# 2.35:1 PC Gaming - Powered by Lumagen



## SOWK

Lumagen,


Thank you for the new firmware update:


Production 101711- Added new capability for PC gaming with 2.35 screens. If you set up your PC for a 1920x816/817 output resolution almost all current games will render with a wider field of view. If you select 2.35 input aspect on the Radiance with this type of input mode the Radiance can then output it correctly on a 2.35 screen using either anamorphic lens (Radiance output aspect set to 2.35) or optical zoom (Radiance output aspect set to 1.78 aka 16:9).

*What does this do you may ask?*


Well it can take a PC Gaming setup from this:










*Normal 16:9 PC Gaming... Boring higher resolution, much more graphic detail, significantly more frames per second Console Experience. LOL.*





To this:










*"1337" (leet - for the un-gamers) 2:35 PC Gaming!!!! Exciting higher resolution, much more graphic detail, significantly more frames per second , and WIDE FOV elite gaming experience!!!*


What are the benefits?


- Wider Field of View in games with NO fisheye distortion

- The game is rendered at 1920X816 or 1920X817 you'll also have more performance then rendering at the full unimpressive 16X9...










* Lumagen Products are sold via AVS Science Store!!!!





*some more examples:


Battlefield 3




















































Bioshock


















Crysis 2





































































Portal 2


































Just Cause 2



































-

-

-

-

* Below - When the games are designed WRONG!!! They lose height and gain no FOV. (luckily very few games)


BulletStorm


----------



## mwehnes

SWOK,


Very exciting. I'm currently planning to purchase my first projector and scope screen. While gaming is currently way down on my importance list it is something I really want to try out.


I've done zero research into this. I'm glad to see there is a turn key solution to make this possible/easy. Skyrim should be amazing on my future 100"+ screen.


Matt


----------



## Trogdor2010

Thanks for your post SOWK, people like you keep PC gaming interesting.










I actually have been playing games in 2.35:1 for the past year, and I know the feeling of how awesome playing them are, I got a chance to play games like Crysis and Bad Company 2 on my friend's gaming rig, and I couldn't go back to console gaming. I think I put around 50 hours on my projector just on Team Fortress 2 in scope.


I however only needed to use powerstrip for this purpose, with a low end Toshiba laptop through a VGA cable and it's not hard at all to set up a custom resolution. It worked for most of the games I played on it, though there maybe the occasional bugger (Black Ops) that stretches it, there is usually a workaround for it. It sucked it really had to take Lumagen this long for them to adopt this.










If you are interested, my steam account has pictures of some of the games I played through this.

http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/7...4/screenshots/


----------



## SOWK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Trogdor2010* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> It sucked it really had to take Lumagen this long for them to adopt this.



No one brought it to their attention... Until I did 2 days ago...










Thats how fast they are at updating for their customers, less then a day later and they had an update!!!


Your using VGA?


----------



## Trogdor2010




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SOWK* /forum/post/21113737
> 
> 
> No one brought it to their attention... Until I did 2 days ago...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats how fast they are at updating for their customers, less then a day later and they had an update!!!
> 
> 
> Your using VGA?



My laptop does not have a digital output like HDMI, that's how entry level it is. I used a 12 foot wide (156 inch diagonal) 2.35:1 screen and a 1080p projector, and it looks pretty good actually.


What I liked about Powerstrip is that you can set up a custom resolution by using the "resolution in a resolution" feature that will send the signal as a 1920x1080 (or 1280x720) signal for example, and the output video appears as 1920x810 (or 1280x540). Very useful if you are using the zoom method. I used an anamorphic lens so I have to use V-Stretch (on my projector), but the results are the same.










I have tried out Nvidia's control panel (with HDMI) when I tried it on my friend's gaming rig, and I preferred this since the output video is stretched when shown in 16:9 mode (native mode shows the native signal), so I don't need to rely on my projector for stretching the picture. I played Crysis 1&2, Bad Company 2, and Duke Nukem Forever, and they work fine (except in cutscenes in Crysis 1, adds blacks bars on 16x9 based image, but doesn't cover the outer sides for example).


----------



## KBMAN

BTW, you are in 6th place


----------



## chomperoni

Can 2.35 gaming work for console too?


----------



## SOWK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chomperoni* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Can 2.35 gaming work for console too?



No. No way to have them output or render 1920x817.


----------



## nightfly85

that is some awesome scope sweetness!!!!


----------



## CAVX

You certainly have my attention. Why would anyone NOT want that? SMPTE and the EBU so need to push through the 21:9 TV format.


----------



## Tegiri Nenashi

Why did they cut 2 feet of space from the top and the bottom? Wouldn't majority of scenes benefit from extra vertical space? I can't see how you can enjoy rollercoaster ride simulation, or how would you shoot that pesky helicopter overhead, or even display a woman standing in a full glory. Oh, I forgot: this is embrasure view lovers forum.


----------



## SOWK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tegiri Nenashi* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Why did they cut 2 feet of space from the top and the bottom? Wouldn't majority of scenes benefit from extra vertical space? I can't see how you can enjoy rollercoaster ride simulation, or how would you shoot that pesky helicopter overhead, or even display a woman standing in a full glory. Oh, I forgot: this is embrasure view lovers forum.



Are you being serious?


If so, be happy with your 40" Sony 4x3 TV!

Attachment 226131


----------



## coolrda

Phenomenal. One of the best dem's ever, for showing the superiority of 2.35 over 16x9. Never mind the troll above. He doesn't seem to understand that our picture in picture is bigger than his TV.


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tegiri Nenashi* /forum/post/21121989
> 
> 
> Why did they cut 2 feet of space from the top and the bottom? Wouldn't majority of scenes benefit from extra vertical space? I can't see how you can enjoy rollercoaster ride simulation, or how would you shoot that pesky helicopter overhead, or even display a woman standing in a full glory. Oh, I forgot: this is embrasure view lovers forum.



Ever hear of a thing called "ceiling"?


----------



## SOWK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tegiri Nenashi* /forum/post/21121989
> 
> 
> Why did they cut 2 feet of space from the top and the bottom? Wouldn't majority of scenes benefit from extra vertical space? I can't see how you can enjoy rollercoaster ride simulation, or how would you shoot that pesky helicopter overhead, or even display a woman standing in a full glory. Oh, I forgot: this is embrasure view lovers forum.



To help you with your fantasies!!!










Here is a game designed to be CIW (Constant Image Width) *aka very few games.










2.35:1


VS.


Your wet dream:1












BUT...



When a game is designed for CIH (Constant Image Height) *aka most games!!!











VS.











You don't gain any information in the vertical field of view, just lose horizontal field of view.



Also,to this quote from another thread...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tegiri Nenashi* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Game scenes can be rendered in any AR, even on several side-by-side monitors. Yet widescreen propellerheads continue to perpetrate the myth that "modern games are designed for wide AR".



Most modern games are wide AR... As in the example above. And no, game scenes can not be rendered in any AR, it's what the engine and or tweaks the developer allows.


*Sorry for the crappy shots guys. These were with my girlfriends laptop.


----------



## Trogdor2010

Pac Man anyone?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Trogdor2010* /forum/post/21122961
> 
> 
> Pac Man anyone?



Bring on the 80's games


----------



## SOWK

Some Battlefield 3 shots added to main post


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SOWK* /forum/post/21123169
> 
> 
> Some Battlefield 3 shots added to main post



Your screen looks to be in 5x12 to 6x14 area.


----------



## SOWK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolrda* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Your screen looks to be in 5x12 to 6x14 area.



Yup. 150" wide. So 5.31x12.5


----------



## NORLL

@SOWK; May I ask how you set the right resolution for the games. Are these options in the game settings/console or do you achieve the correct pixel resolution with the Nvidia Driver Control Panel?


----------



## stevegravley

I got my JVC RS45 yesterday and wanted to share some images. I took these on my blackberry and the images are on a white wall. My theater is not built yet. Regardless, the setup at 2.35 is phenomenal and I will relish my time playing SWTOR and all other games in WIDEscreen.

*My desktop setup to 1920 x 816 using Catalyst*









*In game menu screen*









*A screenshot of Orcs Must Die*


----------



## d3coy3d

So you dont need a lumagen correct? Just out put the resolution as such?


----------



## ImmortalJman

I'm finishing my theater right now and the question I have is what setting I would use to incorporate an anamorphic lenses. I believe you're using the zoom method, right?


----------



## Trogdor2010




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *d3coy3d* /forum/post/21436934
> 
> 
> So you dont need a lumagen correct? Just out put the resolution as such?



All you need is to use the internal drivers for your graphics card (NVidia control Panel, Catalyst Control Center for ATI cards), or download powerstrip if you don't have them. For many recent games, it's mostly plug and play.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ImmortalJman* /forum/post/21438335
> 
> 
> I'm finishing my theater right now and the question I have is what setting I would use to incorporate an anamorphic lenses. I believe you're using the zoom method, right?



You should be able to use an A-lens by sending in a 1920x810 signal, and using your projector's V-stretch mode for it to work. It might even do the stretching for you, or if it does have a native setting (for it to work with zoom or stretch with projector).





Has anyone got a chance to play L.A. Noire on PC? I have a copy on steam and it will not let me select 1280x540, and I know I'll need to use widescreenfixer to do this.

http://www.widescreenfixer.org/ 


It would be awesome to play the game in an aspect ratio that is the same as the cutscenes in the game.


----------



## ImmortalJman

Yeah that's what I was thinking. I just haven't had time to play around with that yet as my equipment is still in boxes waiting for me to finish construction.


----------



## below90hz

OK I understand the concept of having more screen in your peripheral vision field, but losing resolution is _never_ a good thing.


Think about what you're doing, you're taking 1920x1080 (2,073,600 pixels) and chopping it down to 1920x810 (1,555,200 pixels). I think that's what Tegiri Nenashi was pointing out. You are choosing a wide ratio over resolution. Of course with 25% less pixels to render, you're going to get higher framerates. The tradeoff is less resolution. And most of us PC gamers are looking for max resolution, not less.


This is why many gamers stack 3 monitors side-by-side. They get the same wide-screen benefit but don't lose any resolution, in fact they gain it. 5760x1080 (6,220,800 pixels) looks amazing. Imagine if you stacked 2 or three projectors side-by-side. You would get twice or three times the resolution in the same space. Now THAT would be freakin awesome.


----------



## chomperoni

How much is the additional euipment that is needed to get 2.35:1 gaming?

Aside from usual home theatre equip.


----------



## chomperoni


which Lumagen unit are you using?

Can one achieve widescreen gaming using the zoom method ?


----------



## Trogdor2010




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chomperoni*  /t/1368295/2-35-1-pc-gaming-powered-by-lumagen#post_22508223
> 
> 
> How much is the additional euipment that is needed to get 2.35:1 gaming?
> 
> Aside from usual home theatre equip.



None, actually. You only need to use the graphics driver (Either Nvidia or ATI), or use Powerstrip if your computer doesn't have them or using VGA. When you do the custom resolution, you needing to make sure the timings MATCH the normal resolution. For Nvidia Control panel, you simply select customize resolution, and first make sure the timing below are set to *manual* before doing any resolution changes. Ideally, you should set the vertical resolution to manual to a multiple of 8 (example 1920x816).


> Quote:
> Think about what you're doing, you're taking 1920x1080 (2,073,600 pixels) and chopping it down to 1920x810 (1,555,200 pixels). I think that's what Tegiri Nenashi was pointing out. You are choosing a wide ratio over resolution. Of course with 25% less pixels to render, you're going to get higher framerates. The tradeoff is less resolution. And most of us PC gamers are looking for max resolution, not less.



There is less resolution but it's not nearly as serious as you think it is. It's more or less the same trade-off of how letterbox movies face. Issues in regards to brightness, optics, and environment are much more of a concern than resolution, especially since 1920x816 is actually very high resolution, and the HD standard was 1280x720 30 years ago! People from even 5 years ago thought it was extremely sharp!


----------



## chomperoni




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Trogdor2010*  /t/1368295/2-35-1-pc-gaming-powered-by-lumagen#post_22516524
> 
> 
> None, actually. You only need to use the graphics driver (Either Nvidia or ATI), or use Powerstrip if your computer doesn't have them or using VGA. When you do the custom resolution, you needing to make sure the timings MATCH the normal resolution. For Nvidia Control panel, you simply select customize resolution, and first make sure the timing below are set to *manual* before doing any resolution changes. Ideally, you should set the vertical resolution to manual to a multiple of 8 (example 1920x816).



So the resolution is dependent on the graphics card and also the projector resolution?


I was planning on running Hdmi from the pc to my receiver. Do you see any problem with this?


----------



## Trogdor2010




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chomperoni*  /t/1368295/2-35-1-pc-gaming-powered-by-lumagen/30#post_22545821
> 
> 
> So the resolution is dependent on the graphics card and also the projector resolution?
> 
> I was planning on running Hdmi from the pc to my receiver. Do you see any problem with this?



There shouldn't be any problems when using only your graphics card to do this. I even just made a video recently on how to do this that I hope makes it clear. (Note video only gives an example with Nvidia cards).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z91QpyCKAqw&feature=plcp


----------



## chomperoni

Wow! Great video.

Thanks for posting it.


----------



## RLBURNSIDE




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Trogdor2010*  /t/1368295/2-35-1-pc-gaming-powered-by-lumagen#post_21443296
> 
> 
> 
> All you need is to use the internal drivers for your graphics card (NVidia control Panel, Catalyst Control Center for ATI cards), or download powerstrip if you don't have them. For many recent games, it's mostly plug and play.
> 
> 
> You should be able to use an A-lens by sending in a 1920x810 signal, and using your projector's V-stretch mode for it to work. It might even do the stretching for you, or if it does have a native setting (for it to work with zoom or stretch with projector).
> 
> 
> Has anyone got a chance to play L.A. Noire on PC? I have a copy on steam and it will not let me select 1280x540, and I know I'll need to use widescreenfixer to do this.
> 
> http://www.widescreenfixer.org/
> 
> 
> It would be awesome to play the game in an aspect ratio that is the same as the cutscenes in the game.



Your tips have been invaluable! I'm running an AMD 6950 using HDMI out to my new BenQ w1070 3D projector, and even found that SBS 3D mode in the Tridef drivers work with the vertical stretch feature of the PJ. Meaning...in the new year I'll be able to build myself a CIH 2.35 : 1 setup


That said, I'm definitely going to pick up an NVIDIA Gfx card. First off, Skyrim glitches on lots of the environment shaders in Tridef (without Power 3D on, with it on they simply do not appear). There's a shader fix for stereo in dx9 but only for 3DTV Play / NVIDIA. I can always use my "old" 6950 when I upgrade to power my plasma TV when I have friends over for gaming.


Did I mention I LOVE widescreen??? Playing Skyrim in 3D using 1920x816 was a dream come true. It was INCREDIBLY annoying figuring out why it wasn't working, from having to bypass my receiver since it's only HDMI 1.3, to having to set catalyst to 1080i and THEN switch down to the custom resolution of 1920x816 to maintain the 60h interlaced so that side-by-side would work. Then when I quit the game the windows desktop is all messed up. What a hot mess this ATI 3D solution is.


----------



## Trogdor2010




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RLBURNSIDE*  /t/1368295/2-35-1-pc-gaming-powered-by-lumagen/30#post_22753738
> 
> 
> Your tips have been invaluable! I'm running an AMD 6950 using HDMI out to my new BenQ w1070 3D projector, and even found that SBS 3D mode in the Tridef drivers work with the vertical stretch feature of the PJ. Meaning...in the new year I'll be able to build myself a CIH 2.35 : 1 setup
> 
> That said, I'm definitely going to pick up an NVIDIA Gfx card. First off, Skyrim glitches on lots of the environment shaders in Tridef (without Power 3D on, with it on they simply do not appear). There's a shader fix for stereo in dx9 but only for 3DTV Play / NVIDIA. I can always use my "old" 6950 when I upgrade to power my plasma TV when I have friends over for gaming.
> 
> Did I mention I LOVE widescreen??? Playing Skyrim in 3D using 1920x816 was a dream come true. It was INCREDIBLY annoying figuring out why it wasn't working, from having to bypass my receiver since it's only HDMI 1.3, to having to set catalyst to 1080i and THEN switch down to the custom resolution of 1920x816 to maintain the 60h interlaced so that side-by-side would work. Then when I quit the game the windows desktop is all messed up. What a hot mess this ATI 3D solution is.




Edit: I misunderstood the term "invaluable", my mistake


I would like to add Skyrim does have problems when running on a wider aspect ratio out of the box (HUD problems). Widescreengamingforum.com has been pretty helpful in solving problems with games having such problems. Any other problems, you can consult the forums on the website.

http://www.wsgf.org/dr/elder-scrolls-v-skyrim/en


----------



## Trogdor2010

I made a new video that I hope streamlines the process better. There is still an issue with the recording device (Bandicam) that misframes the image, but I think this is an improvement over the previous video.


Start at 1:44 to begin the tutorial.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McrnSU3OZNc&list=HL1368122805&feature=mh_lolz 


1.)Right Click on Nvidia Control Panel.


2.) Select Display>change Resolution


3.) Scroll down and click Customize


4.)Select﻿ "Create Custom Resolution


5.) Select Timings, set "Standard" mini menu to "Manual"

*Note: Automatic can be used with an Anamorphic Lens set up as it stretches the image similarly to a scaler.


6.) Set "Vertical lines" to a multiple of 8

(recommended): For 1080p image, set to "816", For 720p image, set to "544"


7.)Select Test, a pop up will appear to ask whether the new resolution works. Select "Apply" and the image will revert back to it's original resolution.


8.) Make sure the custom resolution you selected﻿ is checked on the left.


9.) Select the custom resolution you created, usually it has it's own "custom HD" settings" and apply



If anyone has an AMD/ATI video card, I encourage anyone to create a Catalyst Control Center version of creating custom resolutions.


----------



## Trogdor2010

For the Heck of it, I decided to record a video of Sonic Generations in 2.35:1. Enjoy!









http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIlXSVjejGE 


Here is a vid of me playing Black Ops 2. I'll add more gameplay videos from other games on this post.

Call of Duty Black Ops 2: 2.35:1 online Gameplay - YouTube


----------



## chomperoni




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Trogdor2010*  /t/1368295/2-35-1-pc-gaming-powered-by-lumagen/30#post_23298617
> 
> 
> For the Heck of it, I decided to record a video of Sonic Generations in 2.35:1. Enjoy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIlXSVjejGE
> 
> 
> Here is a vid of me playing Black Ops 2. I'll add more gameplay videos from other games on this post.
> 
> Call of Duty Black Ops 2: 2.35:1 online Gameplay - YouTube




Very cool !!


----------



## DrZaus

How big is that screen for 235:1 viewing? what projector are u using.. picture is very bright..


----------



## blastermaster

I'm looking forward to doing this with my setup once I get my HTPC. However, you don't need to go through all of that if your projector has the proper stretch mode and you have a lens. And, yes, you CAN do this with a console with that setup. The issue is whether or not you are going to miss information on the top and bottom of the screen, as some will be cut off. You can't get information that isn't available, so I don't understand SOWK's images on the first page. They make it appear as if MORE information is being displayed in 2.35 mode. Again, if games are designed in 16:9, how is that possible?


----------



## CyclistMT




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *blastermaster*  /t/1368295/2-35-1-pc-gaming-powered-by-lumagen/30#post_23690926
> 
> 
> I'm looking forward to doing this with my setup once I get my HTPC. However, you don't need to go through all of that if your projector has the proper stretch mode and you have a lens. And, yes, you CAN do this with a console with that setup. The issue is whether or not you are going to miss information on the top and bottom of the screen, as some will be cut off. You can't get information that isn't available, so I don't understand SOWK's images on the first page. They make it appear as if MORE information is being displayed in 2.35 mode. Again, if games are designed in 16:9, how is that possible?



Because there IS more information being displayed in 2.35 mode. The game engine is basically rendering a 360 degree world but you don't see all of it at one time. The view is just occluded until you turn your avatar in the game and then you can a new portion of the world but then another part of your view is being occluded. However, the entire world is still there.


And no, you CAN'T do this with a console. The reason you can do this with a PC is because you can set a custom resolution which allows additional information (increased field of view) to be shown. Consoles games are coded to a specific aspect ratio although they may include multiple ratios (16:9 and 4:3 typically). If you have the choice between 4:3 and 16:9, you should be gaining additional information in 16:9 (although I suspect some games just stretch). The user has no control to change the resolution beyond what the developer coded. Using a lens and stretching a console image is doing only that, stretching it. But manipulating the resolution on a PC game reveals more of the game world.


----------



## blastermaster

Ok, that's awesome. I'm totally going to do this once I get my new rig. Now I'm impatient. Holy crap when I get Dark Souls up and running with mods and 2.35:1 ratio...I don't think I'm going to leave the basement.


----------



## turls

Couple questions, I have a zoom setup (no A-Lens):

Is there any reason to get Powerstrip with newer Nvidia drivers that let you create custom resolutions?

Has anybody gotten Titanfall to work correctly? Even when I set my resolution to 2.25 ratio, Windows 8.1 desktop looks fine, custom res shows up in Titanfall and is chosen, it STILL tries to use the full native panel resolution.


----------



## RLBURNSIDE

SOWK said:


> Quote:Originally Posted by *chomperoni*
> 
> Can 2.35 gaming work for console too?
> 
> 
> No. No way to have them output or render 1920x817.


As a guy who makes console games, that's wrong. Yes you cannot change the native res that your console uses away from 1080p or 720p, but internally you can render in whatever aspect ratio you like, letterbox or anamorphic, and in whatever frame buffer res you like such as 900p that the Xbox One often uses to gain 60fps in normally 1080p games. The hardware scalers on these consoles are extremely good, but one big unknown is whether you had a frame buffer at a non-16:9 aspect ratio, will the scaler scale anamorphically to end up with a final frame size of 1080p with all pixels non-black.

On PC when you make a custom res from 1080p, to 1920x810 or 816, you're still sending 1080p over the wire, it's just sending black pixels in the letterbox areas, and it's just the electronics higher up such as the lumagen or the projector itself are detecting black bars and scretching upwards electronically. It's not voodoo science to detect black bars, ya know  It's even done automatically.

I'm in the process of doing it for Ps4 and Xb1 games (can enable it in the menu), because I'm a projector aficionado who loves this stuff 

I just got my A-lens and the cinema-like feeling you get from Scope is much better. It's possible we'll enable Scope with a smaller frame buffer to increase FPS on the consoles, but on PC you'll be able to choose letterbox or anamorphic scope formats. The one thing most PC games don't expose, AFAIK, is the FOV parameter, meaning you can't just render the game fullscreen at 1920x1080 full 16:9 frame, but with a 33% wider perspective skew in the viewport transformation step. The AR is simply extrapolated from the X res / Y res, and that's that. The best way to do this is to output native anamorphically-rendered images to the projector, but that will be only rare games that support it unless it catches on somehow (doubtful, but one can hope).


----------



## Sean Spamilton

RLBURNSIDE said:


> As a guy who makes console games, that's wrong. Yes you cannot change the native res that your console uses away from 1080p or 720p, but internally you can render in whatever aspect ratio you like, letterbox or anamorphic, and in whatever frame buffer res you like such as 900p that the Xbox One often uses to gain 60fps in normally 1080p games. The hardware scalers on these consoles are extremely good, but one big unknown is whether you had a frame buffer at a non-16:9 aspect ratio, will the scaler scale anamorphically to end up with a final frame size of 1080p with all pixels non-black.
> 
> On PC when you make a custom res from 1080p, to 1920x810 or 816, you're still sending 1080p over the wire, it's just sending black pixels in the letterbox areas, and it's just the electronics higher up such as the lumagen or the projector itself are detecting black bars and scretching upwards electronically. It's not voodoo science to detect black bars, ya know  It's even done automatically.
> 
> I'm in the process of doing it for Ps4 and Xb1 games (can enable it in the menu), because I'm a projector aficionado who loves this stuff
> 
> I just got my A-lens and the cinema-like feeling you get from Scope is much better. It's possible we'll enable Scope with a smaller frame buffer to increase FPS on the consoles, but on PC you'll be able to choose letterbox or anamorphic scope formats. The one thing most PC games don't expose, AFAIK, is the FOV parameter, meaning you can't just render the game fullscreen at 1920x1080 full 16:9 frame, but with a 33% wider perspective skew in the viewport transformation step. The AR is simply extrapolated from the X res / Y res, and that's that. The best way to do this is to output native anamorphically-rendered images to the projector, but that will be only rare games that support it unless it catches on somehow (doubtful, but one can hope).


I'm just in the process of switching from Plasma to Widescreen. I'm repainting and remodeling over Christmas and was actually JUST thinking about this when I read your comment. I'm on the fence about whether to go 16:9 or 2.35:1. You say for gaming I CAN switch to 2.35:1 without everything looking skewed?


----------



## SOWK

RLBURNSIDE said:


> As a guy who makes console games, that's wrong. Yes you cannot change the native res that your console uses away from 1080p or 720p, but internally you can render in whatever aspect ratio you like, letterbox or anamorphic, and in whatever frame buffer res you like such as 900p that the Xbox One often uses to gain 60fps in normally 1080p games. The hardware scalers on these consoles are extremely good, but one big unknown is whether you had a frame buffer at a non-16:9 aspect ratio, will the scaler scale anamorphically to end up with a final frame size of 1080p with all pixels non-black.
> 
> On PC when you make a custom res from 1080p, to 1920x810 or 816, you're still sending 1080p over the wire, it's just sending black pixels in the letterbox areas, and it's just the electronics higher up such as the lumagen or the projector itself are detecting black bars and scretching upwards electronically. It's not voodoo science to detect black bars, ya know  It's even done automatically.
> 
> I'm in the process of doing it for Ps4 and Xb1 games (can enable it in the menu), because I'm a projector aficionado who loves this stuff
> 
> I just got my A-lens and the cinema-like feeling you get from Scope is much better. It's possible we'll enable Scope with a smaller frame buffer to increase FPS on the consoles, but on PC you'll be able to choose letterbox or anamorphic scope formats. The one thing most PC games don't expose, AFAIK, is the FOV parameter, meaning you can't just render the game fullscreen at 1920x1080 full 16:9 frame, but with a 33% wider perspective skew in the viewport transformation step. The AR is simply extrapolated from the X res / Y res, and that's that. The best way to do this is to output native anamorphically-rendered images to the projector, but that will be only rare games that support it unless it catches on somehow (doubtful, but one can hope).



I fully understand what you wrote and agree its still doing 1920X1080P.




I didn't think my message would ever get across to an actual game developer on console. If you do this and get it standard on every game I will love you for life! 


Make sure the game engine is Hor + enabled too


----------



## RLBURNSIDE

You're welcome! 

I want this support enabled not only on high end PCs, but on the consoles that you can allow anamorphic for better quality, or letterbox for better performance (25% less pixels to render, means a better chance of hitting that 60fps target during heavy battles) or for compatibility for display like movies do, in normally 16:9 displays (including projectors using the zoom method).

The thing I'm pushing is to make it a standard feature on all the games we make, so that you get a consistent experience across every title, going forward. And then maybe it could catch on if other devs like it. 

Other things I'm going to add : Dolby Vision / HDR, geometry correction for wide angle lenses to be able to have straight lines even without a curved screen, for both HE and VC lenses (and configurable / defeatable / tweakable in the same menu). It will DEFINITELY happen on PCs, but I see a good use case for console users to get a bit of free performance, in the case of letterbox rendering or letterbox rendering + hardware vertical stretching by the internal scaler prior to sending it down the wire. If the hardware scaler does indeed work to scale anamorphically (say, I define the final backbuffer to be 1920x810 or 808 or 816 and it actually does output a full frame 16:9 stretched image), then we can offer that as an option too. I like the option of giving gamers an easy way to get some FPS boost over 16:9 native rendering, or even let them have the same frame rate as before, but a fully native rendered anamorphic 1920x1080p framebuffer that doesn't need any scaling (or geometry correction) by any device at any stage of the signal path, whatsoever.

Other stuff I'm trying to get done aside from anamorphic, + HDR, is Atmos rendering, and getting Adaptive Sync pushed into a HDMI 1.4c / 2.1 spec, so that the console manufacturers can update their firmwares and we can finally get variable refresh rate support where it's needed the most : lower end GPUs or GPUs that struggle to maintain a certain FPS in a certain range. Which definitely applies to both the PS4 and the Xbox One (more the latter than the former).


----------



## RLBURNSIDE

Sean Spamilton said:


> I'm just in the process of switching from Plasma to Widescreen. I'm repainting and remodeling over Christmas and was actually JUST thinking about this when I read your comment. I'm on the fence about whether to go 16:9 or 2.35:1. You say for gaming I CAN switch to 2.35:1 without everything looking skewed?


I just wanted to update that I mis-spoke earlier, I've purchased an A-lens but did not receive it yet, altough I am a fan of widescreen gaming and movies already.

Like the OP says, usually on PC games the only thing you need to do to play in ultra-wide scope (with non-skewed characters proportions), is create a custom resolution in windows and / or the game settings, and use that instead of the default 16:9. Games already support multiple native AR-correct rendering, because they must support 4:3, 16:9 and 16:10 monitors correctly, so if you can force a game to start up or use your defined wide-screen resolution, the perspective of the characters in-game will be rendered properly already.They have to support this, because otherwise their games will have characters that either look too thin on 4:3 monitors, or too fat on 16:9. So the AR is computed by the X res / Y res, and cannot be hard-coded to be either 1.78 : 1, 1.33 : 1, or anything else. That's what the OP is alluding to, that the AR rendered internally is computed by the resolution the game's running at, which the end user can usually pick from a menu or force it through an ini file or command-line parameter.

With consoles it's another story, because development studios cannot override the native res, but we can define our own internal perspective or aspect ratio, letterbars, custom viewport projections, etc. The main thing is convincing people that forcing Scope on people who want to use their full TV's pixels is a bad thing that will piss a lot of people off (many people hate letterbox movies on their TVs, preferring 16:9), but there's no real reason to not offer end users the CHOICE, even within the context of a normally 16:9 resolution, to render the game in letterbox or anamorphic or normal.

After writing that CA correction shader, I realized that geometry correction is at least as important, because a lot of people even with anamorphic lenses, don't have curved screens. For example, I am getting a VC lens, and I have no idea if it's even feasible to make a curved screen that bends vertically instead of horitonally, so I might be stuck with perspective correction. For movies that involves some extra pixel warping that could be done in the same shader as the CA correction (if you have a lens that doesn't already handle that, like most DIY prisms or cheaper pro prisms like the Cinevista). 

For PC games to do this geom correction or CA correction you can do shader injection as a postprocessing step with a hacked Direct3D 9 / 11 dll. For movies, just add it to MPC-HC as I wrote in the other thread.


----------



## Tin_Can

Can I assume that this method will also work with a dvdo iscan duo?


----------



## RLBURNSIDE

Actually I just implemented anamorphic on Ps4 and Xbox One (and PC) to support 21:9 monitors on consoles without perspective skew, and that will make it playable on both ultra-wide TVs (like in The Order 1866) using either wide stretch (1920x1080 with a forced 2.37 : 1 aspect ratio) or cinema stretch (letterbox to native 21:9 2560x1080, scaling up from 1920x810 done in the monitor). 

But on PCs, you can already do the anamorphic stretching on the PC side and you don't even need a DVDO iscan or even enable the anamorphic scaling mode on the projector. There are two ways : 1920x810 or 2560x1080 custom windows desktop resolution, with GPU hardware scaling to stretch or squeeze those into full-frame 1920x1080p prior to shipping it over the HDMI wire. 2560x1080 will give you better quality (since you're internally rendering the game with full 1080 lines of vertical resolution, and the extra 33% horizontal increase from 1920 to 2560 becomes effectively like a DSR AA mode), but waste 33% rendering performance in terms of fillrate. Whereas 1920x810 would give you 33% better performance with 75% the quality, and no wasted GPU cycles rendering pixels that aren't there. This should also work in 3D modes, but I haven't tried it yet.

The good news about anamorphic rendering and letterbox is that with the advent of 21:9 native AR monitors with 2560x1080 resolution, other game developers might get the clue to implement similar things to support ultra-wide monitors and TVs for those who have them but are limited to 1920x1080 max resolution in the consoles.

I was also informed recently that some developers are using 1440x1080 on Xbox One in some frames (dynamically) instead of dropping to 900p to maintain framerate during busy scenes, because it scales better to scale from 1440 to 1920 horizontally only, since you have more pixels to start with and it only skews in one axis, plus it's a 3:4 scaling ratio which works better in practice. So, Microsoft is actually making some smart moves here in this space, and it makes perfect sense to allow gamers to pick ultrawide perspectives with letterbox rendering or anamorphic rendering as a way to choose quality vs FPS. If you run a game in letterbox it should be 33% higher FPS in ideal circumstances.

But even though you can do ultra-wide anamorphic scaling with your videocard (even in windows desktop), to leave your A-lens in all the time, whether for games or windows, you shouldn't have to play a game with 33% wasted GPU cycles or 33% vertical stretch and not exploiting the full 1080 pixels. 

GTA V has an aspect ratio override feature, but most games don't, to be able to override the native pixel aspect ratio. Eventually consoles might help make this feature more common generally, if only to be able to render the game properly on 21:9 monitors. The fact that this helps the rare folks who do game on projectors with anamorphic lenses is incidental (though a welcome thing, to be sure). And these aren't cheap little indie games, I'm talking big name AAA titles.


----------



## RLBURNSIDE

RLBURNSIDE said:


> The hardware scalers on these consoles are extremely good, but one big unknown is whether you had a frame buffer at a non-16:9 aspect ratio, will the scaler scale anamorphically to end up with a final frame size of 1080p with all pixels non-black.


Actually this isn't unknown to me any more, I know for a fact that if you render to 1440x1080 or any other weird aspect ratio, it will automatically scale it anamorphically to whatever the console native res it set to (1920x1080 or 1280x720). So that means, developers exploiting this would use 16:9 as the desired aspect ratio even for 1440x1080. But going the other way is possible. Meaning, you could render the game at 1920x810 internally and let the hardware scaler to its trick to output an anamorphic image. That would give the proper aspect ratio for lens users but of course it won't be as good quality as natively rendering the game at 1920x1080 but forcing a 21:9 AR.

What this basically means, to break it down, is this:

1) Render the game in 1920x810, letterbox, with the black bars baked into the image, much like a Bluray. If you zoom, this is perfect. If you use a lens, use the anamorphic stretch feature in your projector. Or use Cinema stretch in your 2560x1080 native 21:9 LCD monitor (or TV).
2)Render the game in 1920x810 (render target size), and let the hardware scaler in the console stretch it up vertically to use the full 1920x1080. That would make it letter-box ey but anamorphic from the perspective of what's being sent over the HDMI wire. Not as good as true anamorphic rendering, but possibly better than 1) because the scaler might be better. 
3) Or maybe render the game at 1440x1080 with 4:3 AR forced, so that the scaler only does horizontal stretching which should be even better (and good performing, too).
4) The best quality, is actually rendering the game at 1920x1080 with 21:9 overridden, so you get full pixel quality, but the pixel aspect ratio is now 4:3 instead of 1:1. This is useful on PC to avoid wasted GPU, when using anamorphic lenses. On PC you would probably never use this to play a game on a 21:9 monitor, since you can always just play the game at 2560x1080p anyway. But on consoles that option is not available (yet, it might be with HDMI 2.0 hardware revision which supports 21:9 flag possibly with metadata coming back from the TV to notify the console the AR is different). If I can get access to this 21:9 flag in any future console hardware revs, I will definitely look into implementing that so that anamorphic or letterbox is selected automatically. (or maybe a dialog asks the user). 

Now I wonder if a 4K PS4 or Xbox One revision would support 2560x1080 as an option in the TV settings, but somehow internally force the rendering to be done in the correct aspect ratio, given that it's highly unlikely GPUs are going to change (so 1920x1080 would be the max native swap chain format, but the hardware scaler could then scale that up to 2560x1080). I believe this may be possible. But it wouldn't help current PS4 or Xbox One owners who have no way of selecting a 2560x1080 resolution on their TV. Actually, I shouldn't assume that, I didn't think to try it. Regardless, there is still plenty of good reason to add this aspect ratio feature to the game menu so users have a choice in the matter. Some people with 1080p 16:9 TVs or projectors might actually want to play their games in letterbox too, and that's something that has to be done in code by the developer, not in a TV settings overridde by the console manufacturer. Because of things like menus and UI and in-game videos and so on mostly.


----------



## Tin_Can

Dang, Mr Burnside, that's some good stuff! My theater isn't finished yet, but I may wait to finish playing GTAV on PC now, just because it has an aspect ratio override.

I'm strictly a PC gamer right now, and the GPU options really make anamorphic aspect ratios easy to achieve.


----------



## stanger89

RLBURNSIDE said:


> Actually I just implemented anamorphic on Ps4 and Xbox One (and PC) to support 21:9 monitors on consoles without perspective skew, and that will make it playable on both ultra-wide TVs (like in The Order 1866) using either wide stretch (1920x1080 with a forced 2.37 : 1 aspect ratio) or cinema stretch (letterbox to native 21:9 2560x1080, scaling up from 1920x810 done in the monitor).


What does this actually mean?


----------



## blastermaster

Playing Dragon Age: Inquisition and Assetto Corsa at 2560x1080 is simply stunning. I love it!


----------



## RLBURNSIDE

stanger89 said:


> What does this actually mean?


Consoles don't support 2560x1080 output resolution, because they only allow up to 1920x1080.

That means that if you own a 21:9 aspect ratio monitor or TV, you can't play your xbox one or ps4 games on it full screen without warping the aspect ratio and making the main characters too wide (fat).

You will have to choose between pillarbox (black areas on the left and right), or stretch, which like I said makes everything look bad.

So the only two solutions that fit within the confines of the 1920x1080 max resolution, given that supporting the native resolution is not possible, is to either render the game in letterbox (1920x810) and let the monitor stretch it both horizontally and vertically (not very good quality), or render it anamorphically in 1920x1080 such that when you apply a horizontal "wide" stretch mode, the perspective will look correct. Anamorphic would be the best quality since it would only stretch in one dimension, horizontally, from 1920 pixels to 2560 pixels. Letterbox would allow for a faster frame rate since there are 25% less pixels to draw. So you get to pick, speed vs quality. 

The same anamorphic mode would allow PC users to render each pixel of their 1920x1080 projector sensor natively, such that when they use a lens the perspective is correct. They could also use the letterbox mode if they wanted to, and use an ourboard scaler or processor inside their projector to stretch vertically to achieve the same thing (albeit with less quality since the scaler will be "inventing" those extra height pixels, instead of having them drawn by the graphics card).

Not sure how much more I can explain it. I guess you have to own a 21:9 monitor or a projector with an anamorphic lens to actually grok what I'm saying here. Anamorphic is the second best quality, after a native 21:9 DMD that accepts and displays 2560x1080 natively (or 3840 x 1620, or 5k x 2k, or any other Scope resolution).


----------



## stanger89

I'm asking what you implemented or how you implemented it:

"Actually I just implemented anamorphic on Ps4 and Xbox One (and PC) to support 21:9 monitors on consoles without perspective skew..."

You implemented it in games you're developing? How can I take advantage of this anamorphic mode you implemented on the Xbox One?


----------



## RLBURNSIDE

You'll have to wait for titles to come out. That's all I can say. If you need ultrawide screen right now, your only choice is PC. Or the Order 1886 on Ps4 is in letterbox. 

If you're running a 16:9 projector (with or without a lens), use a PC with custom res with gpu scaling enabled only if you're using a lens. That should work in virtually any game.


----------



## jabz

RLBURNSIDE said:


> You'll have to wait for titles to come out. That's all I can say. If you need ultrawide screen right now, your only choice is PC. Or the Order 1886 on Ps4 is in letterbox.
> 
> If you're running a 16:9 projector (with or without a lens), use a PC with custom res with gpu scaling enabled only if you're using a lens. That should work in virtually any game.


So I can't do this on GTA V or Project Cars via the PS4 currently?
Argh, maybe not worth building a PC for yet...hmmm


----------



## blastermaster

> So I can't do this on GTA V or Project Cars via the PS4 currently?
> Argh, maybe not worth building a PC for yet...hmmm


Actually, isn't that an argument FOR building a new PC? I have Project Cars pre-loaded on steam and will be playing it tomorrow in all its 21:9 glory.


----------



## RLBURNSIDE

blastermaster said:


> Actually, isn't that an argument FOR building a new PC? I have Project Cars pre-loaded on steam and will be playing it tomorrow in all its 21:9 glory.


You and I both, my friend. I've got my Logitech Momo and VC lens all ready to rock. Actually, well, this weekend. Having friends over for game night. Got my copy of MKX to play too with my custom built arcade stick. (Although not in 2.35:1, cause my copy is on Xbox One).


----------



## jdwk

I might need to shoot this over to the HTPC forum, but I am wondering if anyone with a 2.35 screen has foregone the anamorphic lens, and just fit 1920x810 inside 1920x1080 timings.

That's a lot of porch, but if you've gone with a scope screen already, you aren't gaining any image information by stretching. Seems like the only benefit is you don't waste the potential light output of the top and bottom bars.

I've actually just started my serious research as I am getting my first house with a dedicated media room in a couple weeks, but I was putting 1080i and 540p desktops on my parents' Toshiba 60" "HD" RPTV back in the last century. In fact, I still have a Mits RP DLP that requires a 1028p desktop to eliminate the overscan.

I was planning on going with a lens or just getting a 4k projector and zooming until I discovered today that BluRays are not anamorphic. So I would not be gaining any image quality over a 1080p zoomed setup other than the light output.

I know the OP has a lens, but curious if he's tried custom timings and compared the results.


----------



## stanger89

Yeah you can, I think there's another thread in this subforum about it somewhere.


----------



## jdwk

Thanks. I'll hunt it down.


----------



## RLBURNSIDE

jdwk said:


> That's a lot of porch, but if you've gone with a scope screen already, *you aren't gaining any image information by stretching*. Seems like the only benefit is you don't waste the potential light output of the top and bottom bars.


Not strictly true. It depends on the resolution and aspect ratio of your source video.

In the UHD Bluray era, you will definitely gain additional (33% more) image information when displaying 2160p letterbox fullscreen on a 1080p projector with an anamorphic lens, not just brightness and pixel grid density.

If anything, UHD Blurays will give a bit of extra life and utility to these lenses while UHD projectors are unaffordable for the next few years but UHD Blurays become commonplace.

And even with native 4K / UHD projectors, if you have support for HDR, you need the best peak white you can get, regardless of your current lumens you can always use 33% more to get more pop out of the HDR and cover more of the luminance range baked into the signal. 

Projectors are going to have a hard time for a while until they get up there with the luminance range thanks to lasers. So I think anamorphic lenses will still provide some value even when the inherent resolution isn't boosted through stretching (instead of downscaling vertically by less, in the case of 3840x1620 letterbox -> 1920 x 1080 anamorphic rather than to 1920x810).


----------



## jdwk

Yeah that is true for UHD, but not for gaming.

Just spent two days at CEDIA. I saw a good mix of 2.35 and 16:9 screens, but didn't see a single demo use a lens. I think the newer projectors have become bright enough, the reduction in light loss from a lens isn't necessary. Also a lens would be a huge hassle since nearly every demo had a mixture of content.

There is a substantial premium for zoom memory though. It pretty much makes the only option the JVC RS400 (49 replacement), before you step up to lasers in the LS10000, or the true 4k of the 665ES (600 replacement). Since that is basically a software implementation on any projector that already has motorized zoom and shift, I was hoping to see it trickle down to the cheaper projectors this year. That doesn't seem to be the case.


----------



## stanger89

jdwk said:


> Also a lens would be a huge hassle since nearly every demo had a mixture of content.


I don't think I've ever heard this sentiment from anyone who actually owns and uses a lens. Outside of initial setup (which is a bit more involved), lenses are simpler, quicker, and easier than lens memory. I've got an RS4910 but I still use my lens since it's easier.



> Since that is basically a software implementation on any projector that already has motorized zoom and shift, I was hoping to see it trickle down to the cheaper projectors this year. That doesn't seem to be the case.


It's not quite that easy, you have to ensure that the mechanicals are robust enough for an order of magnitude more operation.


----------



## jdwk

I watched the LS10000 change from 16:9 to 2.35 in under 4 seconds from a single button press. Is your lens setup really simpler and easier than that? I am not trying to argue since I've yet to even own a projector, let alone a lens, but at least the idea of moving a lens back and forth in front of the projector with a mechanical sled seems more complicated.

I really just wish they would make a native 5k 2.4 AR projector. Then you don't have to switch anything at all. 0 seconds. 16:9 content will be full resolution and 2.35 or 2.4 will just get cropped and upscaled in software.


----------



## blastermaster

jdwk said:


> I watched the LS10000 change from 16:9 to 2.35 in under 4 seconds from a single button press. Is your lens setup really simpler and easier than that? I am not trying to argue since I've yet to even own a projector, let alone a lens, but at least the idea of moving a lens back and forth in front of the projector with a mechanical sled seems more complicated.
> 
> I really just wish they would make a native 5k 2.4 AR projector. Then you don't have to switch anything at all. 0 seconds. 16:9 content will be full resolution and 2.35 or 2.4 will just get cropped and upscaled in software.


Umm, I have a lens and I do have it on a slide mechanism which I built. I'll be honest with you, though, the image is so damn crisp with the lens in place I just leave it there all the time. It takes less than 4 seconds for my projector to switch to 4:3 mode for 16:9 content. So, yes, it is just as easy as a button press. And I get the extra brightness.


----------



## RLBURNSIDE

blastermaster said:


> Umm, I have a lens and I do have it on a slide mechanism which I built. I'll be honest with you, though, the image is so damn crisp with the lens in place I just leave it there all the time. It takes less than 4 seconds for my projector to switch to 4:3 mode for 16:9 content. So, yes, it is just as easy as a button press. And I get the extra brightness.


Not to mention, let's face it, that most 2160p content for the next several years is going to be either UHD Blurays, which are usually letterbox, or porn, where..so what, 1080p is already enough. Leaving the lens in place with a 2160p 16:9 projector will still leave plenty of resolution even in 3:4 mode to 16:9 content.

My main beef with lenses is the hassle, obviously. If you have higher ceilings than wide, then you are better off with a 16:9 screen and no lens, and if you have lower ceilings and a wider screen, then you are better off (more surface area) with a Scope screen and an A-lens.

An A-Lens makes sense for HDR content+projectors too, 33% higher peak white is nothing to sneeze at. And at 2160p the sharpness loss due to ECC should be minimal. Actually the higher the base res the lower the impact of a mild scale factor, even an anamorphic or a non-affice skew matrix. (such as correcting for geometric distortion in the case of a flat screen in Scope format, or a VC lens where there is no easy way to correct geometric barrel distortion through convex screens)


----------



## stanger89

jdwk said:


> I watched the LS10000 change from 16:9 to 2.35 in under 4 seconds from a single button press. Is your lens setup really simpler and easier than that? I am not trying to argue since I've yet to even own a projector, let alone a lens, but at least the idea of moving a lens back and forth in front of the projector with a mechanical sled seems more complicated.


Don't confuse mechanical complexity with operational complexity. On a lens with a sled, you just hit a button and whatever needs to happen, happens. The Cineslide for example transits in about a second. I don't know about the Epson, but my RS4910 takes more like 15 seconds to switch between scope and 16:9 via lens memory, and the whole time it has a message on the screen. Also on my RS4910 you have to go into the menu (at least I haven't programmed my remote better) to pick a lens memory.

For my part, I don't remove the lens, I just hit a button and my Lumagen changes ARs instantaneously.


----------



## Kelvin1965S

RLBURNSIDE said:


> An A-Lens makes sense for HDR content+projectors too, 33% higher peak white is nothing to sneeze at.


Just to reitterate that 33% is a theoretical maximum brightness gain and in practice can often be much less. In fact in my previous lens set up (Isco II lens and JVC X35) there was only 1% gain using my lens. This was measured, using a fully calibrated projector (by Lumagen naturally). 

The reason being that my X35 was at minimum zoom when using the lens. Due to the projector's changing aperture as it is zoomed, you get less light output at minimum zoom (maximum contrast) and as you move towards maximum zoom you get maximum light output (and reduced contrast). In my case zooming the 1.33 required to fill my 2.35:1 screen gained nearly all the light back that the lens gained. I measured 100 Lux at the screen using zoom and 101 Lux using my lens.

I still use my Lumagen for aspect ratio changes, but only to 'shrink' 16:9 down after I've zoomed to 2.35:1 in order to view 16:9 disc menus and trailers. If I watch a whole 16:9 film, then I use the X500 lens memory (I upgraded as I sold the Isco II and X35 for nearly as much as the used X500 cost ) and then watch with the Lumagen set to 1:1 pixel mapped.

Lenses do NOT guarantee a big/worthwhile brightness gain, especially if set up to minimise pincushion, ie with a long throw/minimum zoom in the projector.


----------



## RLBURNSIDE

Darn, I just checked the calculator for my benq w1070 and found out how right you are about the zoom. 

At max zoom, 1.3, I get 18 fl at 138 inch 16:9 screen size (181 inches throw distance) without the lens.
At min zoom, 1.0, I get 14 fl at 138 inch 16:9 screen size (138 inches throw distance) without the lens.

I moved my projector back by a few feet so that I could use the minimum zoom with my VC lens, to avoid vignetting. Now I find out that I'm not gaining any brightness by using a lens, however the image is less crisp and the entire setup more complicated, basically for nothing. 

I think H-E lenses make much more sense if you can still keep your max zoom setting. Maybe I can try to use somewhere between 1.0 and 1.3 to get right to the limit of the vignetting zone, and get some kind of brightness gain. I will have to calculate it, or maybe sell my lens. I was thinking of getting my next projector with a greater throw ratio, so that I could get more of a benefit, but I like the idea of the projector at the back of the room and this makes that a low-performance option. I really like more brightness for pop, especially in 3D, in fact that's why I bought my projector. 

I wonder if I replace the lens on my w1070 if I can get a longer throw ratio with less brightness loss, and perhaps crisper optics in the bargain. Then maybe I can some kind of benefit to using my VC lens because as of right now, when used with a short throw projector like the w1070 that requires me to use the minimum zoom to avoid vignetting, it's basically a downgrade.


----------



## RLBURNSIDE

Kelvin, or anyone else who might know, if you change the lens on your projector to alter the throw ratio, does the max zoom setting still provide more light?

Or is that just fundamentally misunderstanding this. If a new lens has twice the throw ratio as the old one, thereby reducing your image size by 50% at the same zoom setting, could I then increase from 1x zoom to 2x zoom to get back my original screen size that I previously had at 1x zoom, but with the higher lumens from the 2x zoom setting? 

I think I may have made a mistake buying a VC lens and then having to move my projector back and use the lowest zoom because my projector is such a short-throw projector. I just want to know if I bother swapping out the lens myself if that's a dumb move or a good one. My projector is nearing the end of its useful lifespan (I plan on getting one of the new "affordable" TI 4K DLP chip models next year) so I don't mind hacking it a bit. I've opened the optical cavity (to remove dust blobs) and removed the original lens and it's really nothing special. I have a used lens store beneath my apt so I might be able to find something.


----------



## stanger89

RLBURNSIDE said:


> Kelvin, or anyone else who might know, if you change the lens on your projector to alter the throw ratio, does the max zoom setting still provide more light?
> 
> Or is that just fundamentally misunderstanding this. If a new lens has twice the throw ratio as the old one, thereby reducing your image size by 50% at the same zoom setting, could I then increase from 1x zoom to 2x zoom to get back my original screen size that I previously had at 1x zoom, but with the higher lumens from the 2x zoom setting?


I think there are too many variables to say. Yes short throw usually has a larger aperture than long throw, thus resulting in more light, but there's no way to know if a longer throw lens at it's shortest throw would be brighter than a short throw lens at it's longest throw. For example it could be that the longer throw lens' aperture just continues getting smaller (though it's probably unlikely).



> I think I may have made a mistake buying a VC lens and then having to move my projector back and use the lowest zoom because my projector is such a short-throw projector. I just want to know if I bother swapping out the lens myself if that's a dumb move or a good one. My projector is nearing the end of its useful lifespan (I plan on getting one of the new "affordable" TI 4K DLP chip models next year) so I don't mind hacking it a bit. I've opened the optical cavity (to remove dust blobs) and removed the original lens and it's really nothing special. I have a used lens store beneath my apt so I might be able to find something.


BenQ 1080ST? I'd be amazed if you actually found a lens. Camera lenses will not work they are an entirely different design/system. About the only hope I can think of for you, regarding swapping lenses, is maybe a BenQ 1070/1075 Lens will fit, assuming the 1070/1080 are the same chassis.


----------



## RLBURNSIDE

My PJ is the w1070, and I did think of looking for space parts of other BenQ projectors, but didn't find one that's for sure suitable yet. (in terms of fittings).

I'll try emailing BenQ support to see if the lens from an HC1200 would fit, since it has a 1.5 zoom ratio and it looks like at 1.4x zoom (close enough to the max), I would get the picture size I want:

http://www.projectorcentral.com/BenQ-HC1200-projection-calculator-pro.htm

My other option as someone else pointed out is buying a lens from another used projector with better glass.


----------



## Logan209

I’m sorry I know this is an old thread. I was curious if anyone is familiar with the new gaming PC formats that allow for UltraWide 21:9 native games. Is it possible to make use of the gpu creating an entire 16:9 frame designed to expand with an anamorphic lens rather than using a projectors or Oppo 203 vertical stretch? Like setting the nvidia to full 4k and setting the game to UltraWide? So in essence an UltraWide fov squeezed onto a 16:9. As I’m on the market now for a nice anamorphic lens I take it there are many that suggest the zoom method is almost as good but I do have interest in a curved 141” microperf 2.35 1.3 gain screen so I’m trying to weigh exactly what the benefits are at this point because I feel like I’m on the borderline of a large screen that will need extra lumens for HDR even with today’s bright projectors. I’d probably be buying a JVC 790 if I was buying tomorrow. Have there been those of you that don’t feel a lens is worth it anymore? If I did get a lens I’d be looking for a good deal on an Isco IIIL. Thanks for the help.


----------



## Logan209

I think rlburnside already answered that for me. It sounds like that is possible making use of all pixels without external scalers.


----------



## Craig Peer

Logan209 said:


> I’m sorry I know this is an old thread. I was curious if anyone is familiar with the new gaming PC formats that allow for UltraWide 21:9 native games. Is it possible to make use of the gpu creating an entire 16:9 frame designed to expand with an anamorphic lens rather than using a projectors or Oppo 203 vertical stretch? Like setting the nvidia to full 4k and setting the game to UltraWide? So in essence an UltraWide fov squeezed onto a 16:9. *As I’m on the market now for a nice anamorphic lens I take it there are many that suggest the zoom method is almost as good but I do have interest in a curved 141” microperf 2.35 1.3 gain screen so I’m trying to weigh exactly what the benefits are at this point because I feel like I’m on the borderline of a large screen that will need extra lumens for HDR even with today’s bright projectors. I’d probably be buying a JVC 790 if I was buying tomorrow. Have there been those of you that don’t feel a lens is worth it anymore? If I did get a lens I’d be looking for a good deal on an Isco IIIL. Thanks for the help*.


I used to think zooming was good enough. Then I got a Panamorph Paladin lens. The increase in lumens alone was worth it. You don't want a curved screen with the Paladin though - you want a flat screen. I'm still amazed at what this lens can do. getting back all those lumens lost when zooming has really helped give HDR more " punch ".


----------



## Logan209

That’s good to know. Thanks Craig.


----------

