxed, this is a minimal amount of letterboxing, negligible, compared to the increase in brightness.

Furthermore, the total added brightness is (6.66+6.71=13.37=13.37%) 13.37% to be exact, I am more than sure this would be beneficial for most of us.

Should you zoom? Yes, definitely.

There is a very minor vertical letterboxing still remaining eventhough you use Zoom, is just as big as if you wouldn't be zooming to full 4096 width, you have just gained brightness.

What you gain here is a denser PPI (Pixel Per Inch) on your screen, essentially a higher resolution, but only if you feed the projector 4096 wide content.

There is also convenience added, you wouldn't have to use the projector lens to zoom between a 3840 and 4096 horizontal width, when alternating content.

The zoom inside the projector to full 4096 can be kept as long as you watch 2.200:1 material, or wider, or narrower too, depending on your throw.


2.555:1, 2.55:1 (Example: La La Land UHD)

21:9 Cropped: Will electronically shrink the 2.555:1 content to fit the 2.370:1 horizontal width constraint, yielding slightly bigger letterboxing.

Pros/Cons: Well, keeps within your 2.370:1 screen width, avoids IMAX-switching beyond the 2.370:1 height constraint if there would be any IMAX-variable 2.555:1 content, brightness loss.

Zoom: Will zoom to full 4096 width, furthermore, 2.555:1 content is wider than the native 1.896:1 (4096/2160=1.896) image chip, it will introduce letterboxing.

It will not overscan your 2.370:1 (4096/2.370=1728) 1728 vertical container produced by the OPPO 203/205 (4096/2.555=1604) like 2.347:1 does.

Information: 2.555:1 is wider than both 2.347:1 and 2.388:1, the below example will show you why zooming to full 4096 horizontal width is beneficial here as well.

Example: (4096-3840=256) (256/3840=0.0666=6.66%) Zoom yields a 6.66% horizontal brightness increase.

(3840/2.555=1502) > (4096/2.555=1604) > (1604-1502=102) > (102/1502=0.0679=6.79%) 6.79% vertical brightness increase by using Zoom to full 4096 width.

The 1604 vertical height leaves (1728-1604=124) 124 vertical pixels letterboxed, they're just as big as before zooming, you have just gained more brightness.

The total added brightness is (6.66+6.79=13.45=13.45%) 13.45% to be exact, just as beneficial as with 2.388:1 content, or very close by.

There is also convenience added, you wouldn't have to use the projector lens to zoom between a 3840 and 4096 horizontal width, when alternating content.

The zoom inside the projector to full 4096 can be kept as long as you watch 2.200:1 material, or wider, or narrower too, depending on your throw.


2.758:1, 2.76:1 (Example: The Hateful Eight UHD)

21:9 Cropped: Will electronically shrink the 2.758:1 content to fit the 2.370:1 horizontal width constraint, yielding yet bigger letterboxing.

Pros/Cons: Well, keeps within your 2.370:1 screen width, avoids IMAX-switching beyond the 2.370:1 height constraint if there would be any IMAX-variable 2.758:1 content, brightness loss.

Zoom: Will zoom to full 4096 width, furthermore, 2.758:1 content is wider than the native 1.896:1 (4096/2160=1.896) image chip, it will introduce letterboxing.

It will not overscan your 2.370:1 (4096/2.370=1728) 1728 vertical container produced by the OPPO 203/205 (4096/2.758=1486) like 2.347:1 does.

Information: 2.758:1 is wider than both 2.347:1, 2.388:1, and 2.555:1, the below example will show you why zooming to full 4096 horizontal width is beneficial here yet again.

Example: (4096-3840=256) (256/3840=0.0666=6.66%) Zoom yields a 6.66% horizontal brightness increase.

(3840/2.758=1392) > (4096/2.758=1486) > (1486-1392=94) > (94/1392=0.0675=6.75%) 6.75% vertical brightness increase by using Zoom to full 4096 width.

The 1486 vertical height leaves (1728-1486=242) 242 vertical pixels letterboxed, they're just as big as before zooming, you have just gained more brightness.

The total added brightness is (6.66+6.75=13.41=13.41%) 13.41% to be exact, just as beneficial as with 2.388:1 and 2.555:1 content, or very close by.

What you gain here is a denser PPI (Pixel Per Inch) on your screen, essentially a higher resolution, but only if you feed the projector 4096 wide content.

There is also convenience added, you wouldn't have to use the projector lens to zoom between a 3840 and 4096 horizontal width, when alternating content.

The zoom inside the projector to full 4096 can be kept as long as you watch 2.200:1 material, or wider, or narrower too, depending on your throw.


While you gain brightness by using Zoom on 2.200:1 material or wider, you obviously also increase the amount of pixels used in the 0.69" D-ILA image chip.

Panamorph Inc. marketing for their Paladin DCR lenses state 38% more brightness, and 43% more pixels used when attaching the Paladin DCR lens.

These are numbers compared to when zooming a 3840*1600 horizontally wide and vertically high image to fit your screen.

Much like their percentages, we can perform the same percentage calculation by adding in our own calculations into the mix, see the summarization below.

Everything, and all calculations, are based on having a 2.370:1 screen:


1.777.1, 1.78:1, 0% brightness gain by zooming to full 4096, 0% more pixels used, the aspect ratio is taller than 1.896:1 and 2.370:1, cropping would occur.

1.847:1, 1.85:1, 0% brightness gain by zooming to full 4096, 0% more pixels used, the aspect ratio is taller than 1.896:1 and 2.370:1, cropping would occur.

2.000:1, 2.00:1, 0% brightness gain by zooming to full 4096, 0% more pixels used, the aspect ratio is taller than 2.370:1, cropping would occur.

2.200:1, 2.20:1, 21.58% brightness gain by zooming to full 4096, 22.58% more pixels used (3564*1620=5773680) > (4096*1728=7077888) > (7077888-5773680=1304208) > (1304208/5773680=0.2258=22.58%) cropping/masking the 134 pixel vertical overscan.

2.347:1, 2.35:1, 14.39% brightness gain by zooming to full 4096, 14.91% more pixels used (3802*1620=6159240) > (4096*1728=7077888) > (7077888-6159240=918648) > (918648/6159240=0.1491=14.91%) cropping/masking the 18 pixel vertical overscan.

2.388:1, 2.39:1, 13.37% brightness gain by zooming to full 4096, 13.83% more pixels used (3840*1608=6174720‬) > (4096*1728=7028736) > (7028736-6174720=854016) > (854016/6174720=0.1383=13.83%) maintaining 12 pixels vertically letterboxed.

2.555:1, 2.55:1, 13.45% brightness gain by zooming to full 4096, 13.91% more pixels used (3840*1502=5767680) > (4096*1604=6569984) > (6569984-5767680=802304) > (802304/5767680=0.1391=13.91%) maintaining 124 pixels vertically letterboxed.

2.785:1, 2.76:1, 13.41% brightness gain by zooming to full 4096, 13.86% more pixels used (3840*1392=5345280) > (4096*1486=6086656) > (6086656-5345280=741376) > (741376/5345280=0.1386=13.86%) maintaining 242 pixels vertically letterboxed.


1.777:1, 1.847:1 and 2.000:1 content is best presented in their full aspect ratio, meaning no cropping to remove active image area vertically.

If you're not using 21:9 Cropped for these aspect ratios, you will best zoom the projector to fit the 1.777:1, 1.847:1 and 2.000:1 vertical height to your screen, in whichever aspect ratio you use, preferably 2.370:1.

Zooming the lens of the projector, instead of using the 21:9 Cropped feature of the OPPO 203/205, will result on no loss of resolution, unline the electronical scaling otherwise performed by the Oppo.

Use the lens memory installation modes to accomodate for each aspect ratio scenario, saving zoom, masking, blanking, cropping variables each dependning on aspect ratio your presentation contains.


Personally I plan to use a 116,5", 2.370:1 screen, it has the following measurements.

116.5" diagonal
107.3" width
45.3" height

My throw is 20.60 feet, I will need a 1.19x projector lens telephoto zoom, with a 2.370:1 screen, using the JVC NX5/RS1000.


My 1.777:1 container, matching my 2.370:1 screen height, is around 92" in diagonal.

The projector zooms from 1.00x in full telephoto, to 2.00x in full wide angle.

The maximum throw for 92" 1.777:1 diagonal is 19.32 feet.

I am unable to zoom the projector lens to fit the 1.777:1 container optically.

I will need to perform electronical scaling, using the 21:9 Cropped feature in the OPPO 203/205.


My 1.847:1 container, matching my 2.370:1 screen height, is around 95" in diagonal.

The projector zooms from 1.00x in full telephoto, to 2.00x in full wide angle.

The maximum throw for 95" 1.847:1 diagonal is 19.25 feet.

I am unable to zoom the projector lens to fit the 1.847:1 container optically.

I will need to perform electronical scaling, using the 21:9 Cropped feature in the OPPO 203/205.


My 2.000:1 container, matching my 2.370:1 screen height, is around 101" in diagonal.

The projector zooms from 1.00x in full telephoto, to 2.00x in full wide angle.

The maximum throw for 101" 2.000:1 diagonal is 20.57 feet.

I am unable to zoom the projector lens to fit the 2.000:1 container optically.

I will need to perform electronical scaling, using the 21:9 Cropped feature in the OPPO 203/205.


My 2.200:1 container, matching my 2.370:1 screen height, is around 109" in diagonal.

The projector zooms from 1.00x in full telephoto, to 2.00x in full wide angle.

The maximum throw for 109" 2.200:1 diagonal is 22.67 feet.

I can use a 1.10x telephoto zoom with 2.200:1 content.


My 2.347:1, 2.388:1, 2.555:1, 2.785:1 containers are better, however, a bit in the far end of the telephoto zoom, hence why I need to extra brightness from a full 4096 panel width.


I further want to use a full 4096 as much as possible, due to certain bits of my content being 4096 horizontally.

For 1.777:1, 1.847:1 and 2.000:1, I will need to zoom my projector lens to fit a 3840 width horizontally, and optically, not electronically, zoom to full 4096 is impossible here.


I'm not a mathematician, I'm sure most of this is incorrect, but I'm pretty certain they're spot on.

Sure, a pixel here or there, I've rounded pixels to the nearest even number if the calculation came out uneven.


Have I correctly understood the possibilities that lies within the OPPO 203/205 21:9 Cropped feature, and the Zoom function found in the JVC NX5/NX7/NX9?

Calculators used:

My brain, calculator and the tools below:

https://www.projectorcentral.com/JVC-DLA-NX5-projection-calculator-pro.htm

http://www.screen-size.info/


----------



## Josh Z

Vitus4K said:


> Nevertheless, to skip confusing other rookies like me, I will still refer to the exact mathematical numbers.
> 
> 16:9, 17:9, 21:9 (exception of 16:9) will yield false results when calculating brightness/performance.
> 
> Instead I will refer to the exact resolution of the active image within the total signal container, be it letterboxed or pillarboxed content.
> 
> This will allow for easier calculations for increased brightness.


I'm not going to go through your entire post. Needless to say, I feel that you're really overthinking a lot of this.

Yes, zooming the input signal to use JVC's full 4096x2160 panel does offer a marginal improvement in brightness. That's a perfectly valid reason to do it, and I do so myself. However, you still seem to have some misconceptions about what the OPPO's 21:9 Cropped mode does, and how it will interact with the projector's additional scaling. You're also getting lost in the minutiae of details and losing sight of the actual pragmatic application of using these features. 

Try to take a step back from all your math and your calculations to look at the broader picture.

Point 1) The JVC projector always always always *always* projects a 4096x2160 image with a 17:9 aspect ratio. Without installing an anamorphic lens (which is a whole different topic), the projector is not capable of changing its pixel resolution or image shape. 4096x2160 pixels are always being projected, and 4096x2160 will always equal a 17:9 shape. 

You may choose to fill all of those pixels with image, or you may choose to only use some of the pixels and let others be projected as black bars. Regardless, 4096x2160 is always coming out of the projector, always 17:9.

Point 2) All "4K Ultra HD" consumer home video is authored as 3840x2160 pixels, which equates to a 16:9 aspect ratio. Some movies or shows use all of those pixels and the full 16:9 ratio, and some are letterboxed or pillarboxed to only use a portion of the pixels for a different ratio. The signal itself is regardless 3840x2160, always 16:9.

Point 3) The OPPO 203/205 (and please, don't spend extra money on the 205 for "audiophile" features that are completely bypassed when you use an HDMI cable anyway) will always always always *always* output a 3840x2160 signal in a 16:9 container. 

You have been misusing the term "container" in your posts in this thread. The container is not the aspect ratio of the content. The container is the full signal that is being transmitted, and it will always be 3840x2160 / 16:9. Content may be letterboxed or pillarboxed within that container, but the container is what it is.

Think of the container as a box. If you receive a package in the mail in a 10" box but the item inside is only 5", you don't say it came in a 5" container. The container is still 10" and you have to fill that extra space with something. In video terms, that extra something is the letterbox or pillarbox bars. 

Point 4) OPPO's "21:9 Cropped" mode does not actually change the shape or resolution of the signal. The player is still putting out 3840x2160 / 16:9 at all times. 21:9 Cropped is a video processing mode that blanks out the pixels at the top and bottom of the frame and turns them into letterbox bars, so that active image content only uses 3840x1620 of the pixels. The rest are still projected as black bars. Yes, 3840x1620 equates to a 2.37:1 aspect ratio.

Within the 21:9 Cropped mode are a couple of coarse zoom settings to enlarge or reduce the size of the image, depending on what type of content you're watching.

In its simplest application, if you're watching a full-screen 16:9 image and turn on 21:9 Cropped, the player will mask off the top and bottom of the screen, losing picture. This is generally not desirable, except for the handful of movies with an annoying variable aspect ratio (The Dark Knight, etc.). Those movies are designed to be safe for cropping if you have a scope screen.

For other 16:9 content, the OPPO's zoom button can shrink the image to only occupy 2880x1620 of the pixels. Thus you do not lose any picture. However, you do throw away resolution as a tradeoff for the convenience. 

The OPPO player's zoom function does not have infinite microscopic steps for adjusting between every precise decimal point of your content aspect ratio. It's either zoom it up to fill the width, or shrink it down to sit in the center. One or the other. That's it. 

If the movie you're watching has a 2.20:1 or 2.35:1 aspect ratio, the 21:9 Cropped mode will crop it to 2.37:1. 

If the movie has a 2.40:1 aspect ratio, the 21:9 Cropped mode essentially does nothing. The image is transmitted the same as it would be from any UHD player, as a 3840x2160 signal in which only 3840x1600 of the pixels have picture in them. You do not need an OPPO player for this. You do not need 21:9 Cropped mode. In this usage, 21:9 Cropped is identical to regular 16:9 mode.

Summing Up:

The OPPO player always outputs a 3840x2160 / 16:9 signal. Always.

The JVC projector always projects a 4096x2160 / 17:9 image. Always.

If you zoom the 3840x2160 source up to 4096x2160, you will lose some picture off the top and bottom. If the content has an aspect ratio wider than 17:9, this is not problematic.

OPPO's 21:9 Cropped mode is very useful for watching 16:9 content shrunk into the center of a 3840x1620 (2.37:1) frame. 

21:9 Cropped mode is very useful for cropping variable aspect ratio movies to a constant image height. 

21:9 Cropped mode does nothing at all for content with an aspect ratio wider than 2.37:1.

21:9 Cropped mode is not particularly useful for content that falls midway between 16:9 and 2.37:1. Right now, 2:1 is a very popular aspect ratio for streaming TV series (Stranger Things and so forth). 21:9 Cropped mode will force you to either crop that to 2.37:1, losing a lot of picture, or shrink it down to the "16:9" size with letterboxing, which will float in the middle of your screen with bars on all sides. Neither is ideal.

When you combine OPPO's 21:9 Cropped mode with JVC's "Zoom" function, you are applying additional scaling and will shave image off the top and bottom. Again, if the content's aspect ratio is already wider than 2.37:1, this won't matter. If the content's aspect ratio is something narrower than 2.37:1, you lose picture.


----------



## Vitus4K

Josh Z said:


> 21:9 Cropped mode is not particularly useful for content that falls midway between 16:9 and 2.37:1. Right now, 2:1 is a very popular aspect ratio for streaming TV series (Stranger Things and so forth). 21:9 Cropped mode will force you to either crop that to 2.37:1, losing a lot of picture, or shrink it down to the "16:9" size with letterboxing, which will float in the middle of your screen with bars on all sides. Neither is ideal.


I agree with everything in your post, but it seems that I have misunderstood what the 21:9 Cropped feature actually does.


I was under the impression, from what people have been speaking on different forums, that the feature keeps a constant image height.

Constant image height for me is a feature that keeps the height constant, no matter what you watch or feed the video processor.


I've basically been thinking that the Oppo 203/205 scans the *active video area*, horizontally, of what you're playing, to calculate the perfect *'scaled down'* width, if you were to fit it to the 2.370:1 mode the feature is offering.

This is why I have been refering to the 2.370:1 as a container, and I've been thinking thatt no matter which ratio you feed it, as long as it's narrower than 2.370:1, it'll scale down the image, much like you said it does with 16:9 content, in a similar fashion to fit other content within this 2.370:1 window.

Meaning, you could basically calculate the new 'scaled down' width by just multiplying your screen height and/or pixels to see how wide the image would be.

This is constant image height to me.

This forum thread is called constant image height, I guess I'm in the wrong forum, or the thread is completely misguiding.


The Oppo cannot achieve the above?

Then we can stop talking, as a matter of fact, due to all this being quite 'complicated' and more of a hassle than a joy when it comes to fitting every aspect ratio perfectly to your screen.

I've simply decided to step away from all content narrower than 2.200:1, 2.2:1 I can still manage somewhat (mostly because I want to see Dunkirk lol), and not whine about it, otherwise I will just keep to 2.35:1, 2.39:1, 2.40:1 and wider content.

This is where I can be zoomed to 4096 at all times, not having to think or change any ratios/zooms depending on what you're watching.


Also, I'll transition from a 2.370:1 screen to a 2.400:1 screen, why 2.400:1, why not 2.38805?

Well, I've heard different studios are lazy and not exact enough when scanning their film negatives to digital media, meaning a 2.39:1 movie might not be exactly 2.39:1 once digital, etc.

By choosing a 2.400:1 screen I will have everything perfectly arranged on screen, I'll just have one masking mode applied by the JVC at all times, masking down to 2.400:1.

Narrower content will just be cropped somewhat, it's rather marginal, and it's not really noticable, so I think this approach will be much more satisfactory at the end of the day.

But note though, the 21:9 Cropped mode is still useful as such as disc menus would be nudged up into the active image area within the 2.370:1 'window', and not overscan your scope screen.


All in all, my above calculations were partly based on Oppo performing the 21:9 Cropping as I thought it was, but obviously the truth was not as such.

I apologize for not having understood this from the beginning, but maybe the thread is somewhat misguiding as well.


Thanks Josh!


----------



## Josh Z

Vitus4K said:


> I was under the impression, from what people have been speaking on different forums, that the feature keeps a constant image height.
> 
> Constant image height for me is a feature that keeps the height constant, no matter what you watch or feed the video processor.
> 
> I've basically been thinking that the Oppo 203/205 scans the *active video area*, horizontally, of what you're playing, to calculate the perfect *'scaled down'* width, if you were to fit it to the 2.370:1 mode the feature is offering.
> 
> This is why I have been refering to the 2.370:1 as a container, and I've been thinking thatt no matter which ratio you feed it, as long as it's narrower than 2.370:1, it'll scale down the image, much like you said it does with 16:9 content, in a similar fashion to fit other content within this 2.370:1 window.
> 
> Meaning, you could basically calculate the new 'scaled down' width by just multiplying your screen height and/or pixels to see how wide the image would be.
> 
> This is constant image height to me.


You have the concept of Constant Image Height correct. What you misunderstood is that the OPPO 203 is not a full-featured video processor. You need a Lumagen Radiance Pro for what you want to achieve. That will cost you about as much as the projectors you're looking at, so plan to double your budget. 

Or you could do what most everyone else here does, and just use the projector's optical zoom to adjust the height of your content and fit it on the screen. Current JVC models have around a dozen lens memory preset slots you can program to adjust the zoom for each individual aspect ratio. No extra video processor required. Of course, it doesn't scan the image to calculate that for you automatically. You need to push a couple buttons to switch presets.



> This forum thread is called constant image height, I guess I'm in the wrong forum, or the thread is completely misguiding.
> 
> The Oppo cannot achieve the above?


The OPPO's "21:9 Cropped" mode achieves Constant Height to a more limited extent than you're looking for. It works great for the purpose of shrinking 16:9 content to fit within the center of a scope screen. That was the purpose it was designed for. It was not built to cater to every oddball aspect ratio that streaming providers seem to want to throw at you these days. Again, you need a Lumagen Radiance Pro for that.


----------



## Vitus4K

Josh Z said:


> You have the concept of Constant Image Height correct. What you misunderstood is that the OPPO 203 is not a full-featured video processor. You need a Lumagen Radiance Pro for what you want to achieve. That will cost you about as much as the projectors you're looking at, so plan to double your budget.
> 
> Or you could do what most everyone else here does, and just use the projector's optical zoom to adjust the height of your content and fit it on the screen. Current JVC models have around a dozen lens memory preset slots you can program to adjust the zoom for each individual aspect ratio. No extra video processor required. Of course, it doesn't scan the image to calculate that for you automatically. You need to push a couple buttons to switch presets.
> 
> 
> 
> The OPPO's "21:9 Cropped" mode achieves Constant Height to a more limited extent than you're looking for. It works great for the purpose of shrinking 16:9 content to fit within the center of a scope screen. That was the purpose it was designed for. It was not built to cater to every oddball aspect ratio that streaming providers seem to want to throw at you these days. Again, you need a Lumagen Radiance Pro for that.


Thank you very much for your help!

Amazes me how somebody not really needing the help spends the time you've done to help me.

I wish I could return a favor.


----------



## Josh Z

Vitus4K said:


> Well, I've heard different studios are lazy and not exact enough when scanning their film negatives to digital media, meaning a 2.39:1 movie might not be exactly 2.39:1 once digital, etc.


You will almost never find a movie on home video that measures exactly 2.39:1. 

Take the following two James Bond movies on Blu-ray:



















These are both scope movies released after 1970, and should theoretically have the same aspect ratio. Yet the transfer for Licence to Kill measures 1920x813 pixels (2.3616236:1) while Skyfall is a precise 1920x800 (2.40:1).

Why 2.3616236:1? Because that's what the telecine the studio used for the transfer happened to be calibrated for, and absolutely no one thought twice about it.

Why 2.40:1? Because 800 pixels is a nice even number that's easy to round to.



> By choosing a 2.400:1 screen I will have everything perfectly arranged on screen, I'll just have one masking mode applied by the JVC at all times, masking down to 2.400:1.
> 
> Narrower content will just be cropped somewhat, it's rather marginal, and it's not really noticable, so I think this approach will be much more satisfactory at the end of the day.


Do yourself a favor and don't ever watch Ben-Hur. Or heaven forbid, How the West Was Won. Your head might explode.


----------



## Vitus4K

Josh Z said:


> Why 2.3616236:1? Because that's what the telecine the studio used for the transfer happened to be calibrated for, and absolutely no one thought twice about it.


That's exactly a piece of my point, do you have a recommendation from where I can find such information for each title, the exact *active video resolution*?





Josh Z said:


> Do yourself a favor and don't ever watch Ben-Hur. Your head might explode.


Why is that?

I know Ben-Hur is said to be the same aspect ratio as The Hateful Eight, meaning 2.758:1, or 2.76:1.

It will just be like watching a 2.39:1 feature on a 16:9 screen, letterboxing on top and bottom.


4096/2.758=1484 or 1486 (depending on how you round it)

I have 1706 vertical pixels on a 2.400:1 screen.

1706-1484=222 > 222/2=111


My 2.400:1 screen is based on a 115cm screen height.

115cm = 1150mm (millimeters, cba converting to imperial, really)

1150/1706=0,674 means 0,674mm per each vertical pixel in height

0,674*111=74,814 means about 75mm of letterboxing on top and bottom

75*2=150mm a total of 15cm or 150mm letterboxing displaying a 2.758:1 feature.


115cm - 15cm = 100cm

The active vertical video height is still 100cm, equals to a 39.37" vertical height.


It might not be a THX or SMPTE-standard, but that's totally watchable from my 16 to 13 feet seating distance, depending on which row you sit in.

It's a hell of an improvement over a 65" OLED, I'm not going to calculate that.


Why will my head explode?

JVC Zoom keeps the aspect ratio, and it's a constant width feature, it should totally work.


----------



## Josh Z

Vitus4K said:


> That's exactly a piece of my point, do you have a recommendation from where I can find such information for each title, the exact *active video resolution*?


You can take screencaps off the discs and measure them in your image editing software of choice.

No one has ever catalogued the exact pixel ratio of every movie released on home video, because most people don't care. 

The specs printed on the back of a disc case are boilerplate filled in by the studio's marketing department and are frequently inaccurate.

Most Blu-ray reviewers watch discs on 16:9 flat panels and don't actually measure the aspect ratio. If the aspect ratio is mentioned at all in a review, it's taken from the specs on the case - which, see previous point.



> Why will my head explode?


You seem to be adamant that you want everything to perfectly fit the height of your screen for Constant Image Height at all times. That's never gonna happen.


----------



## Vitus4K

Josh Z said:


> You can take screencaps off the discs and measure them in your image editing software of choice.


I did not know you owned both of those Bond films, obviously you would with 25,000 posts, my bad.

Tedious task, no thank you, rather disappointed at the studios not being able to have letter/pillarboxing recongnition softwares that calculates it for them, would be an ease to correct it, or further supply the exact information to the marketing department.

They could add it within parentheses.

There will always be obsessed people like me.



Josh Z said:


> Most Blu-ray reviewers watch discs on 16:9 flat panels and don't actually measure the aspect ratio.


This is also a problem, but not necessarily regarding the aspect ratio, but early UHD reviews will and have been impacted by poor HDR tone mapping curves, roll-offs etc. An issue with high luminance mastering level and HDR in general.

Reviews should be done with the mastering display too, on some level, imho.

Please don't spin further on this, I was off topic for 8 seconds, sorry!



Josh Z said:


> You seem to be adamant that you want everything to perfectly fit the height of your screen for Constant Image Height at all times. That's never gonna happen.


Joker, you!

It will work like I said though, joking aside?


----------



## Josh Z

Vitus4K said:


> It will work like I said though, joking aside?


Yes, I think you've got it now.


----------



## Vitus4K

Josh Z said:


> Yes, I think you've got it now.


Thanks alot, Josh!

You're a helping hand!

I hope more people will benifit from our conversation.

Really looking forward to my 2.4:1 experience, great times ahead.


----------



## ScottAvery

Josh Z said:


> Do yourself a favor and don't ever watch Ben-Hur. Or heaven forbid, How the West Was Won. Your head might explode.


Is it actually recorded on disc in that pincushion format? Simulating Cinerama? Can it be turned off?


----------



## Killroy

ScottAvery said:


> Is it actually recorded on disc in that pincushion format? Simulating Cinerama? Can it be turned off?


That disc comes in TWO versions... the one in the picture is called SmileBox which simulates the effect of the incredible curved screens used in the old three projector theaters. The second version is a flat version that is corrected to a normal super-ultra-wide format. The flat version does crop just tad in some scenes but it would be impossible to notice. The Flat version does have some funny visual effects where people seem to be looking in the wrong direction since when filmed they were standing (marks) that took the curvature into consideration. Also, some scenes seem to wrap in a funny way, again due to the lack of curvature.


----------



## Josh Z

DVDBeaver has screencaps from both versions, which is where I grabbed the Smilebox image:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews40/how_the_west_was_won_blu-ray.htm

IIRC, only the initial Blu-ray release in a Digibook package came with both transfers on separate discs. Later reissues in standard keepcases were streamlined to only include the first disc with the flat transfer. The Smilebox version is exclusive to the Digibook, which seems to still be available on Amazon.


----------



## ScottAvery

Josh Z said:


> DVDBeaver has screencaps from both versions, which is where I grabbed the Smilebox image:
> 
> http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews40/how_the_west_was_won_blu-ray.htm
> 
> IIRC, only the initial Blu-ray release in a Digibook package came with both transfers on separate discs. Later reissues in standard keepcases were streamlined to only include the first disc with the flat transfer. The Smilebox version is exclusive to the Digibook, which seems to still be available on Amazon.


I never understood what a "Digibook" was. I guess it is a special release format, then?


----------



## Josh Z

ScottAvery said:


> I never understood what a "Digibook" was. I guess it is a special release format, then?


It's just a packaging type that's like a small book with a couple of slots inside the front and back cover to hold the discs.


----------



## bmandra

Just to help summarize the long discussion above I figured I'd throw this into the thread. I have a Sony 285es projector (with a 4096x2160 panel) and an Oppo 203 that I use purely for the 21:9 crop mode to downscale 16:9 content. Everything is displayed on a 120" diagonal 2.35:1 screen (110" wide x 46.8" tall). Nothing is ever played back from the Oppo and it's always set to HDMI input. Any 4K Bluray playback come via a Sony x800m2.

Description Resolution Pixels Usage of projector panel
DCI 4096x2160 8847360 100% (native projector resolution)
UHD 16:9 3840x2160 8294400 93.8% (normal playback with no scaling)
UHD 2.37:1 3840x2160 6220800 70.9% (normal playback with no scaling)
DCI 2.37:1 4096x1728 7078994 80.0% (result of projector upscaling input to fill entire panel)
CIH 16:9 2880x1620 4665600 52.7% (result of Oppo downscaling in CIH mode)
DCI CIH 16:9 3072x1728 5308416 60.0% (result of projector upscaling input to fill entire panel)

Some points:
(1) If the majority of the content being viewed is full 16:9 without letterboxing then no scaling will result in the most pixels being used and thus the brightest possible output.
(2) For any letterboxed content, zooming on the projector to fill the full panel results in ~10% increase in number of pixels used and a brighter image (70% vs 80% of available pixels).
(3) When zoomed on the projector and playing back 16:9 content and using the Oppo CIH downscale you loose resolution and brightness. This is a 20% reduction in pixels vs 2.37:1 and a 30% reduction from displaying the source signal with no scaling applied at all.

For me personally, I leave the projector lens fixed and always have the projector zoom input to use the entire panel. I much prefer the convenience of only having to hit a single button to downscale any 16:9 content I might watch and I find the 20% reduction in resolution and brightness acceptable. Even with the convenience, for some titles I won't even bother downscaling on the Oppo, Bumblebee for example is 1.78:1 aspect ratio but is shot such that nothing meaningful feels cropped out if displayed at 2.37:1. On the other hand, a title like Ghost in the Shell which is also 1.78:1 crops off too much in which case I always use the Oppo to downscale it when viewing.

I've also found that worrying about the individual variations is scope content aspect ratio (2.34, 2.35, 2.37, 2.40) is meaningless to bother with and almost never noticeable. I have the projector lens zoomed such that a few pixels overshoot the left and right sides of the screen (6 on each side) and have blanking enabled in the projector on all 4 sides. The little bit extra seems to be just enough headroom to never see a scope image that doesn't fully fill the screen and doesn't impact the experience of viewing content where that very outer edge may be covered.


One question I have for others though, other than the Lumagen Pro, is there anything else out there that can downscale 16:9 4K content to 2880x1620?? My main concern is that at some point if the Oppo fails or stops working there doesn't seem to be any replacement in the price range of what the 203 cost when it was still in production (not with the Oppo leaving the market prices on the 203 are crazy).


----------



## Vitus4K

bmandra said:


> UHD 2.37:1 3840x2160 6220800 70.9% (normal playback with no scaling)



2.37:1 3840x1620 6220800 70.3% is what my head tells me.

2160 and 1620 is easy to mix up, same numbers.



bmandra said:


> For me personally, I leave the projector lens fixed and always have the projector zoom input to use the entire panel. I much prefer the convenience of only having to hit a single button to downscale any 16:9 content I might watch and I find the 20% reduction in resolution and brightness acceptable. Even with the convenience, for some titles I won't even bother downscaling on the Oppo, Bumblebee for example is 1.78:1 aspect ratio but is shot such that nothing meaningful feels cropped out if displayed at 2.37:1. On the other hand, a title like Ghost in the Shell which is also 1.78:1 crops off too much in which case I always use the Oppo to downscale it when viewing.


I just chose to remove all the narrow content out of collection, I could not bother with all these inferior variations in aspect ratios.

I highly respect directors safe-shooting IMAX films with 2.40:1 in mind, creds to Nolan (Hello Nolan!).

Dunkirk being an exception, 2.20:1 is too tall for be cropped safely, he should of kept to 2.40:1.

We will see how it plays out, I haven't rigged my system yet, maybe it'll stay, maybe it'll go.

I blame the directors in other cases, and the directors should not blame anyone.

They should of thought about shooting in the cinemascope 2.39:1 standard, that way you would more easily have your work distributed among the audience, it's why its a standard, that makes it a standard!

I find that 2.40:1 is so much more enjoyable, it has a more immersive impact on my vision, I see wider than I do taller.

It creates a natural approach of immersion that the human visual system recongnizes and stuns the audience if shot correctly, that's my take, and it was pretty much the same reason why they chose to proceed with the standard.

The above is my personal take and thoughts on immersion, others may very well disagree, and they may rightfully do so, please no fuss.



bmandra said:


> I've also found that worrying about the individual variations is scope content aspect ratio (2.34, 2.35, 2.37, 2.40) is meaningless to bother with and almost never noticeable. I have the projector lens zoomed such that a few pixels overshoot the left and right sides of the screen (6 on each side) and have blanking enabled in the projector on all 4 sides. The little bit extra seems to be just enough headroom to never see a scope image that doesn't fully fill the screen and doesn't impact the experience of viewing content where that very outer edge may be covered.


It can be done in lots of ways.

I will just always zoom to full 4096 width as I only will be having wide content, masking only top and bottom at all times, depending if I watch 2.35, 2.38 or 2.39.

My screen will be 2.40:1, always covered with 100% image, unless 2.55 (La La Land) or 2.76 (Hateful Eight) is put up on screen, they will letterbox by an inch or 6, at worst.



bmandra said:


> One question I have for others though, other than the Lumagen Pro, is there anything else out there that can downscale 16:9 4K content to 2880x1620?? My main concern is that at some point if the Oppo fails or stops working there doesn't seem to be any replacement in the price range of what the 203 cost when it was still in production (not with the Oppo leaving the market prices on the 203 are crazy).


I only know of Cambridge Audio CXUHD, it's based on the Oppo, looks almost exactly the same, they probably bought their concept when they stopped production, or people from Oppo stepped over.

In either case, I don't think they make it anymore, they stopped production too, if I'm wrong, please correct me and let people know the truth.

At least I tried answering your question.

They have the same names that Oppo have 21:9 Movable, 21:9 Fixed, 21:9 Cropped.


----------



## Vitus4K

bmandra said:


> Nothing is ever played back from the Oppo and it's always set to HDMI input. Any 4K Bluray playback come via a Sony x800m2.


Also, I have to ask, why do you not just use the Oppo, and the Oppo only?

The Oppo will be good for a very long time, a very, very long time, plus it's better than the M2.



bmandra said:


> My main concern is that at some point if the Oppo fails or stops working there doesn't seem to be any replacement.


The Oppo can be repaired, officially.

On another note, it will probably be good until 8K becomes standard, those are many days ahead, no need to worry.

Take good care of your Oppo, and use it more than you do, that disc drive is barely used if I read your post correctly.

Sell the M2, get some money, modify and improve your Oppo, buy a new PSU, big improvement in picture and audio.

Beats your M2 any day.


----------



## Vitus4K

Any JVC projector owners with 4096x2160 image chips in here?

What happens if you combine the 1/2x zoom in the Oppo with the Zoom feature in the projector, will the image turn back to normal 16:9 size?


----------



## bmandra

Vitus4K said:


> Any JVC projector owners with 4096x2160 image chips in here?
> 
> What happens if you combine the 1/2x zoom in the Oppo with the Zoom feature in the projector, will the image turn back to normal 16:9 size?


Normal 16:9 4k pixels are 3840x2160, when you zoom this in the Oppo for CIH the image is downscaled to 2880x1620, when you then zoom this on a projector that has a 4096x2160 panel it's then upscaled to 3072x1728 (about 30% less pixels than the native image).


----------



## bmandra

Vitus4K said:


> Also, I have to ask, why do you not just use the Oppo, and the Oppo only?
> 
> The Oppo will be good for a very long time, a very, very long time, plus it's better than the M2.
> 
> 
> 
> The Oppo can be repaired, officially.
> 
> On another note, it will probably be good until 8K becomes standard, those are many days ahead, no need to worry.
> 
> Take good care of your Oppo, and use it more than you do, that disc drive is barely used if I read your post correctly.
> 
> Sell the M2, get some money, modify and improve your Oppo, buy a new PSU, big improvement in picture and audio.
> 
> Beats your M2 any day.


The reason I'm using the x800m2 for playback is that it performs better than the 203 when in "Forced LLDV" mode (see this thread for more detail: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/465-...luding-hdr10-conversion-w-dtm-projectors.html)

Yes, the disc drive in my 203 is almost completely unused. It's only in my output chain for the CIH zoom functionality.


----------



## Vitus4K

bmandra said:


> Normal 16:9 4k pixels are 3840x2160, when you zoom this in the Oppo for CIH the image is downscaled to 2880x1620, when you then zoom this on a projector that has a 4096x2160 panel it's then upscaled to 3072x1728 (about 30% less pixels than the native image).



I have follow-up questions, of course...

Why does not the JVC zoom the picture all the way out to 4096, filling the width as per the description found in the manual?

Page 26 (Zoom)
http://www33.jvckenwood.com/pdfs/B5A-2809-01.pdf


By following your calculations, it only seems to zoom the very same 6,66% as from 3840 to 4096.

I was hoping to achieve a horizontal stretch, but I guess that's impossible.


Maybe Oppo CIH 1/2x zoom and Auto from JVC?

That should horizontally stretch a 16:9 title, if I read the description correctly.


----------



## bmandra

Vitus4K said:


> I have follow-up questions, of course...
> 
> Why does not the JVC zoom the picture all the way out to 4096, filling the width as per the description found in the manual?
> 
> Page 26 (Zoom)
> http://www33.jvckenwood.com/pdfs/B5A-2809-01.pdf
> 
> 
> By following your calculations, it only seems to zoom the very same 6,66% as from 3840 to 4096.
> 
> I was hoping to achieve a horizontal stretch, but I guess that's impossible.
> 
> 
> Maybe Oppo CIH 1/2x zoom and Auto from JVC?
> 
> That should horizontally stretch a 16:9 title, if I read the description correctly.



It's because the Oppo still outputs a 3840x2160 image, the 2880x1620 16:9 downscaled content is centered within that larger image and letterboxed and pillarboxed. From the projectors perspective it is receiving a 3840x2160 image which it then upscales to 4096x2160 (cropping off a bit of the letterbox bars on the top and bottom). When this is done on a 2.35:1 screen the resulting 16:9 image will be the correct height to fit the screen vertically and have black bars (pillarboxed) on the left and right.

Again, normal 16:9 content coming out of the Oppo is 3840x2160. This will use 93.8% of the projectors available pixels (assuming a 4096x2160 panel). However if the projector is zoomed to the width of a 2.35:1 screen the top and bottom of this image will fall off the edges.

Normal letterboxed 2.35:1 content is still 3840x2160 but the actual image area is 3840x1634 = 70.9% (or 3840x1620 for a 2.37:1 aspect ratio, 70.3% of the projector) of available pixels on the projector. The projector can then upscale this image to 4096x2160 (again cropping the top and bottom), the resulting image area is then 4096x1734, or 80.7% of available pixels. This is the best use of pixels when projecting 2.35:1 content onto a 2.35:1 screen with a projector that has a 4096x2160 panel.

When the Oppo is zoomed to 16:9 and the display is 21:9 Cropped it will downscale the original content by 0.75 (resulting in a 2880x1620 image) then center that image in a 3840x2160 output. When the projector receives this image it is receiving a 3840x2160 signal which it then upscales to 4096x2160. This results in the original image that was downscaled by the Oppo to become 3072x1728, or 60% of the available pixels on the projectors panel. When the projector being used doesn't have lens memory to quickly zoom between 16:9 and 21:9 this is a reasonable alternative that sacrifices resolution for convenience.


----------



## Vitus4K

bmandra said:


> It's because the Oppo still outputs a 3840x2160 image, the 2880x1620 16:9 downscaled content is centered within that larger image and letterboxed and pillarboxed. From the projectors perspective it is receiving a 3840x2160 image which it then upscales to 4096x2160 (cropping off a bit of the letterbox bars on the top and bottom). When this is done on a 2.35:1 screen the resulting 16:9 image will be the correct height to fit the screen vertically and have black bars (pillarboxed) on the left and right.
> 
> Again, normal 16:9 content coming out of the Oppo is 3840x2160. This will use 93.8% of the projectors available pixels (assuming a 4096x2160 panel). However if the projector is zoomed to the width of a 2.35:1 screen the top and bottom of this image will fall off the edges.
> 
> Normal letterboxed 2.35:1 content is still 3840x2160 but the actual image area is 3840x1634 = 70.9% (or 3840x1620 for a 2.37:1 aspect ratio, 70.3% of the projector) of available pixels on the projector. The projector can then upscale this image to 4096x2160 (again cropping the top and bottom), the resulting image area is then 4096x1734, or 80.7% of available pixels. This is the best use of pixels when projecting 2.35:1 content onto a 2.35:1 screen with a projector that has a 4096x2160 panel.
> 
> When the Oppo is zoomed to 16:9 and the display is 21:9 Cropped it will downscale the original content by 0.75 (resulting in a 2880x1620 image) then center that image in a 3840x2160 output. When the projector receives this image it is receiving a 3840x2160 signal which it then upscales to 4096x2160. This results in the original image that was downscaled by the Oppo to become 3072x1728, or 60% of the available pixels on the projectors panel. When the projector being used doesn't have lens memory to quickly zoom between 16:9 and 21:9 this is a reasonable alternative that sacrifices resolution for convenience.


Perfect explanation, thank you.

It's the Oppo's way of still maintaining that 3840x2160 16:9 'container' that seemed to have confused me, you've now explained it thorougly though.


It's pretty obvious now, with the answer at hand.


Thanks again!


----------



## ScottAvery

bmandra said:


> It's because the Oppo still outputs a 3840x2160 image, the 2880x1620 16:9 downscaled content is centered within that larger image and letterboxed and pillarboxed. From the projectors perspective it is receiving a 3840x2160 image which it then upscales to 4096x2160 (cropping off a bit of the letterbox bars on the top and bottom). *When this is done on a 2.35:1 screen the resulting 16:9 image will be the correct height to fit the screen vertically and have black bars (pillarboxed) on the left and right.*
> 
> Again, normal 16:9 content coming out of the Oppo is 3840x2160. This will use 93.8% of the projectors available pixels (assuming a 4096x2160 panel). However if the projector is zoomed to the width of a 2.35:1 screen the top and bottom of this image will fall off the edges.
> 
> Normal letterboxed 2.35:1 content is still 3840x2160 but the actual image area is 3840x1634 = 70.9% (or 3840x1620 for a 2.37:1 aspect ratio, 70.3% of the projector) of available pixels on the projector. The projector can then upscale this image to 4096x2160 (again cropping the top and bottom), the resulting image area is then 4096x1734, or 80.7% of available pixels. This is the best use of pixels when projecting 2.35:1 content onto a 2.35:1 screen with a projector that has a 4096x2160 panel.
> 
> When the Oppo is zoomed to 16:9 and the display is 21:9 Cropped it will downscale the original content by 0.75 (resulting in a 2880x1620 image) then center that image in a 3840x2160 output. When the projector receives this image it is receiving a 3840x2160 signal which it then upscales to 4096x2160. This results in the original image that was downscaled by the Oppo to become *3072x1728*, or 60% of the available pixels on the projectors panel. When the projector being used doesn't have lens memory to quickly zoom between 16:9 and 21:9 this is a reasonable alternative that sacrifices resolution for convenience.


I believe you are only correct the second time. It won't fit when cropped mode is zoomed to full panel as the height will be off. You would have to adjust lens memory to make it fit and gain those extra pixels of resolution.


----------



## gcbram

*Unable to project 2.35:1 format*

I use a Oppo 203 with JVC X5000 on a 2.35:1 fixed frame screen and find that Blu Ray discs formatted in 2.35:1 are shown only in 16:9 size on my screen. Hardly any black bars are visible and hence when I zoom and shift to 2.35:1 the projector lens, the image spills over significantly on to the walls. I have set the JVC in Cinema under picture settings but find the format field under Input Signal menu grayed out and blank. The projector HDMI Input is connected directly to the Oppo HDMI Main output (HDMI Audio only output to processor). Resolution in Oppo 203 set under Custom and UHD Auto (default). Screen format 16:9 wide / auto.
Any reason as to why 2.35:1 Blu Ray movies do not show black bars at top and bottom and always I get the 16:9 size on screen? I have tried different movies but it is the same. Also, why the JVC menu does not display the format field and hence I cannot adjust anything there?
Any help will be most welcome. Thanks in advance.


----------



## kemannthey

Try changing the aspect settings in the oppo. "Custom auto 16:9" might be causing this behavior. 


If you used another device (basic streaming device) does it display with black bars ?


----------



## gcbram

Whenever I play a DVD, the black bands do appear and zooming the projector to 2.35:1 fits the image correctly within my screen. Problem is with Blu Ray discs formatted on 2.35:1, which I do not understand.


----------



## Josh Z

gcbram said:


> Whenever I play a DVD, the black bands do appear and zooming the projector to 2.35:1 fits the image correctly within my screen. Problem is with Blu Ray discs formatted on 2.35:1, which I do not understand.


If you're not using an anamorphic lens on the projector, you should set the projector for its default aspect ratio mode (which is a 16:9 image), then zoom up (with the optical zoom) to fill the width of the screen. The top and bottom of the image will spill off the screen.

All Blu-ray discs are encoded in 16:9 format with 1920x1080 pixels. (4K Ultra HD discs are 3840x2160.) If the movie has an aspect ratio wider than 16:9, black letterbox bars are encoded as part of that image. In the OPPO player's Video Output Setup menu, TV Aspect Ratio should be left at the default "16:9 Wide" or "16:9 Wide/Auto." (The "Auto" feature is for 4:3 DVDs and won't do anything to a Blu-ray.) A 2.35:1 letterbox movie should then fill your 2.35:1 screen with the letterbox bars spilling over the top and bottom. When you switch to 16:9 content, zoom the projector down into the center of the screen.

I suspect that your player is set for "21:9 Fixed," which is the mode for use with an anamorphic lens. That will use scaling to stretch the image vertically and cut off the letterbox bars. If you don't have a lens to correct the geometry, everything in the picture will look too tall and thin.

If you wish to leave your projector fully zoomed up to fill the 2.35:1 screen at all times, you can switch the OPPO to "21:9 Cropped" mode, which will use scaling to shrink 16:9 content down into the center of the frame. Hit the Zoom button on the OPPO player remote when watching 2.35:1 content.


----------



## gcbram

My player is set at 16:9 wide auto. I never set it at 21:9. Meanwhile I tried the same setup with my old Oppo 93 connected to the JVC. Surprisingly, it is the same result. I am not getting 2.35:1 images with both Oppo players - 203 and 93. So it appears the problem is with the JVC, but when I play a DVD, I still get those black boxes on top and bottom and zooming fills the screen. I tried Blu Ray movies like The Kingdom (Widescreen 2.35:1) and Braveheart (16:9 2.35:1 Letterbox), and also Lord of the Rings, Bourne movies. With both Oppo players I am not getting 2.35:1. The JVC Input Signal menu shows mostly gray fields, and I wonder why.


----------



## Josh Z

gcbram said:


> My player is set at 16:9 wide auto. I never set it at 21:9. Meanwhile I tried the same setup with my old Oppo 93 connected to the JVC. Surprisingly, it is the same result. I am not getting 2.35:1 images with both Oppo players - 203 and 93. So it appears the problem is with the JVC, but when I play a DVD, I still get those black boxes on top and bottom and zooming fills the screen. I tried Blu Ray movies like The Kingdom (Widescreen 2.35:1) and Braveheart (16:9 2.35:1 Letterbox), and also Lord of the Rings, Bourne movies. With both Oppo players I am not getting 2.35:1. The JVC Input Signal menu shows mostly gray fields, and I wonder why.


Is this a new problem? How long have you had this projector?

Just to completely rule out the disc players, hit the Zoom button on the OPPO remote a couple times and see if that does anything.


----------



## gcbram

This is a new problem. I have been using the projector for almost 3 years now. I do not comprehend why so many menu fields in the JVC show grayed out and inactive. My settings are almost the same as recommended by Steve Withers in an old post. Picture mode Cinema, Clear black On, Lamp power Low, Lens aperture Manual at -10, Color profile Standard, Color management On, Color temperature Custom 1, Correction value -6500 K, Gamma Custom 1, Correction value 2.4, Color selection White, MPC level 4k e shirt On, Original resolution Auto. Now, in the first Picture settings, Blur reduction field is gray (showing off). In Input signal menu, input level, Color space, Aspect are all gray, showing Super White, Auto and — in aspect ratio! Cannot find any explanation anywhere.


----------



## Josh Z

gcbram said:


> This is a new problem. I have been using the projector for almost 3 years now. I do not comprehend why so many menu fields in the JVC show grayed out and inactive. My settings are almost the same as recommended by Steve Withers in an old post. Picture mode Cinema, Clear black On, Lamp power Low, Lens aperture Manual at -10, Color profile Standard, Color management On, Color temperature Custom 1, Correction value -6500 K, Gamma Custom 1, Correction value 2.4, Color selection White, MPC level 4k e shirt On, Original resolution Auto. Now, in the first Picture settings, Blur reduction field is gray (showing off). In Input signal menu, input level, Color space, Aspect are all gray, showing Super White, Auto and — in aspect ratio! Cannot find any explanation anywhere.



Very strange. I think your best bet is to ask in the thread for your model in the Projectors forum.


----------



## lizrussspike

@gcbram, I use what @Josh Z suggests with my Oppo 203 and RS420(no A lens). I use cropped 21:9, and the hit the zoom button, fills my 2.35:1 115" just fine.


----------



## OKGeek

Hi guys, looking for Lumagen alternative to manage my CIH setup with "no lens memory, no anamorph" Epson. The source is NVidia Shield (Plex and Netflix). 
1) Will it work with the following chain: Netflix > Shield > AVR > Oppo 203 > Epson? I have concern that 2.35 content will have double black bars being streamed from Nvidia to Epson via 21:9 Cropped mode.
2) Will other aspect ratios of content (like 2.0 for example) fill the whole height of scope screen, varying just width?


----------



## Josh Z

OKGeek said:


> Hi guys, looking for Lumagen alternative to manage my CIH setup with "no lens memory, no anamorph" Epson. The source is NVidia Shield (Plex and Netflix).
> 1) Will it work with the following chain: Netflix > Shield > AVR > Oppo 203 > Epson? I have concern that 2.35 content will have double black bars being streamed from Nvidia to Epson via 21:9 Cropped mode.


The OPPO's 21:9 Cropped mode has two settings you switch between using the Zoom button on the remote. One will shrink a 16:9 image to fit in the center of a 2.35:1 screen. The other effectively outputs the image without any scaling (which is what you'd use when watching a 2.35:1 movie).



> 2) Will other aspect ratios of content (like 2.0 for example) fill the whole height of scope screen, varying just width?


The OPPO player does not have settings for aspect ratios other than 16:9 and 2.35:1, unfortunately.


----------



## OKGeek

Josh Z said:


> The OPPO's 21:9 Cropped mode has two settings you switch between using the Zoom button on the remote. One will shrink a 16:9 image to fit in the center of a 2.35:1 screen. The other effectively outputs the image without any scaling (which is what you'd use when watching a 2.35:1 movie).
> 
> 
> 
> The OPPO player does not have settings for aspect ratios other than 16:9 and 2.35:1, unfortunately.


Thanks Josh! Got it. Use case with zooming Shield signal through Oppo (HDMI IN > 21:9 > HDMI OUT > PJ) works fine as well - right?


----------



## Josh Z

OKGeek said:


> Thanks Josh! Got it. Use case with zooming Shield signal through Oppo (HDMI IN > 21:9 > HDMI OUT > PJ) works fine as well - right?


It should.


----------



## RFK54

Thank you Josh Z and others on this forum for introducing me to the 21:9 cropped feature on the Oppo 203.
It has been a great help in easily switching back and forth from 240:1 to 16 :9 and was right there on my 203 without my even knowing it.
Now I just have to figure out whether buying a panamorph phoenix lens for my JVC RS50 would make a big enough difference to be worth it.

Thanks again!


----------



## EdgarQ

Also, thanks @coolrda for starting this thread, @Josh Z and other contributors here. I now have overlays and menus running in 21:9 without an A-lens. Setup is an NX5, 21:9 screen, and my trusty old Oppo 203. Refreshing not to have to buy new stuff to get amazing new (to me) features!


----------

