# Question about 3D and anamorphic lens...



## Plewacka

I recently accquired the Acer H5360 3D 720p projector, and would like to know if I can put a diy anamorphic lens in front of it, and possibly watch 3D in scope, without any real drop in 3D quality, I know there will be some loss of quality in the picture because of the anamorphic lens, but put that aside, would it work, I think I might just need to try this soon, sorry if it sounds like I'm rambling, but ever since I saw that there were a couple blurays in scope, I've been wanting to watch these anamation movies in BLU RAY SCOPE 3D! Man, the only things missing are a quality anamorphic lens, and a more affordable 3D projector on the market! I think I might be able to get this scope 3D thing working and have a video and some screenshots, but I see a problem with the software players that are available, I might need to make a new post in the HTPC Thread.


Thanks to the whole AVS Forum community!


----------



## CAVX

3D does work with a fully corrected anamorphic lens, so might not work properly with a DIY lens.


----------



## stanger89

I don't see why a lens would have any effect with a shutter-glass system. Possibly some with a polarization-based one but I doubt it would be meaningful.


----------



## CAVX

I never actually tested analygraph 3D with a lens plagued with CA. I wonder how that might have panned out?


----------



## stanger89

Probably hard to make a determination on better or worse


----------



## HopefulFred

What will do the video processing? Are you saying you have an HTPC that will both vertically stretch and keep up with the required frame rates?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HopefulFred* /forum/post/19202491
> 
> 
> What will do the video processing? Are you saying you have an HTPC that will both vertically stretch and keep up with the required frame rates?



You could use a HTPC or use the projector. I don't think vertical stretch is going to affect the 3D dual signals.


----------



## Plewacka

Just as an update for this whole 3D Cinemascope thing I had in mind, I have completely ditched the idea, because the whole setup won't work in my type of room size, shape, space. And also you have to have Powerdvd 10 in full screen mode all the time to playback 3D, so it conflicts with the ability to use a scaler, becuase the projector I am using doess not have the v stretch mode built in. So that's all for now, back to good old (but still very new) 2D Cinemascope!


----------



## CAVX

Yeah, I just learned that the new JVCs won't allow V-Stretch to be used for 3D either.


----------



## MichaelCarey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19247707
> 
> 
> Yeah, I just learned that the new JVCs won't allow V-Stretch to be used for 3D either.



Well that's a bit disappointing. I hope it's something that could be rectified with a firmware update and not a hardware limitation. I'd hate to have to get an external scaler for the v-stretch.


I was getting quite excited about the DLA-X7...


Michael.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19247707
> 
> 
> Yeah, I just learned that the new JVCs won't allow V-Stretch to be used for 3D either.



Im glad I kept the Duo.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MichaelCarey* /forum/post/19248696
> 
> 
> Well that's a bit disappointing. I hope it's something that could be rectified with a firmware update and not a hardware limitation. I'd hate to have to get an external scaler for the v-stretch.
> 
> 
> I was getting quite excited about the DLA-X7...
> 
> 
> Michael.



Me too.


I understand that technically 3D is double processed image or 2 x 60P. So if a current JVC HD950 can refresh at 120Hz which is 2 x 60P and still offer Vertical Stretch, why can't the X9?


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19250205
> 
> 
> Me too.
> 
> 
> I understand that technically 3D is double processed image or 2 x 60P. So if a current JVC HD950 can refresh at 120Hz which is 2 x 60P and still offer Vertical Stretch, why can't the X9?



Once these Jvc's are out for awhile they will release another set more improved and with vertical stretch. I want an LED so I'm happy to sit on the fence for awhile.


----------



## martinfarinha

Will the Duo pass 3d as its HDMI 1.3? Maybe the new Oppo 93 will allow V-Stretch on 3D?


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *martinfarinha* /forum/post/19250433
> 
> 
> Will the Duo pass 3d as its HDMI 1.3? Maybe the new Oppo 93 will allow V-Stretch on 3D?



There working on the update at the moment.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MichaelCarey* /forum/post/19248696
> 
> 
> Well that's a bit disappointing. I hope it's something that could be rectified with a firmware update and not a hardware limitation. I'd hate to have to get an external scaler for the v-stretch.



Due to the way that 3-D video is encoded as separate left and right views stacked on top of one another, a scaling algorithm would need to be able to identify and stretch each view separately within the same frame at the same time. That's very complex, and I don't believe that any of the current generation of processing chips are capable of it.









http://hdguru.com/3d-hdtv-and-hdmi-explained/1336/


----------



## Trogdor2010




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/19257063
> 
> 
> Due to the way that 3-D video is encoded as separate left and right views stacked on top of one another, a scaling algorithm would need to be able to identify and stretch each view separately within the same frame at the same time. That's very complex, and I don't believe that any of the current generation of processing chips are capable of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://hdguru.com/3d-hdtv-and-hdmi-explained/1336/



Since scaling may challenge the video processor of the projector, I figure if the new Oppo BDP-93 announced (theoretically) functions similar to the BDP-83, and that player offers a v stretch mode. Would the player handle the video processing for both V stretch and 3D since it can send off the signal to the JVC as if it was a 16:9 image? At least one device needs to work with V stretch to fully function in 3D. I would figure many people would just get an oppo with their JVC 3D projector.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Trogdor2010* /forum/post/19258853
> 
> 
> Since scaling may challenge the video processor of the projector, I figure if the new Oppo BDP-93 announced (theoretically) functions similar to the BDP-83, and that player offers a v stretch mode. Would the player handle the video processing for both V stretch and 3D since it can send off the signal to the JVC as if it was a 16:9 image?



With the current generation of processing chips, I would expect the player to only be able to apply the v-stretch to 2-D signals. 3-D signals would essentially be a "passthrough".


I don't believe that OPPO has announced the full feature set for the player yet, but I would not expect v-stretch to work on 3-D.


I'm not an insider on this. I'm just trying to set realistic expectations. It looks to me like CIH with 3-D will be limited to the "zoom method" for a product generation or two.


----------



## alex_t

Lumagen works on a firmware for radiance to apply all the 2D features on 3D content, 2.35 included.


A beta should be available soon


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *alex_t* /forum/post/19263487
> 
> 
> Lumagen works on a firmware for radiance to apply all the 2D features on 3D content, 2.35 included.
> 
> 
> A beta should be available soon



Do any of Lumagen's products have HDMI 1.4?


----------



## alex_t

At the moment, radiance are HDMI 1.1 for XD and HDMI 1.3 for XS and XE. Lumagen says that XD, XE and XS will be 3D.


HDMI 1.1 is enough for 3D video.


3D activation feature depends on EDID, no particular requirement about HDMI hardware version is required.


A firmware for radiance should be available soon.


----------



## jrp

The RadianceXD, RadianceXE, and RadianceXS will all support HDMI 1.4 3D required modes. We expect to have a first Beta release in about two weeks. There is a fee for the upgrade to 3D.


Note that the HDMI chips support 3D, but we are apparently the only video processor company that will process 3D. Others are doing "pass-through" which pretty much negates any advantage of having a video processor. We will be doing the same processing as we do for 2D, including aspect ratio control, cropping, sizing, scaling, etc.


So for example you can continue to use your "2D" AVR. By placing the Radiance in front of the AVR we do the audio/video switching and send the audio to the AVR (with blank 2D video), and 3D to the display/projector. So rather than buying a 3D AVR we suggest you instead consider buying a 3D Radiance and save spending the money on a new AVR. This will give you the best possible video using the Radiance and your current AVR will continue to give you great audio.


Contact us at [email protected] for more information on being part of the 3D Beta program.


----------



## Pete

Isn't 3D a 16x9 medium? Is there anything that was shot in 3D that's not 16x9?


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pete* /forum/post/19268485
> 
> 
> Isn't 3D a 16x9 medium? Is there anything that was shot in 3D that's not 16x9?



3-D is no different than 2-D as far as aspect ratio goes. Directors can choose 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 as they see fit. Avatar was projected in both ratios, depending on which was largest for the screen in any given theater. (I saw it at 2.35:1 in 3-D.)


Off the top of my head, Clash of the Titans was 2.35:1. I believe How to Train Your Dragon was as well.


----------



## Pete

So for a passive 3D two-projector set up, you'll need two anamorphic lenses. That must be how the commercial theaters do it.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pete* /forum/post/19273836
> 
> 
> So for a passive 3D two-projector set up, you'll need two anamorphic lenses. That must be how the commercial theaters do it.



Not really. A Barco I saw was using a ISCO 1.25x (2048 needs 1.25x, not 1.33x) was a single lens solution.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/19273665
> 
> 
> 
> Off the top of my head, Clash of the Titans was 2.35:1. I believe How to Train Your Dragon was as well.



Actually about 90% of all the 3D releases have been Scope.


----------



## coolrda

In recent days I have been leaning toward the RS50, so this solidifies my purchasing the RS40 as the difference will fund a VP. This was necessary due to my refusal to replace my AV processor. So for now its just one more hoop to jump though. Hopefully this will be fully resolved by the time I get my the RS40.


----------



## TSHA222

I would like to add 3D to my theater but this is precisely the issue I was wondering about. I certainly don't want a scope image windowboxed inside my scope screen with no way to watch a 2.35 3D disc on my FULL scope screen. I guess you could come up with a lens that vertically stretches the image (optically) then your ISCO III or whatever you may use would then stretch it again (optically) in the horizontal. That's a bit too complicated and would most likely cause the image to suffer, but this is just my assumption. Other than that, you have to use a projector that has sufficient zoom or the VP manufacturers will have to make their features available with 3D content. If that's the case, I can't work with a simple FW upgrade because my VP (DVDO VP50) isn't even in production anymore.


----------



## ImmortalJman

I just saw this thread and couldn't resist but I had to post. I will be buildingmy HT now that I finally found a way to do a Blu0ray 3d in dual projection and polarized just like in the theaters...and it will be able to go up to 2.40 aspect ratios. I will be starting my build in the middle of January so I can't wait.


I will give a hint of what I will be doing though. I'm simply using a program to separate the left and right eye images on my HTPC, which is actually my gaming one as well, and then pass it to my left and right projectors which do have CIH capability. I will make a dedicated build thread on this when I start. Best of luck to anyone else who wants to do this too. It's definitely the way it was meant to be seen for 3D blu-ray and not on these shutter-glass-way-to-small-displays.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ImmortalJman* /forum/post/19686751
> 
> 
> I will give a hint of what I will be doing though. I'm simply using a program to separate the left and right eye images on my HTPC, which is actually my gaming one as well, and then pass it to my left and right projectors which do have CIH capability. I will make a dedicated build thread on this when I start. Best of luck to anyone else who wants to do this too. It's definitely the way it was meant to be seen for 3D blu-ray and not on these shutter-glass-way-to-small-displays.



The text states dual projectors, so dual anamorphic lenses too?


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> I guess you could come up with a lens that vertically stretches the image (optically) then your ISCO III or whatever you may use would then stretch it again (optically) in the horizontal.



One lens vertically stretches, the other horizontally stretches? Combine them into one lens and you have a spherical wide angle adapter. Same result as zooming.


Save your money and wait until the processor chips get fast enough.


----------



## TSHA222

So there's a name for it huh? Well it's not something I want to do. I think I have a solution for myself anyway. I am just going to be a two projector theater for the time being. I figured up the projector throw and while I can't zoom it, I can MOVE it further back from the screen to achieve my desired size for scope. This is not ideal either, of course. I'll keep my current projector and ISCO III for all else (which is like 99.9999999% of my viewing) and just employ the 3D projector when I want to experience some 3D. When prices go down or a better solution comes along, I'll just move the projector to another room.


----------



## TSHA222

Actually, I guess you could also get something from Navitar? Is that what their lenses are? I know they sell lenses that change a projector's throw distance, but again, that is not the best way to achieve the desired results.


----------



## CAVX

Today I installed a new JVC X3 with the 3D kit and MK4 lens. This projector replaced a SONY WV60 which was previously used with the MK4 lens at a very short throw of just 1.4:1.











After a few adjustments, I managed to get the image perfectly squared (thanks to the H lens shift) and re-aligned the MK4 to deliver perfect focus corner to corner. It worked perfectly even though the JVC has a recessed lens, though it is boarder lining on vignetting due to the fact that glass moves inside the case. If the case was like an ISCO where it became shorter as the glass was wound in, this would not be a problem at all. Guess I am going back to the designing a new case now










So whilst the JVC won't Vertical Stretch 3D, I still wanted to test the anamorphic lens because of the recent Grid Distortion talk in the C5E thread. The MK4 uses multi-aspheric grinding in its lenses and is therefore corrected for GD (at most throws). However regardless of correction, GD just gets worse at shorter throws, so therefore at 1.4:1, there is no doubt going to be some present. I measured some single 1080 display lines both at the centre and at the edges and there was an increase and this would happen with ANY anamorphic lens at this short a throw.


So what I was concerned about was if this GD would mess with the 3D or not. Because 3D images are aligned vertically and it is their horizontal mis-alignment that provides depth, I was curious to see if the very short throw would affect the 3D. It appeared not, and I only wish I could have vertically stretched the image because 3D at that size (when compared to the letter boxed version) is very impressive.


Of course the HDMI lead was tidied up and I also blackened out the edges of the glass before re-assembling the lens. My camera batteries went flat, so I was unable to shoot the final install.


----------



## 230-SEAN

Looks nice Mark! There is talk that the Oppo 93 is in fact able to vertically stretch 3d, as long as the disc doesn't want to run java durring playback. This is just what I've read, no first hand experience. Oh, and you are able to use the MK4 with the X3 at a 1.4 TR? That's pretty sweet!


-Sean


----------



## TSHA222




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *230-SEAN* /forum/post/19739984
> 
> 
> Looks nice Mark! There is talk that the Oppo 93 is in fact able to vertically stretch 3d, as long as the disc doesn't want to run java durring playback. This is just what I've read, no first hand experience. Oh, and you are able to use the MK4 with the X3 at a 1.4 TR? That's pretty sweet!
> 
> 
> -Sean



It would sure be nice if that were the case. I am going to be supplementing my room with a separate low cost 3D ready projector and Optoma 3D-XL. If I could use the Oppo to vertically stretch the scope stuff, I could just get a good horizontal expansion anamorphic lens to get CIH! One day, one day, I want a single projector, 3 Chip DLP solution that doesn't cost more than my car, then I will be a happy camper. I hope someone can confirm the stretch feature in the Oppo soon.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *230-SEAN* /forum/post/19739984
> 
> 
> Looks nice Mark! There is talk that the Oppo 93 is in fact able to vertically stretch 3d, as long as the disc doesn't want to run java durring playback. This is just what I've read, no first hand experience. Oh, and you are able to use the MK4 with the X3 at a 1.4 TR? That's pretty sweet!
> 
> 
> -Sean



Yeah it looked very good. The answer would be for the owner to get the latest EDGE which now supports 3D. If he was able to rip the 3D to his PC, he'd able to VS using that (maybe?).


----------



## HogPilot

My understanding is that both the Edge and Duo support passthru only, but will no perform any sort of processing on 3D material. That may be old info, but I don't think the ABT2010 chip in either machine has the bandwidth to process 3D.


----------



## Aussie Bob

Because a thread about my design has been invoked, I feel I must come in and correct Mark on some of his claims made here.



> Quote:
> ... recent Grid Distortion talk in the C5E thread.



More than "talk". Actual numbers.


Furthermore, the discussion on the C5E thread was about eliminating distortion on a _flat_ screen. Mark often omits to mention in such discussions that he uses a tailored, _curved_ screen, which of course goes a long way to eliminating GD. It will with _any_ lens, at any throw ratio.



> Quote:
> The MK4 uses multi-aspheric grinding in its lenses and is therefore corrected for GD (at most throws).



There is no "therefore" about it. This is just voodoo optics.


Cylindrical lenses are not classed as true aspherics.


While cylindrical lenses are, at a pedantic, _technical_ level, non-spherical in rotational profile, they are a trivial case of non-sphericality and are not commonly referred to in the industry as "aspherics". To do so would be to ascribe far too much sophistication to cylindrical lenses, which are a commonplace lens form.


An "aspheric" surface curvature is generally taken to mean _either_ non-spherical or, in the special case of cylindrical lenses, non-_circular_ in profile, e.g. parabolic, hyperbolic or a multi-term cubic function, to nominate three possibilities.


The cylindrical equivalent of an "aspheric" surface (i.e. one which has a non-circular, instead of a non-spherical profile) is probably better termed "atoric". If Mark is claiming his lenses are truly atoric, this would be a first, for him and for the industry.


Hence, an anamorphic adpater that uses cylindrical lenses is not truly "multi aspheric" (or if it is, then so is every other anamorphic adapter on the planet, bar none). Put bluntly, Mark's _adapter_ does not "correct" for distortion. He uses _a curved screen_ to do it, which is a whole lot simpler than all the "multi-aspheric" waffle.


If he has given up using his curved screen, and has "corrected for" GD even on flat screens, let him be the first to officially advise us all of this fact in plain English.


----------



## TSHA222

I emailed Oppo. Surprisingly, I got a reply just before New Year! If a title is not BD-JAVA enhanced, then it CAN be zoomed vertically. If a disc IS enhanced, it cannot be zoomed. Again, this is from Oppo customer support. So I guess it depends on just how many scope 3D titles are Java enhanced and how many are not. Time to do some research! Happy New Year.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/19742680
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "therefore" about it. This is just voodoo optics.



Voodoo optics?


Sorry the images are not sharper.

Two different cylindrical anamorphic lenses.

Same 1080 DLP projector.

Same Throw Ratio (2.1:1)

SAME CURVED screen.

Same camera settings.


































Sorry for the slight vignetting on the 2nd lens test pattern. I did not have a proper mount for it. You will note that the two out circles are not "round" in the 2nd photo. This lens uses a simpler design than the MK4.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TSHA222* /forum/post/19742952
> 
> 
> I emailed Oppo. Surprisingly, I got a reply just before New Year! If a title is not BD-JAVA enhanced, then it CAN be zoomed vertically. If a disc IS enhanced, it cannot be zoomed. Again, this is from Oppo customer support. So I guess it depends on just how many scope 3D titles are Java enhanced and how many are not. Time to do some research! Happy New Year.



This is really going to bug the hell out of those wanting 3D CIH.


----------



## oztheatre

Two different cylindrical lenses? Do you mean the Mk3 is the bottom test pattern? It sure looks like a prism lens to me as it has astigmatism. Care to complete the info list and tell us what it is please? What C lens does not have astigmatism correction??


Prism lenses have worse GD than all C-lenses. You and I both measured the mk3 GD over a year ago, it was about a 11% difference in width from centre to the outside edge from memory.


Scott has measured the 5E for GD up against the isco3, and the 5E has quite a bit less distortion from centre to edge, more even light distribution across the screen too.


----------



## CAVX

This will take the thread way off topic. I posted initially because even though I could not vertically stretch the image, the MK4 lens did not disrupt the convergence/divergence used to make 3D work.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oztheatre* /forum/post/19743236
> 
> 
> Two different cylindrical lenses? Do you mean the Mk3 is the bottom test pattern? It sure looks like a prism lens to me as it has astigmatism. Care to complete the info list and tell us what it is please? What C lens does not have astigmatism correction??



No, the other lens is a cylindrical lens, not a prisms/cylindrical hybrid like MK3+C. It has a neat rotating threaded sleeve system that moves the front lens in or out. I could not actually get this lens to focus properly from corner to corner and I do wonder if maybe if this lens has been dropped causing one of the lenses to have rotated slightly preventing it from focusing.


Anyway, the point being, under the same conditions, it produces an image with GD, where the MK4 does not appear to. And yes, I know that my curved screen does take care of some GD. I've since imported my images into paint and placed a single pixel line over the circles to measure the distortion. My centre circle appears to be compressed by just 1.5%.


I will re-test this using a flat surface and post the results soon.


Back on topic - went to see TRON LEGACY in 3D and whilst the image was Scope, they did not use an A-Lens. Disappointing...


----------



## 230-SEAN

Anyone know how to tell if a blu-ray is BD-JAVA enhanced before purchasing it?


OT: Mark what are your thoughts on the X3? Both 2d and 3d performance? Buy it or wait for a next gen?


-Sean


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> Anyway, the point being, under the same conditions, it produces an image with GD, where the MK4 does not appear to. And yes, I know that my curved screen does take care of some GD. I've since imported my images into paint and placed a single pixel line over the circles to measure the distortion. My centre circle appears to be compressed by just 1.5%.
> 
> 
> I will re-test this using a flat surface and post the results soon.



So it _was_ a curved screen, and not the "multi aspheric" (i.e. ordinary cylindrical) lenses after all.


An appropriately curved screen is usually used to eliminate pincushion. A little-discussed by-product of this is that it should also pretty-well get rid of GD, much less than "some". A figure of


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *230-SEAN* /forum/post/19744051
> 
> 
> Anyone know how to tell if a blu-ray is BD-JAVA enhanced before purchasing it?
> 
> 
> OT: Mark what are your thoughts on the X3? Both 2d and 3d performance? Buy it or wait for a next gen?
> 
> 
> -Sean



This is only the 2nd time I've seen one of these JVC 3D projectors in action. Overall for what these systems cost, I am quite impressed. I just wish it was able to VS.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/19745358
> 
> 
> So it _was_ a curved screen, and not the "multi aspheric" (i.e. ordinary cylindrical) lenses after all.



Flat screen shots are coming soon.



> Quote:
> An appropriately curved screen is usually used to eliminate pincushion. A little-discussed by-product of this is that it should also pretty-well get rid of GD, much less than "some". A figure of
> 
> 
> And I fully understand what your saying. So tell me, if the screen is doing all the "magic", why does it only do so for the MK4? What about the oval-ness of the outer circles of the OTHER lens?


----------



## oztheatre




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19746018
> 
> 
> Flat screen shots are coming soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I fully understand what your saying. So tell me, if the screen is doing all the "magic", why does it only do so for the MK4? What about the oval-ness of the outer circles of the OTHER lens?



The screen is indeed correcting the GD with the mk4. I set it up last night at a TR of 2.45:1, dialed it in perfectly and there was quite a bit more GD than with the C5 at the exact same throw.


You comparison was done on a curved screen, which corrects GD vs a lens which remains un named and may have been 'dropped'.....Not what you'd call a fair test.


I'll post screen shots tomorrow as it's sunday. Rest assured the GD is there and as you note will be even worse at shorter throws. My TR is quite long at 2.45:1.


I'm still not sure why this being debated. You're basically saying Aussie Bobs new design is no better in any area including GD. You're going to be very surprised!


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oztheatre* /forum/post/19746106
> 
> 
> The screen is indeed correcting the GD with the mk4. I set it up last night at a TR of 2.45:1, dialed it in perfectly and there was quite a bit more GD than with the C5 at the exact same throw.
> 
> 
> Care to post how much? yes I know the curved screen compresses the image. I've overlaid circles of 400 x 400 pixels to show the compression. I am interested to see how this test looks on a flat screen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note that the two outer circles are compressed in. Therefore on a flat screen these should be about perfect if not slightly wider. Also note that my TR is as long as I can go due to the optics in the BenQ. I don't have a JVC at this time and am not going to ask a friend to take his down off the ceiling just to entertain the forums.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> You comparison was done on a curved screen, which corrects GD vs a lens which remains un named and may have been 'dropped'.....Not what you'd call a fair test.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is is not fair about it? Two different lenses used in the SAME system at the SAME throw on the SAME curved screen and gave two DIFFERENT results. The ONLY variable was the lens.
Click to expand...


I'm still not sure why this being debated. You're basically saying Aussie Bobs new design is no better in any area including GD. You're going to be very surprised![/quote]


That is not what I am saying at all. However feel free to read into it any way you want.


----------



## oztheatre




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19746411
> 
> 
> I'm still not sure why this being debated. You're basically saying Aussie Bobs new design is no better in any area including GD. You're going to be very surprised!



That is not what I am saying at all. However feel free to read into it any way you want.[/quote]


Will post some photos tomorrow. It's Sunday, go be with your family.


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> And I fully understand what your saying. So tell me, if the screen is doing all the "magic", why does it only do so for the MK4? What about the oval-ness of the outer circles of the OTHER lens?



Are you serious?


Correcting GD and pincushion with an appropriately curved screen is one of the most trivial exercies in projection optics. They've been doing it with Cinemascope for 60 years. Once you get the screen curve right you can fix almost anything, much easier than you can by warping lens shapes, especially only two of them (as the test of the C5E against the Isco that you referred to demonstrates).


Here's a link to the official Cinemascope curved screen manual: http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/table2.gif . It's about 58 years old.


If the GD with the other lens is still apparent there are at least three possibilities... probably many more...


1. On _that_ particular screen, at _that_ particular throw (and throw _ratio_) the MK4 works better than another, namless lens we know nothing about. No wonder... this screen was tailored for the MK4, wasn't it?


2. The other lens is most likely not expanding at the same ratio as the MK4. It may be closer to 1.33x, or it may be further away from 1.33x (although looks to be further away). This will drastically affect GD if you just swap lenses. We have no numbers and hence no details as to which lens is "right". We don't know where it came from, whether it was a discarded design, or a commercial lens you got cheap or were given as a present. Once again this other lens is completely anonymous, as are the test conditions.


3. You speculated that the other lens may have been dropped or otherwise misaligned. Who knows what damage or otherwise has been done to it?


If someone told you that standard cylindrical lenses are "multi aspheric" they were pulling your leg.


----------



## 230-SEAN

I'm confused about why there is any debate about any lens going on here at all? That's not what this thread is about, nor did Mark initially claim his lens to be better than another; all he said was that the GD talk got him curious and he wanted to test it mainly to see if it had any negative affect on 3d material.


Mark, you should pick up a 93 and check out the X3 in 3d using the full panel and a lens.


Back to my other question, does anyone know how to tell if a blu-ray is BD-JAVA enhanced before you buy it? If there is a way to tell, we should start a thread keeping track of which ones are (assuming there are fewer enhanced than not) so people don't buy a movie thinking it can be used in CIH when in fact it can't.


-Sean


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> I'm confused about why there is any debate about any lens going on here at all? That's not what this thread is about, nor did Mark initially claim his lens to be better than another; all he said was that the GD talk got him curious and he wanted to test it mainly to see if it had any negative affect on 3d material.



You have to read between the lines, Sean.


The O.P. was about anamorphic lenses and 3D.


3D will work with any anamorphic lens, whether it distorts or not, whether it has CA or not. Aberrations will apply (and cancel each other out) to both phases of the equation - left eye and right eye. All an anamorphic lens really does is enlarge an image. The 3D metrics embedded in the screen content still apply. That's the short answer.


The next question is "How well will it work?"


The answer does _not_ involve "multi aspherical" lenses, curved screens or allegedly perfect geometry. That is all voodoo optics, the "between the lines" stuff. I'm not surprised you don't get it, because it doesn't make sense, even to me. And I'm the only one around here who's gone to the trouble to personally design a new form of lens and make it work, verifiably, even up against the mighty Isco.


It's an old debate, for which facts and figures somehow never get supplied. Only assertions are made and never backed up, except with screen shots, which prove very little.


I'm as tired of it as you seem to be.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/19746790
> 
> 
> 
> 1. On _that_ particular screen, at _that_ particular throw (and throw _ratio_) the MK4 works better than another, namless lens we know nothing about. No wonder... this screen was tailored for the MK4, wasn't it?



No. It was originally tailored for the MK2 at a much shorter throw. When I met you in person in 2008, I'd just got my BenQ W5000 and was still using the old MK2 lens (the very one that came to the test day) and the screen was then set to match the pincushion at the new longer throw of approx 2.1:1. If you can remember, I even called you asking about why the prisms needed more rotation to fill the screen at the longer throw. Since then, I've upgrade my lens twice (MK3 and now MK4) and yet I've never felt the need to change the radius of the screen.



> Quote:
> 2. The other lens is most likely not expanding at the same ratio as the MK4. It may be closer to 1.33x, or it may be further away from 1.33x (although looks to be further away). This will drastically affect GD if you just swap lenses. We have no numbers and hence no details as to which lens is "right". We don't know where it came from, whether it was a discarded design, or a commercial lens you got cheap or were given as a present. Once again this other lens is completely anonymous, as are the test conditions.



You've actually tested this lens and if I remember correctly, you said it was more than 1.33x. I simply used it as an example of another design. I've not bothered to post its overlay simply because I am excepting the fact that it is irreverent here. What I am out to test and prove is the amount of GD with the MK4 and the MK4 alone. Nothing else matters here.



> Quote:
> 3. You speculated that the other lens may have been dropped or otherwise misaligned. Who knows what damage or otherwise has been done to it?



And why it is now irrelevant.



> Quote:
> If someone told you that standard cylindrical lenses are "multi aspheric" they were pulling your leg.



So they all lied to me and just wanted my money?


Are you going to suggest that an ISCO III has simple single radii designs for their lenses?


Are you going to suggest that it is not possible to design a lens with multi radii even though the optical engineers I met from WaveLength (a company that distributes and teaches optics using ZEMAX) say it can be done, just expensive to do.


And am I not to believe the optical designer who designed the lenses for the MK4 either?


What about the Australian company BAE who wanted over $6K for a design that used multi radii designs? Or what the another guy in the UK who wanted even more for a similar design? All described the design as multi asperic or multi radii.


So are you telling me that ALL of these people either don't know what they are on about or they just straight out lied?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *230-SEAN* /forum/post/19747282
> 
> 
> I'm confused about why there is any debate about any lens going on here at all? That's not what this thread is about, nor did Mark initially claim his lens to be better than another; all he said was that the GD talk got him curious and he wanted to test it mainly to see if it had any negative affect on 3d material.



Thank you Sean. The reason I posted my initial findings in this thread was simply because I had been able to run a 3D projector through an anamorphic lens and it appeared not to prevent the 3D from working which was pretty much why this thread was started in the first place.



> Quote:
> Mark, you should pick up a 93 and check out the X3 in 3d using the full panel and a lens.



Might have to import one. They are twice the listed price locally.


----------



## Franin

Heres a tip guys stick with 2D and everything will be fine


----------



## CAVX

Yeah, except I've seen some good 3D and I want it now.


----------



## Franin

Quote:

Originally Posted by *CAVX*
Yeah, except I've seen some good 3D and I want it now.
Which movies would you recommend from there large catalog Mark?


----------



## CAVX

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Franin* 
Which movies would you recommend from there large catalog Mark?








The two that you can't buy as a general purchases - AVATAR and MONSTERS VS ALIENS.


And on the curved screen, my GD is 0% and less than 3% on a flat screen.


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/19747601
> 
> 
> 3D will work with any anamorphic lens, whether it distorts or not, whether it has CA or not. Aberrations will apply (and cancel each other out) to both phases of the equation - left eye and right eye. All an anamorphic lens really does is enlarge an image. The 3D metrics embedded in the screen content still apply. That's the short answer.
> 
> 
> The next question is "How well will it work?"



I understand that, in a perfect world, digital vertical stretch accompanied by optical horizontal stretch cancel each other out leaving you with an enlarged image. Therefor, it was assumed there would be no reason for an anamorphic lens not to work with 3d.


"How well will it work?" is what I believe Mark was honestly trying to answer. He, nor I (probably a lot of people), did not know for sure what would happen to the 3d image if GD was involved. Maybe it would look great in the center but dublet at the egdes where the GD was it its max? I assume producing a proper 3d image is complicated and requires everything to be just right, if something didnt line up just right then maybe its end result wouldn't look "just right" either. These where things a lot of us did't know for sure since we had no experience with it. I only wish Mark had been able to perform the digital vertical stretch to the image as well, just to make sure there are no negative affects from that either.


Please know I'm not trying to "side" with anyone here on who's lens is best or anything like that, I'm just letting you know how I interpreted the whole thing so that maybe you could see it from a 3rd party perspective.


-Sean


----------



## GetGray

I think you have a valid question as applied to some of the technologies. There is a writeup on Panamorph's site I believe regarding lenses and 3D. If it will work with a Panamorph, it will work with Marks, AB's, or Isco's. If there was an issue, specifically related to the stretch factor, then IMO, AB's would have an advantage over all of them, mine (Isco) included, becasue his does stretch more "evenly" (than an Isco anyway). For the polarized version of 3D (passive), I beleive any of them will work fine, becae both Sim2 and Runco were doing it at CEDIA with a polarized PJ stack. Talk about expensive, 2 Lumii, 2 Isco's, 2 CineSlides







.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/19749342
> 
> 
> If there was an issue, specifically related to the stretch factor, then IMO, AB's would have an advantage over all of them, mine (Isco) included, becasue his does stretch more "evenly" (than an Isco anyway).



Were you able to document your results with images?


Last night I projected a green version of my test pattern onto the curved AT screen, then placed and alloy track in front of the screen rig so I had a guide to run a flat vertical panel.


I used a tape measure on the screen surface so that each time the projected single pixel display lines projected onto the tape marking. The circles on the curved screen were 350mm wide each representing a zero grid distortion. The flat panel was slightly closer to the projector, so the circles were slightly smaller. There was a slight difference between centre and edge here as would be expected.


I also captured images in RAW and have pasted them into a JPEG.

I have then imported the images into paint, cut and pasted the circles and drawn a perfect circle in single pixel lines (red) over the white circle of the pattern. There is a small difference, however it so small I seriously doubt anyone would actually notice this in motion picture images.

The top 3 circles are the curved screen and the bottom three are from the flat panel that was moved across the screen to capture the circles.


----------



## oztheatre

I measured the over scan on the mk4 last night at a TR of 2.45. It over scans onto a 2.37 frame by a good 50mm on each side. 3% x 2.37 is gives me an aspect ratio of 2.445:1. Or thereabouts, give or take a couple of tenths. This is a 135 inch scope (124 inches across x 52.36 inches high)


Yeah, some might not see it, but it's not the point is it. I, like most, like my image to sit nicely onto the frame. You even saw this yourself at my demo room last year at a slightly shorter throw of 2.15:1, your lens then was also over scanning about 40mm on each side of the velvet frame. This means it must have grid distortion period.


The 5E under the same throw, same projector, same screen (same everything) over scans about 10mm.


The 5E clearly has better geometry or less GD (whatever you like to call it) - which is exactly why AB re designed things to start with. You don't need a tape measure to see the difference, it's very easy to see.


----------



## GetGray

No, there was no need for images on my test. I simply used a simple single pixel grid, relatively much finer than the circles in your image. I used a pair of Starrett digital calibers and measured the distance between lines in the grid at the middle, center, and edge. I think I mentioned the grid size in my review, but from memory the grid width was around 3-4" wide. That test shows more about what's going on at a more granular level. The larger circles would have given more of an average error. IMO.


ozth: While I may be corrected by you know who, I don't think that overscanning and grid distortion are necessarily related. One could have for instance a perfect 1.40x expansion at center, middle and sides and have a larger image. Or one can have a smaller expansion in the middle, and a larger expansion at the size, and a perfect image size on overall width.


Anyway, since I've seen no reason to think either condition will affect 3D, this is OT for this thread.


Back to the regular scheduled programming....


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> Were you able to document your results with images?



Sorry Mark, but numbers speak louder than screen shots. It doesn't matter whether your images are RAW or medium rare, it's only the geometry that's the issue here.



> Quote:
> Last night I projected a green version of my test pattern onto the curved AT screen, then placed and alloy track in front of the screen rig so I had a guide to run a flat vertical panel.
> 
> 
> I used a tape measure on the screen surface so that each time the projected single pixel display lines projected onto the tape marking. The circles on the curved screen were 350mm wide each representing a zero grid distortion. The flat panel was slightly closer to the projector, so the circles were slightly smaller. *There was a slight difference between centre and edge here as would be expected.*



That "slight difference between edge and center" _IS_ the Grid Distortion. The rest we know: use a curved screen and reduce distortion. That's not rocket science.


Unless you're prepared to quantify the difference between edge and center, on a flat screen, at the same throw and throw ratio as the curved screen, then "a slight difference" is not good enough.


The way to do the test is as follows.

*1. Accurately measure the throw ratio.*

This gives us a benchmark for comparison with other lenses at the same throw ratio.

*2. Measure the widths - edge, 3/4 position and center - of smaller grid panels than you have measured.*

The smaller the better. Typically, a distance equal to about 1/16th to 1/20th of the distance from edge to center. Otherwise you're just averaging-out the progressive distortions present in a large distance. That's a no-no. The bigger the size of the grid panel measure the more meaningless are the results.


Something like this:
 


The full sized version of this consists of 60x60 pixel grid squares. Suggest you make one similar and measure widths as indicated by the white squares.

*3. Report your numbers.*

Screen shots and statements like "small difference" are, frankly, inadequate for depicting GD, or substantiating any claims about it.


Some immediate observations on your photos are that your screen curve appears to be too steep for the MK-4. The outer projected circles are smaller in width than the inner circle, judging by the "control"outline circles you have superimposed.


If those _superimposed_ outline circles you inserted over the projected circles are all the same size then I don't see how you can say all your _projected_ circles are the same size. The ones on the outer are clearly well within the drawn circles, while the one in the middle is virtually the same size. In other words how can they all be the same size (350mm) if some are smaller than others? It doesn't make sense.


Secondly, placing your piece of flat screen panel out a few inches from the deepest part of your curved screen will make the projected circles appear smaller than they would be on a flat screen. This has a bearing on GD measurement.


The way you have measured this is messy and confused. You are not comparing like with like.


Lastly, I'd be careful of producing photographs (however flawed in execution) that seem to show GD is the same on both a curved _and_ a flat screen in the same photograph at the same throw ratio setup. That is _flat-out_ impossible.


----------



## GetGray

Mark: I'm installing a new Stewart curved screen in my demo room. Due to me on the 24th. I'll revist how it affects the Geometry on the Isco then if you like. Or anything other lens as time permits. I sell a lot of curved screens, so I'm very interested in how this affectd this particular parameter.


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> While I may be corrected by you know who,



Yes and no.


You're right in that a perfect 1.4 - 1.4 -1.4 (Center-Middle-Edge) image is distortion free, but too big for a 1.33x system.


However, in anamorphic lenses the edge distortion is the one that tends to get bigger as the throw ratio gets smaller. Center and middle distortions don't change so much.


So, in that sense, something which was designed to give an AR of exactly 2.37 at, say, a TR of 2.0, will give a slightly wider AR at, say, TR=1.6, mostly due to the increase in grid distortion at the edges.


Hence, a lens which is designed to exhibit less grid distortion overall, especially at the edges will vary less in AR over a range of TRs than one that is not designed to do so.


----------



## GetGray




----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/19751996
> 
> 
> Sorry Mark, but numbers speak louder than screen shots. It doesn't matter whether your images are RAW or medium rare, it's only the geometry that's the issue here.



Interesting that when you posted screen caps they were great and when I produced screen caps of similar quality in the now closed MK4 thread, suddenly screen caps are irrelevant.


----------



## oztheatre

Perhaps moving this debate over to a relevant thread like this one below might be the best move..


Cylindrical A-lens owners thread
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1261584


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> Interesting that when you posted screen caps they were great and when I produced screen caps of similar quality in the now closed MK4 thread, suddenly screen caps are irrelevant.



Red herring.


My image screen caps were not produced to "prove" forensically that geometry was correct. They were produced to show contrast, sharpness, etc. I made no claims about geometry by invoking them. In fact I noted that the geometry was all over the place due to the camera lens used.


In fact, the first words of that post were ironic. Perhaps I should have put a smiley in there and you would have got it?

_"The obligatory screen shots..."_

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post19328065 


When some claims _were_ made about geometry, I got someone else to do the test. Numbers plus a test methodology were provided and opened to comment.


Screen caps prove not very much. They're a tradition, that's all. In your screen caps above the red (superimposed) circles are mostly 320 pixels wide. It's clear that the white projected circles are of more varying sizes. I measured them (Width x Height) [in pixels]:


Left to right upper: 312x325, 319x325, 313x323.


Left to right lower: 308x318, 314x321, 311x320.


Yet you claim at least the upper ones are all the same size. They are egg-shaped, taller than they are wide by about 4% at either side, more rounded in the middle. They are distorted. _And they are not the same size._


Did you think the claim that: "The circles on the curved screen were 350mm wide each representing a zero grid distortion." wouldn't be checked? They are different sizes, by several percent.


If you excuse this by saying "They're only screen shots", then I think that adds weight my point about the value of screen shots.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oztheatre* /forum/post/19753094
> 
> 
> Perhaps moving this debate over to a relevant thread like this one below might be the best move..
> 
> 
> Cylindrical A-lens owners thread
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1261584



Agreed.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/19753107
> 
> 
> 
> If you excuse this by saying "They're only screen shots", then I think that adds weight my point about the value of screen shots.



Point taken.


----------



## JMThomas

...back to the topic of this thread.


It seems that there is a lot of interest in two projector implementations of 3D. Of course this also means that in order to achieve a scope image you would then need two anamorphic lenses, one for each projector. Obviously this would be expensive as a good A-lens does not come cheap.


I was thinking about this and had an idea I would like to through out. At the heart of a 3-chip lcd light engine is a prism assembly. This prism (a cross dichroic or x-cube) is able to combine the three color channels, each entering the prism at 90 degree angles to each other, to create a single image that then travels through the projectors primary lens.


So instead of aiming the two projectors in toward the screen, couldn't you actually aim them towards each other with the proper prism sitting in between them? Basically working in the same fashion as an lcd light engine? The prism would combine the right/left images and allow for a single A-lens to be placed in front of the prism.

See attached diagram.


I realize the prism would have to be 3-4x larger than the one used in a typical light engine, but it seems like it could be easily constructed. For example, it is my understanding that a cross dichroic prism (x-cube) is just 4 right angle prisms that have been fused together. Surplusshed.com has a right angle prism that is 50mm on 2 sides with a hypotenuse of 70mm. Four of these together would result in a cube that is 70mm on a side. The item is PM1045 on their site and is not overly expensive. I suppose cost could climb as one needs to optically fuse them together and possibly add an anti-reflective coating.


I really have no idea if this would work. Obviously, the polarity of each projectors image would need to be maintained as it passes through the prism, and who knows what would happen to image clarity. I only wish I had two projectors to try this out.


----------



## Aussie Bob




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JMThomas* /forum/post/19757972
> 
> 
> ...back to the topic of this thread.
> 
> 
> It seems that there is a lot of interest in two projector implementations of 3D. Of course this also means that in order to achieve a scope image you would then need two anamorphic lenses, one for each projector. Obviously this would be expensive as a good A-lens does not come cheap.
> 
> 
> I was thinking about this and had an idea I would like to through out. At the heart of a 3-chip lcd light engine is a prism assembly. This prism (a cross dichroic or “x-cube”) is able to combine the three color channels, each entering the prism at 90 degree angles to each other, to create a single image that then travels through the projectors primary lens.
> 
> 
> …So instead of aiming the two projectors in toward the screen, couldn’t you actually aim them towards each other with the proper prism sitting in between them? Basically working in the same fashion as an lcd light engine? The prism would combine the right/left images and allow for a single A-lens to be placed in front of the prism.
> 
> See attached diagram.
> 
> 
> I realize the prism would have to be 3-4x larger than the one used in a typical light engine, but it seems like it could be easily constructed. For example, it is my understanding that a cross dichroic prism (x-cube) is just 4 right angle prisms that have been fused together. Surplusshed.com has a right angle prism that is 50mm on 2 sides with a hypotenuse of 70mm. Four of these together would result in a cube that is 70mm on a side. The item is PM1045 on their site and is not overly expensive. I suppose cost could limb as one needs to optically fuse them together and possibly add an anti-reflective coating.
> 
> 
> I really have no idea if this would work. Obviously, the polarity of each projectors image would need to be maintained as it passes through the prism, and who knows what would happen to image clarity. I only wish I had two projectors to try this out.



The prism idea isn't a bad one, theoretically feasible I s'pose, but you'd have an awful lot of lining up to do. The slightest asymmetry on either side of the prism (I mean down to fractions of a mm or degree) and the whole thing would probably go out of kilter.


I say this because projector manufacturers can make their own standards for prism alignment and they _still_ screw it up, causing misregistration.


I've seen a dual-projector (non-anamorphic) 3D rig up close and chatted to the guys handling it. It took them all day to align two projectors in a jig they had had specially made. Adding a central prism would be a whole new world of pain, I'd say.


The advantage of 3D at the moment is that most of the available program material is awful.


If I'm ever inclined to take it up, I'd wait for 2nd or 3rd generation machines that can vertically stretch 3D-120Hz straight off the bat. Might be something decent to watch then, too.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aussie Bob* /forum/post/19758129
> 
> 
> I've seen a dual-projector (non-anamorphic) 3D rig up close and chatted to the guys handling it. It took them all day to align two projectors in a jig they had had specially made.



We must have been really lucky then. When I first bought my BenQ W5000, I got together with another forum member who had just bought the W20000. We double stacked the two projectors on a wooden rack and used lens shift to get them vertically aligned. As I said it was luck as we managed to also get the horizontal alignment right as well to the pixel! I bet that we would never get it that close again.


I liked the rig SIM 2 had for their dual projector 3D stack.


Speaking about the SIM2 stack, the system I saw used the Dolby 3D passive system (under a different marketing name) where they had moveable filters in the light path verses electronic controlled 'wheel' used in the D-Cinema version.


Question is, who makes the 3D processing box to feed the two projectors?


----------



## TSHA222




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19759690
> 
> 
> Question is, who makes the 3D processing box to feed the two projectors?



Mark,


The 3D-XL from Optoma should do the trick if it is ever released here in the states. That's what I'll be using for my temp setup. It will work either with a single 720p 3D Ready projecor or using 2 boxes, will feed left eye to one 1080p projector and right eye to the other. I have not seen one up close and I am just going with what I have read.


I will eventually go this route, but I have ONE ISCO III and don't really feel like popping to a second plus an additional projector just yet.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TSHA222* /forum/post/19759711
> 
> 
> Mark,
> 
> 
> The 3D-XL from Optoma should do the trick if it is ever released here in the states. That's what I'll be using for my temp setup. It will work either with a single 720p 3D Ready projecor or using 2 boxes, will feed left eye to one 1080p projector and right eye to the other. I have not seen one up close and I am just going with what I have read.
> 
> 
> I will eventually go this route, but I have ONE ISCO III and don't really feel like popping to a second plus an additional projector just yet.



I know I'm probably getting way ahead of myself here. Assuming (yeah we all know what that breaks down to) the X Cube Prism thing actually works, how does one get signal to feed the left eye to the left projector and the right eye to the right projector? Do all 3D BD players have 2 outputs?


The images of that box you mention show only one output, so too me, represents a way of converting a 120Hz TV/projector into a 3D TV. This is OK if you have a single display. It does not appear to be viable if you plan on using 2 x 1080/60P projectors.


----------



## rjtoudouze

As far as I know, you would have to do that with a computer and highend video card. There is software that will split left eye/right eye on seperate outputs. The problem is, most of these cards use dual link DVI, NOT HDMI. You would probably need two cards with the mini HDMI port or use a DVI/HDMI adpater. This will work for passive 3D using filters. My guess is you would place the polarizing filter after the anamorphic lens.


----------



## TSHA222

Mark, on the back of the box is a switch that actually allows for either 720p output OR Left or Right 1080p output for passive 3D.


I found this thread on AVS:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1280393 


Post number 2 states the following:


"This would require an up-front 3D processor that could separate the left and right video channels and output them separately to the two projectors. Such a product exists, in the new Optoma 3D-XL box that was demoed at Cedia."


"...two of the Optoma 3D-XL boxes would be needed (one for each video channel) and they would both need to be fed the full 3D stream by an HDMI splitter."


If you used a newer 3D Blu Ray Player with dual HDMI outs, I assume (and I agree with you Mark about "assuming"







) that one HDMI could go to 3D-XL #1 and the other HDMI could go to 3D-XL #2. That still leaves an issue of getting lossless audio into your receiver, unless your BD player has analog outs and you can go that route. I'm sure there are or will be 3D compatible HDMI splitters so that would get your HDMI to each converter box and to your A/V receiver.


For your perusal, here is a pic of the back of the 3D-XL showing the 1080p switch. Of course, until some folks get some things and play with this, well it's all conjecture. And with a dual projector setup, you need polarizing filters for each projector and two anamorphic lenses (if you plan on a CIH which I think we all want on this thread anyway) plus a screen that will work with polarized passive 3D. And the patience of Job to get it all setup and calibrated would probably be needed and I am not aware of any retailers, brick and mortar or online, that sell that!


I attached the pic of the back (at least I hope it attached). It is blown up a bit so not razor sharp, but clearly shows a switch for either 720p or L / R Dual 1080p.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TSHA222* /forum/post/19760030
> 
> 
> Mark, on the back of the box is a switch that actually allows for either 720p output OR Left or Right 1080p output for passive 3D.



I looked at the image. So is that switch 3 position - 720 dual or L 1080P or R 1080P? If it two position, how does one assign the left and right in 1080P?



> Quote:
> I found this thread on AVS:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1280393
> 
> 
> Post number 2 states the following:
> 
> 
> "This would require an up-front 3D processor that could separate the left and right video channels and output them separately to the two projectors. Such a product exists, in the new Optoma 3D-XL box that was demoed at Cedia."



Maybe the SIM 2 rig used that as well?



> Quote:
> "...two of the Optoma 3D-XL boxes would be needed (one for each video channel) and they would both need to be fed the full 3D stream by an HDMI splitter."
> 
> 
> If you used a newer 3D Blu Ray Player with dual HDMI outs, I assume (and I agree with you Mark about "assuming"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) that one HDMI could go to 3D-XL #1 and the other HDMI could go to 3D-XL #2. That still leaves an issue of getting lossless audio into your receiver, unless your BD player has analog outs and you can go that route. I'm sure there are or will be 3D compatible HDMI splitters so that would get your HDMI to each converter box and to your A/V receiver.



For the cost of AVRs these day, I'll probably upgrade to a new HDMI 1.4 AVR before long anyway. Since going Active LCRs, I now have 3 passive speaker cables routed to the front of the room that are not used. Prehaps the new AVR will offer height channels. Do those Optoma units have HDMI Audio out by chance? If not, the best to source a player with dual outs, use the spliter on the video and run the audio direct to the AVR.


> Quote:
> For your perusal, here is a pic of the back of the 3D-XL showing the 1080p switch. Of course, until some folks get some things and play with this, well it's all conjecture. And with a dual projector setup, you need polarizing filters for each projector and two anamorphic lenses (if you plan on a CIH which I think we all want on this thread anyway) plus a screen that will work with polarized passive 3D. And the patience of Job to get it all setup and calibrated would probably be needed and I am not aware of any retailers, brick and mortar or online, that sell that!
> 
> 
> I attached the pic of the back (at least I hope it attached). It is blown up a bit so not razor sharp, but clearly shows a switch for either 720p or L / R Dual 1080p



Thanks for that. I might have to have snoop around in the 3D section to see whi else is looking for a passive (flicker free) way to get 3D from dual projection.


----------



## CAVX

So if anyone was really wanting to do this, Pansonic have a dual HDMI out 3D player. It would awesome if the outs were assignable as left and right eye. At this stage they are not.


----------



## Gig103




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19247707
> 
> 
> Yeah, I just learned that the new JVCs won't allow V-Stretch to be used for 3D either.



That pushes me more towards the HD250 than instead of the RS40. At heart I know the RS40 is a better projector, but I am not a big fan of 3D anyway, and if I converted, and still couldn't use it with Cinemascope, I probably wouldn't need that feature



/a bit off topic.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gig103* /forum/post/19939454
> 
> 
> That pushes me more towards the HD250 than instead of the RS40. At heart I know the RS40 is a better projector, but I am not a big fan of 3D anyway, and if I converted, and still couldn't use it with Cinemascope, I probably wouldn't need that feature
> 
> 
> 
> /a bit off topic.



If you can still get the pre order pricing it's not much more for the 40. It's only a matter of time before 3D "2.35 friendly" gear starts coming to market. I know i have a great 2D projection system. I watch Shrek 4 couple nights back in 2D even though I have the Samsung 3D 4 pack. I think Cloudy is my only other 3D 2.35 movie. Have about 8 others all 16:9. When I play 3D video games, I don't worry about stretched picture. Super Stardust HD is insane in 3D 2.35. 3D is still a casual treat for us. I never watch 3d on the plasma and it's a family and friends treat with the rs40. But even though right now it's one out of twenty movies, I'm set for the future. It's an inconvenience but you can zoom for 3D 2.35 for now.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/19940057
> 
> 
> It's an inconvenience but you can zoom for 3D 2.35 for now.



Or get the OPPO







Whilst some Java discs won't V Stretch, "Cloudy" did and you need to see that to see the potential 3D Scope really has. I'm sure the Java issue is FW and can be fixed soon as the 2D machine has no issues.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19940112
> 
> 
> Or get the OPPO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whilst some Java discs won't V Stretch, "Cloudy" did and you need to see that to see the potential 3D Scope really has. I'm sure the Java issue is FW and can be fixed soon as the 2D machine has no issues.



I know. But I talked with an Anchorbay engineer and he wasn't sure if they would be able to scale with a FW upgrade on the Duo and Edge. I like the idea of the streaming with Netflix and Vudu thru the 93. I'm going to sell my 83 and get a 93. It's makes sense that FW would be the way to go but there's a lot of uncertainty without having a definitive answer.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gig103* /forum/post/19939454
> 
> 
> That pushes me more towards the HD250 than instead of the RS40. At heart I know the RS40 is a better projector, but I am not a big fan of 3D anyway, and if I converted, and still couldn't use it with Cinemascope, I probably wouldn't need that feature



Just to play devils advocate, why would you get a worse 2D projector if the better 2D projector had a 3D limitation, when you don't care for 3D?


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Just to play devils advocate, why would you get a worse 2D projector if the better 2D projector had a 3D limitation, when you don't care for 3D?



Exactly don't utilise the 3D.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/19940325
> 
> 
> I know. But I talked with an Anchorbay engineer and he wasn't sure if they would be able to scale with a FW upgrade on the Duo and Edge. I like the idea of the streaming with Netflix and Vudu thru the 93. I'm going to sell my 83 and get a 93. It's makes sense that FW would be the way to go but there's a lot of uncertainty without having a definitive answer.



I don't think anyone saw this coming. Partly because the whole Scope scene is niche anyway, but also because 3D started out for D-Cinema and DCI does not include the use of A-Lenses. Crap all round then.


----------



## Gig103




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/19940412
> 
> 
> Just to play devils advocate, why would you get a worse 2D projector if the better 2D projector had a 3D limitation, when you don't care for 3D?



I appreciate the devil's advocate, actually! The decision is a cost savings measure; the RS40 vs HD250 is ~$1k difference in cost. Spending less now on the PJ means getting a new Denon AVR now instead of in the future (mine currently has no HDMI). But I think I have the WAF for the RS40 so I shouldn't second guess myself, but that's my nature.


----------



## madboynutter

Since the new JVC 3D projectors do not allow their Vertical Stretch function to be applied to 3D images, I put the pertinent question to Oppo Digital regarding their Blu-Ray 3D players' (e.g. BDP-93 and BDP-95) Vertical Stretch function, namely:

*"Do these Blu-Ray Disc Players allow their VERTICAL STRETCH function to be applied to a 3D IMAGE? Thereby enabling the viewing of 3D Movies in 2.35:1 Constant Image Height (CIH) via use of an anamorphic lens?"*


And here's Oppo Digital's reply:

*"At this time all zooming is done for non-BD-JAVA enhanced Blu-ray titles. If the disc uses BD-JAVA then we will not be able to zoom it at this time. We will be allowing BD-JAVA zooming through a future firmware release.


Best Regards,


Customer Service

OPPO Digital, Inc.

2629B Terminal Blvd.

Mountain View, CA 94043
[email protected] 

Tel: 650-961-1118

Fax: 650-961-1119"*


Therefore, it appears that currently the only way to be sure of achieving a 3D image with 2.35:1 CIH is to employ the 'zoom method'.


However, once Oppo release their promised firmware update that will allow Vertical Stretching with BD-JAVA enhanced Blu-ray titles, perhaps the preferred route would then be to apply the Vertical Stretch via the Blu-Ray player prior to being outputted to your choice of 3D compatible projector such as the JVC DLA-X7 or JVC DLA-X9?


Thoughts?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *madboynutter* /forum/post/20034113
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, it appears that currently the only way to be sure of achieving a 3D image with 2.35:1 CIH is to employ the 'zoom method'.
> 
> 
> However, once Oppo release their promised firmware update that will allow Vertical Stretching with BD-JAVA enhanced Blu-ray titles, perhaps the preferred route would then be to apply the Vertical Stretch via the Blu-Ray player prior to being outputted to your choice of 3D compatible projector such as the JVC DLA-X7 or JVC DLA-X9?
> 
> 
> Thoughts?



So long as the disc is not JAVA enhanced, it works. And they have said that this issue is FW correctable, so it is just a matter of time.


----------



## Kelvin1965S

So I've got an Oppo 93 on it's way soon, the Radiance Mini3D processor, an Isco II lens and all the electronics/cables in between that support 3D...but no 3D projector.







Oh well, 3D gives me a headache anyway judging by the X7 demo I had.


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *madboynutter* /forum/post/20034113
> 
> 
> Thoughts?



Personally, I don't care for it (3D). But to answer your question: www.lumagen.com


----------



## Arnies

I do not understand the discussion I have an X-9 with panamorph anamorphic lens and a 130" Stewart Cine Curve screen. With Disciple Me and Alice in Wonderland I watch both in 3D with the anamorphic lens with an awesome 2.35 picture. I never have used the zoom method. The X9 does vertical stretch in any mode including 3D


----------



## CAVX

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Arnies* 
I do not understand the discussion I have an X-9 with panamorph anamorphic lens and a 130" Stewart Cine Curve screen. With Disciple Me and Alice in Wonderland I watch both in 3D with the anamorphic lens with an awesome 2.35 picture. I never have used the zoom method. The X9 does vertical stretch in any mode including 3D
Really? According to JVC, the anamorphic mode does not work for 3D. I've seen this for the X3 (not the X9 yet) where the feature "anamorphic" is grey and not selectable in 3D operation. Could you post a screen cap of the menu?


----------



## Arnies

OK I will try. But when I push the anamorphic button the Panamorph moves into place. It moves into place whether I have it in THX or 3D mode but I will verify that.


----------



## Kelvin1965S




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Arnies* /forum/post/20039792
> 
> 
> OK I will try. But when I push the anamorphic button the Panamorph moves into place. It moves into place whether I have it in THX or 3D mode but I will verify that.



This may be just because the 12 volt trigger is powered when pressing this button. Does the image retain the correct proportion or is everything a bit too fat? If the projector _doesn't_ do the vertical stretch, but you put the lens in front anyway, the image will fill your screen...but be the wrong shape. I can do this using my Radiance VP: leave it in 16:9 but put my lens in place and have fat people and a full screen. The difference with the Radiance is that I could press the vertical stretch button, move the lens in place and have people the right shape in 3D (but I don't have a 3D projector at the moment







).


----------



## Arnies

OK i checked put it in 3D mode and pressed anamorphic button. The people are the correct shape. I watch normal TV with with the anamorphic lens in place. But in order to that I need to use the Panamorph remote to move the lens. If I do not do that I get a really messed up picture. Because there is vertical stretch in addition and the picture goes way off the screen on top and bottom. So I just use the panamorph remote which does not v-stretch the image. Yes the people are slightly out of shape but it does not bother me. So I can V-stretch 3D and use my lens for a 2.35 image. This worked on Alice and Disciple Me. When I used it to watch 3D image on Fios than the screen was not full size even when I used the anamorphic button on my JVC. I had to watch it in 16.9


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Arnies* /forum/post/20042233
> 
> 
> Because there is vertical stretch in addition and the picture goes way off the screen on top and bottom.



Are you using a VC lens?


----------



## Arnies

I do not know what a VC lens is? I am using a panamorph lens with motorized sled. The lens just stretches the sides that is all.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Arnies* /forum/post/20043687
> 
> 
> I do not know what a VC lens is? I am using a panamorph lens with motorized sled. The lens just stretches the sides that is all.



Then it is a HE lens.


I have loaned a Mitsubishi HC9000 and SONY BD 3D player. It actually works for CIH allowing both "Anamorphic Mode 1" (Vertical Stretch) and Anamorphic Mode 2 (Horizontal Squeeze) to work in 3D. The catch is, you can only select the mode with the disc stopped.










The temp set up using a makeshift stand to sit the Mitsubishi on. I am also using (for test purposes only) one of my MK3+C lenses. The projector has to go back tomorrow. If I was able to hold it for a week, then I would have set up my MK4. The MK3+C surprised me allowing good focus edge to edge. Of course it is not as good a true cylindrical lens which can be dialed in the exact throw distance.









A quick screen cap to prove correct geometry.









The discs I was also loaned. I think the studios really need to re-think their strategy if they really want 3D to succeed. IMO, the 3 titles above represent some of the best 3D to date, yet I can't purchase any of these through normal retail channels. And it is SO wrong.









Me kicking back on a Sunday morning watching AVATAR in 3D.


I've only had this for about 24 hours and I am going to miss it when I have to return it tomorrow.


----------



## dvdmike007




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Then it is a HE lens.
> 
> 
> I have loaned a Mitsubishi HC9000 and SONY BD 3D player. It actually works for CIH allowing both "Anamorphic Mode 1" (Vertical Stretch) and Anamorphic Mode 2 (Horizontal Squeeze) to work in 3D. The catch is, you can only select the mode with the disc stopped.
> 
> 
> The temp set up using a makeshift stand to sit the Mitsubishi on. I am also using (for test purposes only) one of my MK3+C lenses. The projector has to go back tomorrow. If I was able to hold it for a week, then I would have set up my MK4. The MK3+C surprised me allowing good focus edge to edge. Of course it is not as good a true cylindrical lens which can be dialed in the exact throw distance.
> 
> 
> A quick screen cap to prove correct geometry.
> 
> 
> The discs I was also loaned. I think the studios really need to re-think their strategy if they really want 3D to succeed. IMO, the 3 titles above represent some of the best 3D to date, yet I can't purchase any of these through normal retail channels. And it is SO wrong.
> 
> 
> Me kicking back on a Sunday morning watching AVATAR in 3D.
> 
> 
> I've only had this for about 24 hours and I am going to miss it when I have to return it tomorrow.



Avatar at 2.35:1? Are you cropping it?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dvdmike007* /forum/post/20107030
> 
> 
> Avatar at 2.35:1? Are you cropping it?



Without going back into the "should it be X or Y?" debate too much, Cameron's own desire for the film is to have it shown as the largest possible image on any given system which is why is was seen as Scope in some 3D cinemas.


The largest image on my own system is Scope, so yes I am scaling it. It works and looks fantastic.


----------



## Mr Ian B

I have the RS40 and Oppo 93 and been able to do vertical stretch with one or the other on every 3d or regular blu ray.


Ian B


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mr Ian B* /forum/post/20108432
> 
> 
> I have the RS40 and Oppo 93 and been able to do vertical stretch with one or the other on every 3d or regular blu ray.
> 
> 
> Ian B



Not found a 3D disc that is JAVA enhanced then?


----------



## Mr Ian B




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/20109269
> 
> 
> Not found a 3D disc that is JAVA enhanced then?




Not yet but, here are the ones I have:


Avatar

Grand Canyon

Despicable Me

Resident Evil Afterlife

Bolt

A Christmas Carol

Legend of the Guardians.


Ian B


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mr Ian B* /forum/post/20111369
> 
> 
> Not yet but, here are the ones I have:
> 
> 
> Avatar
> 
> Grand Canyon
> 
> Despicable Me
> 
> Resident Evil Afterlife
> 
> Bolt
> 
> A Christmas Carol
> 
> Legend of the Guardians.
> 
> 
> Ian B



I am sure we could not get Resident Evil Afterlife to VS with the OPPO.


So you obviously like 3D then. I'm hooked. I had to take the projector back yesterday and have withdraws already.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Arnies* /forum/post/20037137
> 
> 
> I do not understand the discussion I have an X-9 with panamorph anamorphic lens and a 130" Stewart Cine Curve screen. With Disciple Me and Alice in Wonderland I watch both in 3D with the anamorphic lens with an awesome 2.35 picture. I never have used the zoom method. The X9 does vertical stretch in any mode including 3D



AIW 3D is 1.78, so it is displaying incorrectly.


----------



## coolrda

About a month ago I've tried all my current 3d discs. Cloudy with Meatballs and Legends of Guardians were scalable. Alice in Wonderland, Despicable Me, Cats and Dogs, Shrek 4-pack, Space Station, Under the Sea were not. Of all the ones that are not scalable, only Shrek 4 is 2.35. The others can be displayed correctly by moving the lens.


----------



## coolrda

Just to add I am using a Oppo 93. While the anamorphic button does seems to function as the display shows off, anamorphic A, and anamorphic B as you cycle through them, nothing is happening to the picture while in 3D mode.


----------



## Arnies

My picture does vertical stretch in 3D mode when I push the anamorphic button


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Arnies* /forum/post/20133786
> 
> 
> My picture does vertical stretch in 3D mode when I push the anamorphic button



For which title(s)?


----------



## Arnies

alice in Wonderland


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Arnies* /forum/post/20138414
> 
> 
> alice in Wonderland



Has OPPO released a new FW then? Alice is also 1.85:1, so unless your HS'ing, does not need scaling.


----------



## Arnies

Panasonic 300 3D player


----------



## CAVX

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Arnies* 
Panasonic 300 3D player
So the Panasonic scales?


----------



## phansson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mr Ian B* /forum/post/20108432
> 
> 
> I have the RS40 and Oppo 93 and been able to do vertical stretch with one or the other on every 3d or regular blu ray.
> 
> 
> Ian B



Hey Ian B,


I couldn't get my RS40/93 combo to stretch Avatar tonight through the player. Maybe I need to check some settings.


Do you have it on Auto, 1080p or source direct for resolution?

What do you have 3D on? Auto, on or forced?

What about your tv setup? 16x9 or 16x9 4x3 auto?


I can get it to stretch other 3D movies, just not Avatar.....


----------



## Arnies

The Panasonic does not do stretch I do it through my X-9. Tron also is scaleable.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Arnies* /forum/post/20368292
> 
> 
> The Panasonic does not do stretch I do it through my X-9. Tron also is scaleable.



Then how is it that your X9 is the only one on the planet that Scale in 3D?


----------



## phansson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mr Ian B* /forum/post/20111369
> 
> 
> Not yet but, here are the ones I have:
> 
> 
> Avatar
> 
> Grand Canyon
> 
> Despicable Me
> 
> Resident Evil Afterlife
> 
> Bolt
> 
> A Christmas Carol
> 
> Legend of the Guardians.
> 
> 
> Ian B



Avatar 3D is BD Java enhanced. It does not let the Oppo 93 do any "zooming" or horizontal stretch. I have the RS40, ISCO II (in place all the time) and Oppo 93 and can confirm it doesn't work with AVATAR 3D. If you are getting it to work on your system, could you please help me with my settings. Despicable me works fine as does Legend of the guardians.


----------



## ImmortalJman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/19687509
> 
> 
> The text states dual projectors, so dual anamorphic lenses too?



Sorry, it's been a while because I got short noticed deployed and didn't notice this until now but yes it will be dual anamorphic as well.


I have only a month and a half left and then I can start my build. I will definitely have a build forum for those that are interested in this next gen undertaking which I dare say, I haven't seen anyone do yet. That is, a Dual projection, polarized , anamorphic theatre that can play any bluray content. Mine will and the joy of the tests I had before I left is keeping me going.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ImmortalJman* /forum/post/20395844
> 
> 
> Sorry, it's been a while because I got short noticed deployed and didn't notice this until now but yes it will be dual anamorphic as well.



Sounds like it is going to be a wild set up. Look forward to the pics.


----------



## phansson

Ok, I am sick of my Oppo 93 because it does not "stretch" some ALL 3D titles. I use an A-lens in place all the time for my 2.37 screen, so if a title is encoded with Java you cannot "stretch". I have had success with some other 3D titles (pirahna, despicable me, Legend of the guardians).


Example of some "Java" titles, while not a ton of them, they are GREAT ones.

How to train your dragon

Avatar

Megamind


I want a Blu Ray player that will give me some options, I don't want (nor can I afford) an external scaler.


Any suggestions?


----------



## Josh Z

Quote:

Originally Posted by *phansson* 
I want a Blu Ray player that will give me some options, I don't want (nor can I afford) an external scaler.
It's not really OPPO's fault. It's the disc authors' fault for using Java and not caring about CIH.


Right now, I don't believe you have any options other than an external scaler (Radiance Mini). OPPO is aware of this issue and has been working on it. If it ever becomes possible for the BDP-93 to stretch 3D discs with Java, I'm sure they'll issue a firmware update.


----------



## phansson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z* /forum/post/20475344
> 
> 
> It's not really OPPO's fault. It's the disc authors' fault for using Java and not caring about CIH.
> 
> 
> Right now, I don't believe you have any options other than an external scaler (Radiance Mini). OPPO is aware of this issue and has been working on it. If it ever becomes possible for the BDP-93 to stretch 3D discs with Java, I'm sure they'll issue a firmware update.



Yes, I understand it is not really "oppo's" fault. I did not know what you couldn't stretch a java 3D disc before I purchased it though. I was under the impression that ANY 3D disc could be modified.


I agree that Oppo will fix it if they can, I am just betting that the 93 doesn't have the processing power.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *phansson* /forum/post/20476110
> 
> 
> I was under the impression that ANY 3D disc could be modified.



Didn't we all? AFAIK, the ONLY plug-n-play solution for 3D Scope is the Mitsubishi HC9000. Everything else requires external processing.


----------



## raydenalex

thanks for the information that I think will be useful.


----------



## CAVX

Your welcome


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/20479099
> 
> 
> the ONLY plug-n-play solution for 3D Scope is the Mitsubishi HC9000.



For know im sure JVC next release will be able to do it also. Its why im sitting on the fence.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/20558299
> 
> 
> For know im sure JVC next release will be able to do it also. Its why im sitting on the fence.



Yeah I would like to get a JVC for the blacks. It would be really good it they can make it do CIH in 3D.


----------



## Highjinx

Quote:

Originally Posted by *CAVX* 
Yeah I would like to get a JVC for the blacks. It would be really good it they can make it do CIH in 3D.
It seems JVC operate on a 2year cycle, at least since the RS1/HD-1 series. No doubt improvements and features will be added...the question is when?


But this time(considering the current issues) they should break with tradition and introduce a X10/RS70 in September with much improved brightness and a better feature set such lens memory







and a working auto calibration setup in conjunction with Spectracal....haven't heard much about the RS50-X7/RS60-X9 calibration collaboration effort.


----------



## CAVX

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Highjinx* 
It seems JVC operate on a 2year cycle, at least since the RS1/HD-1 series. No doubt improvements and features will be added...the question is when?
Maybe CEDIA next year.

Quote:

But this time(considering the current issues) they should break with tradition and introduce a X10/RS70 in September with much improved brightness and a better feature set such lens memory







and a working auto calibration setup in conjunction with Spectracal....haven't heard much about the RS50-X7/RS60-X9 calibration collaboration effort.
I agree the projectors calibration needs a tweak. It works but is a bit quirky and takes time to work out what it wants to do because it does not correspond directly to the IRE scale with the calibration software like HCFR.


----------



## Highjinx

The JVC Spectracal collaboration was announced in Feb 2011, but not much has been heard since. Perhaps the next version will be more polished and better intergrated.

http://www.proavmagazine.com/project...libration.aspx 

JVC, SpectraCal Partner on Projector Calibration


JVC Professional Products Co. announced its collaboration with SpectraCal to create a custom calibration interface within the CalMAN Commercial software for the new JVC DLA-RS60U and DLA-RS50U 3D-enabled D-ILA Reference Series projectors. The software was demonstrated last week at the 2011 HPA Tech Retreat, the annual conference of the Hollywood Post Alliance trade association.


Calibrating projectors has generally been a complicated process using on-screen menus and a remote control. With CalMAN's Direct Device Control (DDC) interface, however, the process is as simple as adjusting the relative height of bars on a chart, according to JVC officials. CalMAN directly communicates with the JVC projector and measures the result of each change to achieve the desired result.


"The new interactive interface streamlines the calibration process while providing full reporting for tracking results," said Gary Klasmeier, product engineering manager for D-ILA Systems at JVC Professional Products Co., in a statement. "It organizes the workflow into a consistent and repeatable procedure for a number of adjustments, which improves accuracy and efficiency."


CalMAN offers three levels of support for JVC's DLA-RS60 and DLA-RS50 projectors. It provides access to individual projector controls, such as brightness and contrast adjustments, on the computer interface without requiring a remote control. Its interactive charts allow the calibrator to set the projector output to any desired standards. Plus, a new "one-button" CalMAN-AC automated calibration solution automatically adjusts all settings across multiple measurement points as a single operation.


With its control over the projector's color management system (CMS), adjustments that used to require hours can be accomplished in minutes, according to the partners. "CMS work is notoriously complicated and difficult to get right," said Derek Smith, SpectraCal CEO, in a statement. "With the CMS interfaces in the new JVC line, and CalMAN's DDC, you can create stunningly beautiful and accurate imagesand you don't need a Ph.D. in physics and all day to make it happen."


The flagship projector of the JVC Reference Series product line, the DLA-RS60U delivers 100,000:1 native contrast ratio, which is achieved through JVC's wire-grid optical engine and D-ILA imagers, not a dynamic iris to artificially enhance contrast specifications, according to the company. The DLA-RS50U offers 70,000:1 native contrast ratio. Both projectors support custom gamma tables, color space, and color point, and are THX and ISF certified.


CalMAN Commercial is priced at $2,495 and is available now. SpectraCal also offers CalMAN Expert, which is priced at $1,495 but does not offer CalMAN-AC automated calibration. An evaluation version of the software is available at www.spectracal.com .


----------



## CAVX

Whilst this is something I see as good thing for the extreme enthusiast, I do wonder how it will affect the business of calibrators. Think of it like this - time is money. If someone is willing to spend few hundred on ISF calibration and it takes a few hours to have done, would they still be willing to spend that money if it took just a few minutes?


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Whilst this is something I see as good thing for the extreme enthusiast, I do wonder how it will affect the business of calibrators. Think of it like this - time is money. If someone is willing to spend few hundred on ISF calibration and it takes a few hours to have done, would they still be willing to spend that money if it took just a few minutes?



Yes


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/20561716
> 
> 
> Yes



I have to say that would be because you know the benefits and the outcome. If you were totally knew to calibration, would you still feel the same?


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I have to say that would be because you know the benefits and the outcome. If you were totally knew to calibration, would you still feel the same?



Nope! I tell you why I've have a few friends with pioneer panels that have isf calibration on them and they don't even touch them. They dont even care so it's a waste for them. So your right Mark to the regular Joe it's a useless feature.


----------



## Josh Z

So, back to the original subject, I have a question about 3D with an anamorphic lens.


I have a Panamorph lens and I'm projecting at a pretty short throw. I've noticed that the lens stretch is uneven. It stretches more on the ends than in the center. This is really only noticeable on geometry test patterns, not on real content, so it's never bothered me.


However, I'm wondering if this has a negative effect on the offset between the left and right eye images in 3D? I was watching Tron Legacy with the lens last night and can't say I was all that impressed with the 3D. I've heard complaints that this disc doesn't have much 3D depth, and that could be the case. But I watched a few scenes from it again afterward in 16:9 format with my lens removed, and maybe I was just imagining it, but the 3D seemed to be slightly better. Not significantly, but perhaps slightly.


Anyone have more experience testing this?


----------



## coolrda

I too noticed this with my Panamorph. Haven't noticed with my Isco. As far as Tron goes it does have a very natural 3D depth of picture much like Avatar, which also had it's share off complaints. In the case of Tron it's accentuated due to the darkness of the world. If you A/B the 2d vs the 3d you will notice a big difference. Because we see in 3d in a subtle natural way we want are movies to be over the top and in your face with ridiculous pseudo 3d effects common in some 3d movies. That's cool for theme parks but not movies.


----------



## Jrek

I have watched with and without, and without the lens I do get better results with 3d so I do zooming method now for 2.35 and I have total black around screen and also with glasses on really no idea your zooming. I really went back and forth between lens no lens with 3d and I just think without looks better. I also have side masking for other aspect ratios and was surprise that with glasses on you don't even notice side bars I started watching avatar and didn't even no I had't set the side masking. Try both see what looks better to you thats what matters most anyway. Thanks Jim


----------



## Pete

How does 3D get handled with a 2.35 chipped projector?


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jrek* /forum/post/20571429
> 
> 
> I have watched with and without, and without the lens I do get better results with 3d so I do zooming method now for 2.35 and I have total black around screen and also with glasses on really no idea your zooming. I really went back and forth between lens no lens with 3d and I just think without looks better. I also have side masking for other aspect ratios and was surprise that with glasses on you don't even notice side bars I started watching avatar and didn't even no I had't set the side masking. Try both see what looks better to you thats what matters most anyway. Thanks Jim



Which A-lens are you using? How does it look better?


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/20570906
> 
> 
> As far as Tron goes it does have a very natural 3D depth of picture much like Avatar, which also had it's share off complaints. In the case of Tron it's accentuated due to the darkness of the world. If you A/B the 2d vs the 3d you will notice a big difference. Because we see in 3d in a subtle natural way we want are movies to be over the top and in your face with ridiculous pseudo 3d effects common in some 3d movies. That's cool for theme parks but not movies.



There were numerous scenes in Tron where I took off my glasses and didn't see any difference between 2D and 3D (I'm talking Grid scenes, not the "real world" scenes which are supposed to be 2D). There was no, or virtually no, parallax offset in images.


The movie has a few moments of "Wow" depth, but not that many on the whole. Scenes like the light cycle race were clearly designed to take advantage of the 3D, but didn't really. The 3D trailers for this I saw theatrically had more depth than what I'm seeing on the Blu-ray.


This seems to be a common complaint in the 3D forums on this site.


----------



## Jrek

I'm using anamorphic research lens and it's not really better just can't really explain it I did alot and I mean alot of testing with without same scenes over and over trying all kinds of settings and in the end without the lens with 3d looked cleaner I was able to dail in the picture better no ghosting and little more depth I don't know try it and see thats all i can say. Thanks Jim


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jrek* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'm using anamorphic research lens and it's not really better just can't really explain it I did alot and I mean alot of testing with without same scenes over and over trying all kinds of settings and in the end without the lens with 3d looked cleaner I was able to dail in the picture better no ghosting and little more depth I don't know try it and see thats all i can say. Thanks Jim



No offense but that's not a lens IMO, well not a high performance one. I would be surprised if anything requiring sharp focus and uniformity looks good (better) through it. You should not see any issues with 3D with an Isco.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/20573084
> 
> 
> You should not see any issues with 3D with an Isco.



+1 or any high end cylindrical with fully corrected optics.


----------



## Highjinx

I had a post a while back that for 3D anamorphic lenses would have to be of a superior quality than what could be considered acceptable for 2D. Appears so.


...also thinking that projector contrast is not as important for 3D as it is for 2D as the depth is created by the two frames....sure won't hurt but perhaps not as important?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/20575644
> 
> 
> I had a post a while back that for 3D anamorphic lenses would have to be of a superior quality than what could be considered acceptable for 2D. Appears so.



He was referring to a set of trophies Vs a real cylindrical anamorphic lens. They are not even in the same league.




> Quote:
> ...also thinking that projector contrast is not as important for 3D as it is for 2D as the depth is created by the two frames....sure won't hurt but perhaps not as important?



Contrast is important for 3D IMO.


----------



## Highjinx




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/20575905
> 
> 
> He was referring to a set of trophies Vs a real cylindrical anamorphic lens. They are not even in the same league.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contrast is important for 3D IMO.



What I mean't was a higher quality A-Lens is required for 3D to provide an acceptbly good image, where as for 2D the quality point may not need to be as high for similar results.



Re the CR remark, I notice the JVC's open up the iris to max thus lowering the on/Off CR in 3D mode so maximum light can be produced.


I was just wondering since the visual depth is created by the two frames, if a high CR is perhaps not as important for 3D(though it won't hurt!) as it is for 2D.


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/20579430
> 
> 
> What I mean't was a higher quality A-Lens is required for 3D to provide an acceptbly good image, where as for 2D the quality point may not need to be as high for similar results.
> 
> 
> 
> Re the CR remark, I notice the JVC's open up the iris to max thus lowering the on/Off CR in 3D mode so maximum light can be produced.
> 
> 
> I was just wondering since the visual depth is created by the two frames, if a high CR is perhaps not as important for 3D(though it won't hurt!) as it is for 2D.



CR is just as important in 3D IMO. No different that 2D. The reason JVC opens up the iris is becasue they need every photon out of a relatively dim PJ. You lose a ballpark 50% equivilant lumens+ for 3D output and active glasses (may be much higher), so with an already low base, they can't afford to run high contrast mode and 3D. For the best 3D, you need a light cannon IMO. I prescribe Digital Projection for that task.


----------



## Highjinx

I'd be quite happy if JVC could provide 350 lumens in 3D mode from behind the glasses......that would be around 2350 lumens from the projector.


Do you think they could do it......perhaps a multiple lamp approach?


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/20579904
> 
> 
> I'd be quite happy if JVC could provide 350 lumens in 3D mode from behind the glasses......that would be around 2350 lumens from the projector.
> 
> 
> Do you think they could do it......perhaps a multiple lamp approach?



Sure, I could make a lengthy wish list of specs. But, not gonna happen. For under 6+ figures and a long time anyway.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/20579430
> 
> 
> What I mean't was a higher quality A-Lens is required for 3D to provide an acceptbly good image, where as for 2D the quality point may not need to be as high for similar results.



If you intend to use and A-Lens for a 2D/3D system, then you need the best A-Lens for both not just 3D.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cavx* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> if you intend to use and a-lens for a 2d/3d system, then you need the best a-lens for both not just 3d.



+1


----------



## Highjinx




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/20580704
> 
> 
> If you intend to use and A-Lens for a 2D/3D system, then you need the best A-Lens for both not just 3D.



Agree.....all I was saying that I think 3D demands better focus uniformity across the screen to maintain the 3D effect. Where as with 2D it's not as critical though desireable.


Non corrected optics of yester year that was 'ok' for 2D won't cut it for 3D?....yes?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/20580720
> 
> 
> Agree.....all I was saying that I think 3D demands better focus uniformity across the screen to maintain the 3D effect. Where as with 2D it's not as critical though desireable.



Yet when I tested the Mitsubishi HC9000 in 3D, I found that a CA corrected prism lens (with an Astigmatism Corrector) worked quite well. I had my fully corrected cylindrical lens siting there and would have used it if the prism lens didn't cut it. It did, so I just used it for the 2 days I had the 3D projector.



> Quote:
> Non corrected optics of yester year that was 'ok' for 2D won't cut it for 3D?....yes?



Won't cut it period and the images I posted HERE (post #28) clearly show this. I only used them from 2006~2008 because at the time there was nothing in the way of corrected A-Lenses under about $10K that would work with my set up. In 2009, an ISCO IIIL was listed at $18K in AU.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> In 2009, an ISCO IIIL was listed at $18K in AU.



Still is that price?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/20581419
> 
> 
> Still is that price?



The last I heard they could be bought for $12K AUD.


----------



## GetGray

About to run an AVS special, CineSlide and Isco 4 under $8k. PM me for details.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> About to run an AVS special, CineSlide and Isco 4 under $8k. PM me for details.



Not bad Scott.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/20584032
> 
> 
> About to run an AVS special, CineSlide and Isco 4 under $8k. PM me for details.



So apart from size, is there any difference between the IIIL and the 4?


----------



## GetGray

Quote:

Originally Posted by *CAVX* 
So apart from size, is there any difference between the IIIL and the 4?
Yes. Slightly better.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/20594938
> 
> 
> Yes. Slightly better.



Optically?


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Optically?



Maybe slightly better in it's build quality??


----------



## CAVX

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Franin* 
Maybe slightly better in it's build quality??
Come to think of it, didn't Scott have an ISCO 4 thread?


----------



## Franin

Quote:

Originally Posted by *CAVX*
Come to think of it, didn't Scott have an ISCO 4 thread?
Don't remember Mark.


----------



## CAVX

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Franin* 
Don't remember Mark.
 FOUND IT! It had slipped down to page 2 and like "the one ring", was lost


----------



## Franin

Quote:

Originally Posted by *CAVX*
FOUND IT! It had slipped down to page 2 and like "the one ring", was lost








I guess it's been awhile.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/20596926
> 
> 
> I guess it's been awhile.



Yeah and the focus seems to be on a smallish wedge shaped lens right now rather than a HUGE round lens.


----------



## Pete

I'm told that the Lumis 3D Solo is one of the few active 3D projectors that allows vertical stretch in 3D. I got to see one of these recently and it was very nice...probably the best 3D I have experienced so far. Triple flash and high brightness (along with 3-chip DLP) are differentiating factors, but they come at a premium. The silver lining: you only need one anamorphic lens.


----------



## 230-SEAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pete* /forum/post/20602393
> 
> 
> you only need one anamorphic lens.



And about $50,000.00 to blow on a projector, lol.


-Sean


----------



## Pete




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *230-SEAN* /forum/post/20602927
> 
> 
> And about $50,000.00 to blow on a projector, lol.
> 
> 
> -Sean



I think the Runco D73 is about the same money. The DPI Titen 3D rig is right up there. You could easily spend $50K on two ISCO's, two sleds, and two so-so projectors and not get as good a result. Two Panamorphs and two entry level projectors would work, but it would be a big come down for anyone who has seen a Solo. The SXRD/LCOS active 3D projectors are way to dim and slow to project a big immersive punchy artifact-free image. Don't get me wrong. $50K is out of my range too right now, but if I could afford it, I would have great conviction as to which 3D solution currently offered the best performance and value.


----------



## CAVX

At the affordable end, the Mitisubishi HC9000 also scales for CIH in 3D.


----------



## Pete




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/20604403
> 
> 
> At the affordable end, the Mitisubishi HC9000 also scales for CIH in 3D.



Not a bad projector, but because of SXRD it is somewhat light challenged when it comes to larger screen sizes (after 3D processing and dark glasses). My sense is that the bigger the screen, the more immersive and enjoyable the 3D experience. So it helps to start out with high brightness.


----------



## CAVX

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Pete* 
Not a bad projector, but because of SXRD it is somewhat light challenged when it comes to larger screen sizes (after 3D processing and dark glasses). My sense is that the bigger the screen, the more immersive and enjoyable the 3D experience. So it helps to start out with high brightness.
For the last two CIH demos I've run, I've used the HC9000 projecting onto a 125" screen and it seems to be OK. Your right, when you first put on the glasses, the image brightness takes a big hit, but your eyes adjust quickly and it was quite good. Even AVATAR and TRON LEGACY which are both quite a dark films were good at that size.


----------



## Pete

I guess it's a question of how one defines "larger screen size". For me that means something in the 11-12ft+ range (2.40 width).


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pete* /forum/post/20611364
> 
> 
> I guess it's a question of how one defines "larger screen size". For me that means something in the 11-12ft+ range (2.40 width).



I have a freind with a 3.6m (approx 12 feet) wide Scope 3D set up that uses the JVC X3 and Aussiemorphic MK4. I find his images to be bright enough even with the glasses. And yes the extra size makes a difference for both 2D and 3D.


----------



## GetGray

I get almost 20ftL on a 11' wide (56" tall) screen. I admit it's bright but I prefer it that way. Anyone who owns a Sim2 Lumis says the same. Once you have bright you can never go dim







. I can't imagine that PJ being bright enough in 2D mode on a 12' screen, and whack it by 50-60% with glasses. My eyes would protest.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray* /forum/post/20614244
> 
> 
> I can't imagine that PJ being bright enough in 2D mode on a 12' screen, and whack it by 50-60% with glasses. My eyes would protest.



I would have thought so too. It is amazing how fast the eye responds to the darker image in 3D with the glasses on.


----------



## GetGray

Interesting. I have only seen it at shows and while I watched a good while, never in a properly "tuned" HT enviroment, so you are up on my experience there.


----------



## CAVX

Exactly. I was not super impressed by what I saw at CEDIA, yet having set one up in a dedicated HT, and after calibration, I was quite impressed with what you get for the money.


----------



## coolrda

Despite my setup, my fascination with 3D has waned. It looks fantastic but after 20 or so movies its no longer the preferred method of viewing. Mainly because of the cumbersome glasses and lumen-loss.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/20618298
> 
> 
> Despite my setup, my fascination with 3D has waned. It looks fantastic but after 20 or so movies its no longer the preferred method of viewing. Mainly because of the cumbersome glasses and lumen-loss.



I don't even have it yet and after going to see KUNG FU PANDA 2 in the cinema, I am starting to agree as the colours lose their luster through the glasses. What I will say in a positive note for 3D though is that because of the need to really carefully compose shots for 3D to work, the 2D counter parts seem to be more enjoyable to watch.


----------



## Pete

Until I saw 3D a week ago on the new Lumis 3D Solo, I was indifferent about it. Now I understand how great it can be...no fatigue, no flickering...bright and smooth and easy on the eyes...no compromises to color. The only downside is that to achieve this level of performance you need to belly up with the bucks. All the affordable 3D options (relative to the Solo) are compromised in one way or another. Yet all too many folks have been basing their less-than-enthusiastic opinions of 3D on their exposure to these and to commercial theater presentations which are, for the most part, horrible.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pete* /forum/post/20625097
> 
> 
> Until I saw 3D a week ago on the new Lumis 3D Solo, I was indifferent about it. Now I understand how great it can be...no fatigue, no flickering...bright and smooth and easy on the eyes...no compromises to color. The only downside is that to achieve this level of performance you need to belly up with the bucks. All the affordable 3D options (relative to the Solo) are compromised in one way or another. Yet all too many folks have been basing their less-than-enthusiastic opinions of 3D on their exposure to these and to commercial theater presentations which are, for the most part, horrible.



I've seen all the best 3D with these highend FP's and while I agree its better than what I have, I've lost interest quickly. 2D has progressed to the point that the difference is small. When you have owner's complaining that they don't see a lot of difference with 3D, its a testament to how far 2D and projectors have come. Even with a 10000 lumen Barco you still have to wear glasses. When I can get 3d without the glasses, maybe I'll change my mind. I guess compared to what we got with 3d sound, digital 5.1 and so forth, its just not a big step up. The fact that I have to remove the glasses to compare the picture whether at home or at the movies says a lot. In fact I have to look at the picture near the frame to make sure its 3d.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/20628030
> 
> 
> 2D has progressed to the point that the difference is small. When you have owner's complaining that they don't see a lot of difference with 3D, its a testament to how far 2D and projectors have come.



I watched TANGLED in 2D the night which was created as a 3D film. The 2D version of the film was stunning and I do wonder if this 'improvement' is because they now have to really carefully compose each shot to make the 3D actually work.


TRON LEGACY was another that I saw in 3D in the cinema, but found the 2D version on BD to be almost a better experience possibly because it was so dark. Yet I found AVATAR to be the other way where I prefer the 3D version of the film.


----------



## ABCTV99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/20630410
> 
> 
> I watched TANGLED in 2D the night which was created as a 3D film. The 2D version of the film was stunning and I do wonder if this 'improvement' is because they now have to really carefully compose each shot to make the 3D actually work.
> 
> 
> TRON LEGACY was another that I saw in 3D in the cinema, but found the 2D version on BD to be almost a better experience possibly because it was so dark. Yet I found AVATAR to be the other way where I prefer the 3D version of the film.



Well there's a lot of ironing out in the stereoscopic process still going on and the methodology isn't yet standardized. For all the marketing hype surrounding 3D, the physical production process is still taking baby steps, everyone is kinda learning as they go. For example, lots of blacks do not always work as well in stereo as they do in 2D primarily because it hides edges, so its hard to establish separation between objects to denote depth, especially people and objects converged deep in the background. CAVX is right that darker movies _can_ be more challenging for 3D though _Tron Legacy_ is weird because it exists in kinda a wireframe world.


Objects converged forward can also suffer.In 2D for example we recognize someone is wearing a black shirt against a dark background, but if you converge that same person forward in stereo and aren't careful you can end up with what appears to just be a floating head because the black object in the foreground may not be that distinguishable from the background especially if the face and arms are pulled several pixels towards the audience. This gets further compounded if the character or object is a room of mostly negative space or white limbo. How do you know what forward or backward (stereoscopic depth) is without a point of reference?


Many movies today that are stereoscopic presentations are conversions from 2D for a myriad of reasons - actually shooting in 3D can cause more problems than it solves. Add to that, no director making a movie with the kinda budget where it will be shown as 3D will want to compromise their vision for technical restrictions unless you're Michael Bay or James Cameron and have whatever you want at your disposal to make up the difference (and Bay was not all that thrilled with either 3D or having to shoot part of his movie digitally). Additionally, some stereographers play it safe to coolrda's point and rely on gags as opposed to trying to create really 'deep,' aggressive 3D scenes. _Thor_ comes to mind as a movie where the 3D didn't really jump out at you. _Avatar_ had the advantage of being both almost completely digital and shot with a 3D rig so the stereo supervisor had the best of both worlds to create the best possible experience (they also had a lot of money and time which never hurts).


----------



## UdoG

Any news about PJ wich support anamorphic lens in 3D? What are about the upcoming JVC DLA-X35?


----------



## RLBURNSIDE

I'm also curious about this. I read the super cheap Benq supports Anamorphic so if I buy that, then find a cheap enough A-lens on ebay, I'm hoping to get some decent ultra-widescreen 3d gaming action on!!


Does 3D need a special lens? for polarized light. I guess it might...hmmm. Maybe if the colours get misaligned ever-so-slightly with the cheaper lenses, that would wreack havoc on polarized light too. //profess ignorance on this subject. It's interesting, for sure.


----------



## biliam1982

I'm also wanting to know about this. I was able to get a good deal on a Panamorph 480 and want to pair it w/ one of the new projectors. Anyone know if the new Epson 6020 or Sony HW50 can do Anamorphic support in 3D mode?


----------



## UdoG

HW50 supports only horizontal squeeze in 3d.


----------



## biliam1982

What exactly does Horizontal Squeeze do? If I was to pair this w/ a Panamorph which is a Horizontal Expansion lens, would it not work in 3D mode? Thanks.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *biliam1982*  /t/1276563/question-about-3d-and-anamorphic-lens/180#post_22603082
> 
> 
> What exactly does Horizontal Squeeze do? If I was to pair this w/ a Panamorph which is a Horizontal Expansion lens, would it not work in 3D mode? Thanks.



The Horizontal Squeeze mode is actually the 4 x 3 mode in many projectors. When used to scale 16:9 (horizontally squeeze), every fourth line is removed to allow 1920 x 1080 to be mapped as 1440 x 1080 which is then optically expanded by the anamorphic lens. You use this mode when leaving the A-Lens in place all the time.


Assuming the projector can scale for CIH in 3D, this HS mode should work as well.


----------



## biliam1982




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX*  /t/1276563/question-about-3d-and-anamorphic-lens/180#post_22606411
> 
> 
> The Horizontal Squeeze mode is actually the 4 x 3 mode in many projectors. When used to scale 16:9 (horizontally squeeze), every fourth line is removed to allow 1920 x 1080 to be mapped as 1440 x 1080 which is then optically expanded by the anamorphic lens. You use this mode when leaving the A-Lens in place all the time.
> 
> Assuming the projector can scale for CIH in 3D, this HS mode should work as well.



Got it, thanks!


----------



## UdoG

If you activate the horizontally squeeze modus on the HW50 (from a 16:9 source) - will the picture squeeze like the red or green sample? or is this the vertical squeeze which is not supported in 3D?


----------



## biliam1982




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *UdoG*  /t/1276563/question-about-3d-and-anamorphic-lens/180#post_22616351
> 
> 
> If you activate the horizontally squeeze modus on the HW50 (from a 16:9 source) - will the picture squeeze like the red or green sample? or is this the vertical squeeze which is not supported in 3D?



From what I gather, it will look like the green circled image. Used for keeping an anamorphic lens in front of the projector all the time so the lens will re-stretch the now squeezed image of 4:3 aspect ratio back to it's original aspect ratio of 16:9. But it does so at the cost of losing some resolution because the horizontal squeeze takes away something like every 4th line of resolution to reduce the image to 4:3.


Also correct, the HW50 does not support 3D mode and the vertical stretch at the same time. I recently confirmed from Epson customer support and Dave at Panamorph that the Epson 6020 does allow both 3D mode and vertical stretch at the same time.


----------



## UdoG

As far as I know the following PJ will support anamorphic lens in 3D:


- Mitsubishi HC9000

- Mitsubishi HC5

- Epson 6010 (9000 EU)

- Epson 6020 (9100 EU)


What are about the new JVC's? Which model supports anamorphic lens in 3D?


Others:


- Sony HW50ES (only in 2D)

- JVC DLA-X30 (only in 2D)


----------



## John Schuermann

It's my understanding that all of the new JVCs will support anamorphic and 3D.


----------



## avsforumsdsd

Looks nice Mark! There is talk that the Oppo 93 is in fact able to vertically stretch 3d, as long as the disc doesn't want to run java durring playback. This is just what I've read, no first hand experience. Oh, and you are able to use the MK4 with the X3 at a 1.4 TR? That's pretty sweet!


----------



## Kelvin1965S




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Schuermann*  /t/1276563/question-about-3d-and-anamorphic-lens/180#post_22688841
> 
> 
> It's my understanding that all of the new JVCs will support anamorphic and 3D.



As I posted in the thread below this I tested 3D side by side last night on my X35. Although I don't have glasses and an emitter (not bothered by 3D myself) I can confirm that the anamorphic stretch and squeeze function worked on my projector in 3D. I don't have any 3D BluRays to test, but hopefully this confirms that the JVCs support anamorphic in 3D.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *avsforumsdsd*  /t/1276563/question-about-3d-and-anamorphic-lens/180#post_22702077
> 
> 
> Looks nice Mark! There is talk that the Oppo 93 is in fact able to vertically stretch 3d, as long as the disc doesn't want to run java durring playback. This is just what I've read, no first hand experience. Oh, and you are able to use the MK4 with the X3 at a 1.4 TR? That's pretty sweet!



It has been a while since I have had a chance to play with this gear. Last time I did, non Java 3D discs could be vertically stretched by the OPPO.


Yes the MK4 is working at that incredibly short TR with the JVC. X3.


----------



## dukeav

Folks,


As far as playback is concerned, most Realtek 1186 based players have a custom X Y Scaling option which works in 3D also.


One of the most promising players is MED1000X3D, which is also capable of Bluray 3D iso streaming over network. I recently bought this and am using it with Benq W7000.


The only drawback is that the scaling needs to be set done each time playback starts. I have created a feature request for this, http://www.mede8erforum.com/index.php/topic,9754.0.html , please vote there if you are interested.


Regards


----------

