Zoom vs Lens and Projector Zoom Questions - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 127 Old 04-11-2010, 04:05 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,384
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post

So you captured inter pixel gaps(I didn't see the post...I'm not a Mark groupie) Did you capture the vertical and horizontal gaps with and without the lens in place of the same sized canvas. Was one sharper than the other in the horizontal direction? If so why?

No. My photos were shot to document how to adjust the astigmatism corrector on my lens. They show the pixels slightly wider (1.33:1) than what they would be without the lens in place (1.00:1), however the horizontal and vertical lines are the same intensity because they are both in focus. That is the PURPOSE of the astigmatism correction - to remove any defocus of the vertical lines due to anamorphic optical stretch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post

If the A-Lens reduced the visibility of the horizontal gaps...there is detail filtering going on....IMO not desireable.

No it does not and you have been invited to see this for yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post

And were tha captures made from the same distance with the same camera settings?

Same camera setting and position were used for all shots captured on the day. I purposely defocused my lens to show what the image looks like when out of alignment Vs set up correctly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post

It can be a pity when commercial interest get's in the way of seeking the truth.

What I do/have done is different to just a "commercial interest" as I actually designed and made the product, not just sell it for a profit. I've also helped many achieve the look they were seeking, many didn't even use my project and had no intention of buying it. So I'd call what it is I do "contribution" rather than just 'commercial interest".

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 127 Old 04-11-2010, 04:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post

It can be a pity when commercial interest get's in the way of seeking the truth.

For one thing, that's quite uncalled for, and the other thing is that many here have done the back to back testing and found scaling with lens to give better results than zooming at the same seating distances. Those people who then bought a lens have no commercial interest, so how do you explain that?

Gary

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #93 of 127 Old 04-11-2010, 07:23 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,307
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post





It can be a pity when commercial interest get's in the way of seeking the truth.

What is your interest in this, you've spent more than a great deal of time showing us "the truth" ?

I've looked at images both ways here. It would be too easy to put my lens back in it's case if I felt I could get a better image in the process but I know better. Unfortunately, this forum is replete with folks who would be willing to follow you and your BS because for every one high end PJ owner with a properly set up ISCO III there are a hundred zoomers who don't have the budget. This is a sad fact in this argument.

Art


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
post #94 of 127 Old 04-11-2010, 08:09 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tbase1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: medina Ohio
Posts: 2,371
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Highjinx, I had a member that live near where I live come over to check out my lowly panasonic ae4000 with the big dog isco 3L installed, and he asked the question... "will my image look this good without a lens"? After he saw the image with the lens off..he concluded that it would not when I zoomed the same image. At the end of the review....he asked me to look out for him a lens. He understands the cost of my lens was out of his budget, but he felt the difference was worth buying a lens. I also showed him the other bennies you get with a lens, which made the case even more. I have to say...everybody that see my setup with and without lens concludes the lens is the way to go. I'm a DIY kind of guy and would NEVER push ANYONE to spend money on ANYTHING that was not sound and I think a A-Lens is a sound addition to a projector. Zoom if you will...but by all means don't think for one second members with lenses don't know what they have and know their Sh*T.

tony4k
tbase1 is offline  
post #95 of 127 Old 04-11-2010, 10:14 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,174
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post

Just to make things clear. The group photo is not for comparison purposes, but for example purposes on the format and size to create ones own from the "master image" so obervation can me made on ones own projector.

Things can be observed when people have a projector and take the time to do it, but that can also be said about testing a projector with an anamorphic lens like some other people here have done. Sorry if I missed it, but have you actually ever compared zooming to using an anamorphic lens for the same image size?

And I don't understand why you seem to be avoiding simply answering why you claimed:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post

If you took AmirM original small image(not shown in this thread) and optically zoomed that image to the same size as these, you would have the best result, superior to the better of the two(Bicubic) image on the right....as long as the panels pixel structure was not visible...at these small sizes they will not be.

Why not tell us how the zoomed image would differ from the picture on the left of the bride at the same image size and why you claim that the original small image zoomed would look better? Or is it something like Amir said the original was better and you are just repeating that? It seemed like enough in the other thread that Amir played those stalling games and outright refused to answer whether he was arguing that 1:1 with square pixels and no seams would be a proper way to show that image after he had pretty clearly stated a position that square pixels with no seams were common sense and argued for the source containing square pixels.

Amir has posted before on AVS that he is very good at arguing and in that other thread observant people may have noticed some of the tactics he will use to keep people from the truth, but it seems like maybe you just bought into everything he said in that other thread despite his avoidance tactics and other things. I realize that I have had the benefit of being familiar with some of the stuff Amir has done in the past that other people weren't and have seen some of the tactics he has used to try to keep people deceived long after he would have had to have been an idiot to still believe that what he posted was true. And I'm not talking about opinions. I'm talking about facts, like a used car saleperson claiming that a car had an 8 cylinder engine or was a single owner car and then using tactics to try to keep people believing the them long after the salesperson should have known that what they had claimed was not true. When a person proves that they will do some low things to keep people deceived I would have to be an idiot to then just trust them in the future, especially when I get some of the same kinds of arguments (like the question shouldn't be answered because this isn't a court of law). Amir basically ran Chris Wiggles out of time on that other thread and I got busy and tired of Amir's games. He continued to waste people's time using excuses for why he wasn't going to answer whether he was arguing for 1:1 with square pixels and no seams as a correct or proper way to display that picture while he did answer other questions that he thought would help his case (or posted something that he was representing as an answer even though he was really avoiding the actual question).

I wasn't planning to go off on that tangent, but it seems like maybe you just bought everything Amir said in that other thread and now seem to be avoiding just telling us what is wrong with the left side picture of the bride compared to a zoomed image of the same size, despite telling us that the 4x NN one is worse. Why not just tell us how it is different? If you are far enough away that you couldn't see the pixel structure in the 4x zoomed one then what is it that would look worse in the left side bride picture from the same viewing ratio?

What this comes down to is that we have a pretty good test right here for 1:1 with square pixels and no seams with zooming (where people don't have to use a projector), but both you and Amir argue against it without actually coming up with any way that it looks different than zooming with 1:1 and square pixels with no seams at any kind of reasonable viewing ratio discussed here (say effectively .4x the screen width and beyond). If either one of you wants to say it is wrong because 1:1 with square pixels and no seams would be a bad thing then that is fine with me, but so far it seems like both you and Amir want to claim the picture on the left looks worse than zooming or is unfair without addressing why and how that relates to whether 1:1 with square pixels and no seams is actually correct.

To be clear Highjinx, I am not putting you in the same category as Amir overall. I am hoping you will clearly address why you think the left side of the image of the bride looks worse than doing the original at 1:1 and zooming to the same size would look. And especially whether you are taking the display type used into account. If instead of you addressing it you would rather I went over how a person could properly claim what you did when a CRT is used, then I could do that.

If you do want to answer that question above about the picture of the bride then I'll add one more about zooming vs using an anamorphic lens. If a person had a 1080p projector that displayed pixels as perfect squares with no seams (I know we don't have that) would you still argue that zooming was better than using an anamorphic lens in all cases?

--Darin

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
darinp2 is online now  
post #96 of 127 Old 04-11-2010, 10:41 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,174
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

I regularly have my image size (zooming) blown up well into (and pushing) the recommended THX/SMPTE viewing distances for 16:9 and 2:35:1 images and I never, ever notice any pixels.

You don't have to be able to see the individual pixels in order to have them affect your perception of the images. You might prefer the images without an anamorphic lens to with a top quality one even at the bigger sizes. But you might prefer the images with the lens. I don't know as it is largely personal preference and there are advantages to each. There are also issues like image brightness. If your images were way brighter at those large sizes you might have noticed pixel issues (even if not noticing the individual pixels).

However, I'm wondering what THX recommended viewing distances you are referring to. There is a recommendation for the worst case seat as far as viewing angle in a commercial theater from THX, but that doesn't say that they recommend people sit in that seat. And I asked a representative from THX at I believe CEDIA a few years ago about how they came up with a recommendation for home and they said they tried a 1080p display, so therefore there recommendation there would have been largely based on being limited to that display's characteristics and may not apply if somebody had a higher resolution display (which is what an anamorphic lens setup is moving a little bit towards, but with some tradeoffs compared to actually having a higher resolution display).

--Darin

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
darinp2 is online now  
post #97 of 127 Old 04-11-2010, 12:13 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rboster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 17,578
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post



It can be a pity when commercial interest get's in the way of seeking the truth.

I just suggest you stop right there. Mark has been nothing but a positive contributor to AVS. I suggest you not continue down this path.

"Retired" AVS Moderator
rboster is offline  
post #98 of 127 Old 04-11-2010, 01:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tbase1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: medina Ohio
Posts: 2,371
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 13
+1

tony4k
tbase1 is offline  
post #99 of 127 Old 04-11-2010, 02:27 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,985
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Liked: 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post

You don't have to be able to see the individual pixels in order to have them affect your perception of the images. You might prefer the images without an anamorphic lens to with a top quality one even at the bigger sizes.

Yes, as I said I'm open to the idea that extra pixels could change the look of the image in some way even if I can't see pixel boundaries.

However, I was addressing the specific argument often encountered that one benefit of an A-lens comes in ameliorating the "screen door" issue - that is making visible pixels become invisible to the eye - a solution to a problem I haven't encountered for years.


Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post

However, I'm wondering what THX recommended viewing distances you are referring to.
--Darin

At a 10.5 foot viewing distance I've viewed zoomed images up to 124" wide
for scope and 126" diagonal for 16:9.

When I plug these into the viewing distance calculator:

http://myhometheater.homestead.com/v...alculator.html

It indicates my viewing angles/image size (at those sizes) are well past the THX and SMPTE recommendations. But I have never been aware of any pixels with my JVC RS20.

Rich H


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
R Harkness is offline  
post #100 of 127 Old 04-11-2010, 03:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,384
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Which is far easier than it sounds. The responses here are the exactly feedback he thrives on. It will be interesting to see just how long before he posts again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

What is your interest in this, you've spent more than a great deal of time showing us "the truth" ?

Art,

I am as confused about this as you. He has posted many times about anamorphic lenses as some form of 'snake oil' and how he wants to be there to ensure people are not ripped off by the sellers of such product. In the past I simply stuck to discussing the topic at hand, not being swayed to post negativity about his attitude. However his personal attacks do wear thin. He has (on another forum) basically accused me of being that 'snake oil salesman', then in the same post, wished me the best with my new endeavor. Go figure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post

Things can be observed when people have a projector and take the time to do it, but that can also be said about testing a projector with an anamorphic lens like some other people here have done. Sorry if I missed it, but have you actually ever compared zooming to using an anamorphic lens for the same image size?

Darin,

No he has not. On May 7, about 40 member of the DTV Australia forum will meet at a popular HIFI store in Melbourne. The purpose of the event was to show those that were considering going CIH with an anamorphic lens a real world example. The store hosting the event has my MK3 (CA corrected prisms lens) and a 150" Scope screen.

The meet began with about 6 people expressing interest and I decided that it would be worth my time to bring the MK4 to travel about 3000KMs show an even better side to anamorphic projection. With in 24 hours of my announcement to attend, the numbers rose from 6 to about 20.

The group is about 40 strong now and were are expecting industry experts from Onkyo and possibly from JVC and Krix speakers, so fast becoming more than a simple member's GTG.

We also now have an ISCO III that can be used on the night as well as mu MK4 and the MK3.

A member has offered Highjinks an all expenses paid return trip to Melbourne from wherever he lives in Australia and to date, he has not even had the decency to announce if he will or will not attend. AFAIK, he's not even PM's the guy offering to pay about this.

There was some speculation that he might be victimised by placing himself in front of 40 lens owners, however that is not the case at all. Most of the guys attending are looking to getting into CIH and this meeting simply allows them to see 150" Scope using a lens (and I am sure we can zoom it out as well). Therefore it is about seeing a real world example and all we've asked of him is that he comes and shows us the faults he posts about with such gusto because apparently all of us have missed it so far.

At CEDIA/SMPTE last year, I worked the JVC stand showing the JVC 350 with an MK3 lens. Most people were amazed and this lens does not have correction for astigmatism at this time. I simply wanted to repeat that using the MK4 which is fully corrected.

Lastly HJ is not into zooming or CIH. He seems to strongly support small screens. For me, HD doesn't even begin to show its true potential under 100" (maybe that is just me), hence why he posts terms about 55 pixels per degree and viewing angles of just 34.9 degrees. He actually stands for 1:1 pixel mapping and all of us into CIH know that if we had true anamorphic titles, that they would also be the very best way to display the program we watch. However we don't, so Scaling for CIH is our only means at this time.

HJ had(has?) a U-Tube video of his setup showing his 4 way masking system. His scope image is about the same size vertically as an older 29" CRT 4 x 3 TV.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #101 of 127 Old 04-12-2010, 12:15 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,174
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

At a 10.5 foot viewing distance I've viewed zoomed images up to 124" wide
for scope and 126" diagonal for 16:9.

When I plug these into the viewing distance calculator:

http://myhometheater.homestead.com/v...alculator.html

It indicates my viewing angles/image size (at those sizes) are well past the THX and SMPTE recommendations. But I have never been aware of any pixels with my JVC RS20.

That would be the back half of a theater built to THX recommendations according to that calculator since the back seat of a theater built to THX recommendations (36 degrees for worst case seat in the house) would be ~15.9' back for a 124" wide screen. The 10.5' would be the front half of a theater built to the THX requirement though since the furthest seat in one of those theaters would be ~22' back.

You may know this, but part of my point is that statements along the lines of, "My viewing angle/image size is well past the THX recommendation" can be misleading if a person doesn't know what that recommendation means (and using the THX commercial theater recommendation) because that doesn't have a recommendation for where you should sit (other than making sure you can't sit too far away). It has a recommendation for the worst case seat in the theater, so it does not say that sitting 10.5' from a 124" image is closer than they recommend sitting. Just about any commercial theater built to THX recommendations would have some seats available with bigger viewing angles than 10.5' from a 124" image results in. Even most commercial theaters built just to the THX requirements for certification would have seats available closer than that as far as viewing ratio.

I haven't looked closely at the SMTPE recommendation, but according to that calculator it is also a maximum viewing ratio (minimum viewing angle).

The RS20 also has good fill ratio and can blur the pixels some, as can be seen on some pictures about halfway down here (photos 6 and 8):

http://www.videovantage.com/?p=819

Photo 8 for the RS20 versus photo 10 for the Samsung A900B is an interesting comparison for pixel structure. The diagonal in the tail of the Y is one thing that differs between those.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

... hence why he posts terms about 55 pixels per degree and viewing angles of just 34.9 degrees.

That is even further away than the very last row in a commercial theater built to THX recommendations.

Highjinx,

If you walked into a commercial theater built to THX recommendations before anybody else had taken a seat and you had choices of seats all the way from say 120 degrees down to 36 degrees, would you choose a seat in the back row of that theater?

--Darin

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
darinp2 is online now  
post #102 of 127 Old 04-16-2010, 01:51 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Highjinx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,769
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post

I am hoping you will clearly address why you think the left side of the image of the bride looks worse than doing the original at 1:1 and zooming to the same size would look.
--Darin

The reason is the NN sampling I did of the original image I posted of the car and the windowed zoomed image were chalk and cheese. I could have posted screen captures of the observed results, but my intension was to let those who really wanted to see the results for themselves, go through the process so there was no bias.

In fact the projector scaled image of the original on my set up was inferior to the zoomed windowed image.

The above is a living example why.

Please try it out I'll e-mail anyone with the original image set....it's a crystal clear revelation. Words nor discussion required.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post

If a person had a 1080p projector that displayed pixels as perfect squares with no seams (I know we don't have that) would you still argue that zooming was better than using an anamorphic lens in all cases?

--Darin

This is an interesting question. There is a limit to the data that can be addressed to a pixel...yes? If not we would have developed higher fill ratios and could have addressed infinite detail to the pixel/s as long as the capture device was indeed capable of capturing it, but alas there is a limit, so we develop panels with more pixels and address more data to these additional pixels.

1st the let's define "the Image sought" to me it's as found on the encode available to us currently via the BluRay disk. I wish to see the image with minimal manuplation, no scaling induced additional components(artifacts).....no additional glass other than the primary lens to act as a filter...etc. True as possible to the original is what I seek with my projected image.

Others may have different objectives.....Does scaling and the use of an a-lens alter the original even by a small amount, of course it does....scaling will have an affect, does an A-Lens affect MTF? it has to, it's not 100% transparent. I'm sure some may even like the result, just as some would like to adjust the tone of a musical track.....to suit their personal objectives.

But why vertically scale a perfect pixel mapped 1920 x 810 image that is perfectly zoomable without panel structure becoming evident to an A-Lens size image when viewed from the optimal angle for 1920, with no reduction in the available precious ANSI, no scaling softening, no MTF reduction, no inducing pincushion and depth of field reduction to gain 270 vertical pixels where the 810 height image detail is spread over an additional 270 pixels to achieve an image that is 10 to 15% brighter?!

Gaining the additional brightness is the primary reason to use an A-Lens but at a cost of purity. Even if we had one big pixel addressed with the 1920 x810 detail, one still couldn't sit closer as the detail adressed would be insufficient to resolve perfectly from the less than ideal viewing angle.......perhaps one day we will have capture devices and projection devices that will have near infinite detail capture/display capability...so we can do so......but 4k will make things better....for now...well soon anyway I hope.

There is no right or wrong, It's the individuals journey....I take the least image manupilated path........I too would love the ability to sit at a closer ratio than I currently do....but I want addtional source data mapped to additional pixels, not existing source data stretched over 25% more pixels. Looks like 4k for me.

Do you use an A-Lens Darin?...............somehow I see you as a pedantic perfectionist......who though debates the pros and cons....from a neutral stance, perhaps even playing the devils advocate at times......but remains a purist.

May the success of a Nation be judged not by its collective wealth nor by its power, but by the contentment of its people.
Hiran J Wijeyesekera - 1985.
Highjinx is offline  
post #103 of 127 Old 04-16-2010, 02:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Highjinx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,769
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
With all due respect Mark is no angel.

It was only a few weeks ago he suggested that BluRay was anamorphic.....knowing darn well that it isn't. I recall Taffman called his bluff.

Sure most things he says are helpful to the enthuasist....most things, not all.

BTW Mark 55 degrees is a conservative number(20/20) most young people have better.......anyway with 20/20 vision to be able to sit at 2x screen heights and resolve the image one would need.....4096 x 1742 pixels(2.35:1)

Saying one can perfectly resolve an image of 1920 x 1080 at that ratio is pure nonsense....one needs to be some 3.8x screen heights away to be able to do that.

I'm not saying one can't enjoy the image from 2x.......just that the eye will not resolve the detail with 1920 x 1080 from that ratio.

May the success of a Nation be judged not by its collective wealth nor by its power, but by the contentment of its people.
Hiran J Wijeyesekera - 1985.
Highjinx is offline  
post #104 of 127 Old 04-16-2010, 03:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Highjinx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,769
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Darin:
"Things can be observed when people have a projector and take the time to do it, but that can also be said about testing a projector with an anamorphic lens like some other people here have done. Sorry if I missed it, but have you actually ever compared zooming to using an anamorphic lens for the same image size?"


Yes I have Darin.......from the ideal viewing angle, I by far prefer the zoomed image, masked of course......With the A-Lens I found the left and right side of the screen to be flat and lacking in depth. Observations were not on curved screens.....had a curved screen been used and a 16:9 image was displayed using the full panel, not a 4:3 section of the panel(1440 x 1080) with the lens in place as some have suggested doing, what would happen to the 16:9 image without the A-Lens in place on a curved screen?

I'm still pontificating how scaling a pixel mapped image of the same width by vertically stretching the image data over 25% more pixels in the vertical direction and using optical stretching can maintain the images integrity perfectly.

I wonder if guys like Mark Peterson, Greg Rogers are A-Lens affectionados as well.

A-Lenses are fine for anamorphically shot film, with film stock viewed via a film projector, but I use non anamorphically produced BluRay.......I see zooming as the smart man's solution...........and for pure image resolved perfection with current BluRay, view from the appropriate angle/ratio...........as long as the seating width is catered for size becomes irrelevant.............but darn some seem to have the need to compensate

Ever wonder why DCI have 2 resolutions for 2.35:1 and 16:9 and the use of A-Lenses are not recommended and zooming is the prefered option, though they they do state the use of scaling and anamorphic lens will maximise the panels light source effiency and some movie studios forbid the use of scaling/A-Lens in commercial applications. Why don't DCI have a spec for anamorphic encoding of a Hard Drive so no scaling is required by the playback chain only the addition of an A -Lens.....surely they want the best possible result from the movie experience for the consumer.

One question boys, if you owned a 2560 x 1440(16:9) projector and disks were available pixel mapped 16:9(1920 x 1080) and 2.35:1 (2560 x 1080).....would you scale both or watch via an A-Lens or watch them pixel mapped via the primary lens only CIH?...and zoom to the preffered size?

Been fun!..............will play later!

Don't get too serious gents......if a simple hobby........go put a BluRay on and enjoy!

May the success of a Nation be judged not by its collective wealth nor by its power, but by the contentment of its people.
Hiran J Wijeyesekera - 1985.
Highjinx is offline  
post #105 of 127 Old 04-16-2010, 04:41 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,307
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post

Darin:
"Things can be observed when people have a projector and take the time to do it, but that can also be said about testing a projector with an anamorphic lens like some other people here have done. Sorry if I missed it, but have you actually ever compared zooming to using an anamorphic lens for the same image size?"


Yes I have Darin.......from the ideal viewing angle, I by far prefer the zoomed image, masked of course......With the A-Lens I found the left and right side of the screen to be flat and lacking in depth. Observations were not on curved screens.....had a curved screen been used and a 16:9 image was displayed using the full panel, not a 4:3 section of the panel(1440 x 1080) with the lens in place as some have suggested doing, what would happen to the 16:9 image without the A-Lens in place on a curved screen?

I'm still pontificating how scaling a pixel mapped image of the same width by vertically stretching the image data over 25% more pixels in the vertical direction and using optical stretching can maintain the images integrity perfectly.

I wonder if guys like Mark Peterson, Greg Rogers are A-Lens affectionados as well.

A-Lenses are fine for anamorphically shot film, with film stock viewed via a film projector, but I use non anamorphically produced BluRay.......I see zooming as the smart man's solution...........and for pure image resolved perfection with current BluRay, view from the appropriate angle/ratio...........as long as the seating width is catered for size becomes irrelevant.............but darn some seem to have the need to compensate

Ever wonder why DCI have 2 resolutions for 2.35:1 and 16:9 and the use of A-Lenses are not recommended and zooming is the prefered option, though they they do state the use of scaling and anamorphic lens will maximise the panels light source effiency and some movie studios forbid the use of scaling/A-Lens in commercial applications. Why don't DCI have a spec for anamorphic encoding of a Hard Drive so no scaling is required by the playback chain only the addition of an A -Lens.....surely they want the best possible result from the movie experience for the consumer.

One question boys, if you owned a 2560 x 1440(16:9) projector and disks were available pixel mapped 16:9(1920 x 1080) and 2.35:1 (2560 x 1080).....would you scale both or watch via an A-Lens or watch them pixel mapped via the primary lens only CIH?...and zoom to the preffered size?

Been fun!..............will play later!

Don't get too serious gents......if a simple hobby........go put a BluRay on and enjoy!

Of course you are ignoring pixel visibility at reasonable seating distances along with light output and convenience, have you used an ISCO III with a high end projector ? The description you provide of image degredation is not accurate in my set up.

Your last comment reminds me of my son when he makes a comment that is off color,socially unacceptable or just inappropriate and realizes it after the fact he says "just kidding".



Art


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
post #106 of 127 Old 04-16-2010, 06:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
b curry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: on the way to Hell, Michigan USA
Posts: 2,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post

Darin:
"Things can be observed when people have a projector and take the time to do it, but that can also be said about testing a projector with an anamorphic lens like some other people here have done. Sorry if I missed it, but have you actually ever compared zooming to using an anamorphic lens for the same image size?"


Yes I have Darin.......from the ideal viewing angle, I by far prefer the zoomed image, masked of course......With the A-Lens I found the left and right side of the screen to be flat and lacking in depth. Observations were not on curved screens.....had a curved screen been used and a 16:9 image was displayed using the full panel, not a 4:3 section of the panel(1440 x 1080) with the lens in place as some have suggested doing, what would happen to the 16:9 image without the A-Lens in place on a curved screen?

I'm still pontificating how scaling a pixel mapped image of the same width by vertically stretching the image data over 25% more pixels in the vertical direction and using optical stretching can maintain the images integrity perfectly.

I wonder if guys like Mark Peterson, Greg Rogers are A-Lens affectionados as well.

A-Lenses are fine for anamorphically shot film, with film stock viewed via a film projector, but I use non anamorphically produced BluRay.......I see zooming as the smart man's solution...........and for pure image resolved perfection with current BluRay, view from the appropriate angle/ratio...........as long as the seating width is catered for size becomes irrelevant.............but darn some seem to have the need to compensate

Ever wonder why DCI have 2 resolutions for 2.35:1 and 16:9 and the use of A-Lenses are not recommended and zooming is the prefered option, though they they do state the use of scaling and anamorphic lens will maximise the panels light source effiency and some movie studios forbid the use of scaling/A-Lens in commercial applications. Why don't DCI have a spec for anamorphic encoding of a Hard Drive so no scaling is required by the playback chain only the addition of an A -Lens.....surely they want the best possible result from the movie experience for the consumer.

One question boys, if you owned a 2560 x 1440(16:9) projector and disks were available pixel mapped 16:9(1920 x 1080) and 2.35:1 (2560 x 1080).....would you scale both or watch via an A-Lens or watch them pixel mapped via the primary lens only CIH?...and zoom to the preffered size?

Been fun!..............will play later!

Don't get too serious gents......if a simple hobby........go put a BluRay on and enjoy!

This is just silly nonsense.

Zooming is a means to an ends, nothing more nothing less.

Do you think for a minute that if ISCO/Schneider, Panamorph, Prismasonic, etc. were to suddenly start giving away a lens with a projector this would even be a discussion?
b curry is offline  
post #107 of 127 Old 04-18-2010, 05:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,384
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post

With all due respect Mark is no angel.

That's right. No wings or halo here

Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post

With the A-Lens I found the left and right side of the screen to be flat and lacking in depth.

And which lens was that Highjinx?

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #108 of 127 Old 02-28-2012, 03:25 PM
Member
 
harthenry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 59
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by b curry View Post

This is just silly nonsense.

Zooming is a means to an ends, nothing more nothing less.

Do you think for a minute that if ISCO/Schneider, Panamorph, Prismasonic, etc. were to suddenly start giving away a lens with a projector this would even be a discussion?

Great point, and you are absolutely correct.... However, I like my DIY Anamorphic lens -- probably cost me less than $200 to build and would not trade it for zooming anyday..
harthenry is offline  
post #109 of 127 Old 02-28-2012, 04:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,384
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post

Ever wonder why DCI have 2 resolutions for 2.35:1 and 16:9 and the use of A-Lenses are not recommended and zooming is the prefered option


Because most cinema personal don't know how to dial them in. With 35mm film, you had no choice but to use a 2x lens. Typically, you would use a SMPTE film loop and make the adjustment from there. If it is slightly out, most people won't notice.

With digital, it is a very different story. So it is simply easier not to use the lenses than risk getting negative feed back.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #110 of 127 Old 02-28-2012, 05:33 PM
Member
 
harthenry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 59
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post


Because most cinema personal don't know how to dial them in. With 35mm film, you had no choice but to use a 2x lens. Typically, you would use a SMPTE film loop and make the adjustment from there. If it is slightly out, most people won't notice.

With digital, it is a very different story. So it is simply easier not to use the lenses than risk getting negative feed back.

Hi Mark: This may be a little off topic regarding zooming, however, comments have been made that some cannot see a difference between zooming and anamorphic, we must ask ourselves however, how did they arrive at CIH. If the user performed the CIH via software in a PC app (ie: an application that provides stretch and grow), then the comparison between zoom and anamorph would be exactly the same (the picture is getting zoomed by the software before it reaches the projector).

I am not sure there are many software packages that run on your PC that actually provide true pixel stretching capabilities (I do not use them). On the other hand, if the test was done with a true scaler, such as in the Oppo-93, then we can do some serious comparison. Oppo actually stretches the pixels before they get to the CCD on the projector and therefore, the scaler/lens combo is a wonderful thing.

Thanks,
HH
harthenry is offline  
post #111 of 127 Old 02-28-2012, 06:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Highjinx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,769
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
This has be dormant since 2010.......are A-lens sales slow?

May the success of a Nation be judged not by its collective wealth nor by its power, but by the contentment of its people.
Hiran J Wijeyesekera - 1985.
Highjinx is offline  
post #112 of 127 Old 02-29-2012, 06:15 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,384
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by harthenry View Post

Hi Mark: This may be a little off topic regarding zooming, however, comments have been made that some cannot see a difference between zooming and anamorphic, we must ask ourselves however, how did they arrive at CIH. If the user performed the CIH via software in a PC app (ie: an application that provides stretch and grow), then the comparison between zoom and anamorph would be exactly the same (the picture is getting zoomed by the software before it reaches the projector).

Not really. When you zoom, your pixels increase in both H and V directions. Your on screen pixel count drops from 2M to 1.5M.

When you use an VS + A-Lens, the pixels only increase in the H direction and you continue to use 2M pixels on screen.

Half a million pixels different, and yet both images are now the same size.

Quote:


I am not sure there are many software packages that run on your PC that actually provide true pixel stretching capabilities (I do not use them). On the other hand, if the test was done with a true scaler, such as in the Oppo-93, then we can do some serious comparison. Oppo actually stretches the pixels before they get to the CCD on the projector and therefore, the scaler/lens combo is a wonderful thing.

Thanks,
HH

I use Media Play Classic on my PC for my ripped movies and I don't think it actually does anything to the pixels apart from reassigning the information they display. The pixels would remain square. V stretch at the source and V stretch done in the projector look the same to me. I only use VS at the source because I can.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #113 of 127 Old 02-29-2012, 08:52 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rboster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 17,578
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post

This has be dormant since 2010.......are A-lens sales slow?

It was another member who bumped this old thread to talk about his DIY lens.

"Retired" AVS Moderator
rboster is offline  
post #114 of 127 Old 03-01-2012, 04:17 AM
Member
 
harthenry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 59
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Not really. When you zoom, your pixels increase in both H and V directions. Your on screen pixel count drops from 2M to 1.5M.

When you use an VS + A-Lens, the pixels only increase in the H direction and you continue to use 2M pixels on screen.

Half a million pixels different, and yet both images are now the same size.



I use Media Play Classic on my PC for my ripped movies and I don't think it actually does anything to the pixels apart from reassigning the information they display. The pixels would remain square. V stretch at the source and V stretch done in the projector look the same to me. I only use VS at the source because I can.

Hi Mark: The spirit of my thoughts was I believe many who compare zoomed pictures to a DIY lens are not using an external piece of hardware to only stretch pixels in the vertical direction (not a fair comparison). I think MP Classic (as well as XBMC - which I use and think is great), cannot perform true pixel manipulation. Since I knew I required an external piece of hardware to stretch my pixel for my lens, I purchased a new Epson projector that according to the Epson rep was a direct replacement of the 8700 (which is called the 5010). As you probably know, the 8700 did have built in CIH but the 5010 does not (hence, it is not a direct replacement of the 8700).

Thanks again for all your info -- and -- if you happen to know of a piece of hardware I can purchase that will provide me the CIH (hopefully less cost than the EDGE Green DVDO which I would love to have), let me know.

Thanks,
HH
harthenry is offline  
post #115 of 127 Old 03-01-2012, 06:17 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,405
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 118 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by harthenry View Post

Hi Mark: The spirit of my thoughts was I believe many who compare zoomed pictures to a DIY lens are not using an external piece of hardware to only stretch pixels in the vertical direction (not a fair comparison). I think MP Classic (as well as XBMC - which I use and think is great), cannot perform true pixel manipulation.

What do you mean "true pixel manipulation", if you scale the 1920x810 area of an image to 1920x1080, you're stretching in the vertical dimension only. An external VP isn't going to do it any different than software.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
stanger89 is offline  
post #116 of 127 Old 06-06-2012, 09:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
popalock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Doha, Qatar
Posts: 3,496
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 247 Post(s)
Liked: 625
Send a message via Skype™ to popalock
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post

BD scope discs are 16:9 but with black bars encoded above and below the image. At the moment there are no anamorphic encoded scope movies.


Zooming will result in 33% larger pixels which, depending on your viewing distance, may make pixels more visible and the image less smooth. A lens with scaling will use all of the displays pixels (removing the black bars) so keeping them smaller and give a smoother image much the same as the 16:9 image. Different lenses offer different quality of image, and not all are visible when you use them. Lumen loss is minimal (around 1% when I measured mine).


Gary


Wait wait wait...

I'm still reading all of this thread, but this post threw me off. Does this statement infer that by purchasing a 2.35:1 screen the image will simply be zoomed where black bars spill off on to whatever walls/masking you have in place?

So I'm at my friends house last night and he has a 16:9 setup with horizontal black bars while we are watching a movie. Your saying that the source material is what has the black bars and a scope screen would simply make the black bars less noticable, but could still be detected spilling over your frame if you don't have dark walls behind your screen?

Is that the jist? I'm planning on purchasing a Panny AE7000U very soon and WAS contemplating a CIH setup... But not if it means I'm going to have spillage on to the walls...

 

popalock is offline  
post #117 of 127 Old 06-06-2012, 11:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by popalock View Post

Wait wait wait...
I'm still reading all of this thread, but this post threw me off. Does this statement infer that by purchasing a 2.35:1 screen the image will simply be zoomed where black bars spill off on to whatever walls/masking you have in place?
So I'm at my friends house last night and he has a 16:9 setup with horizontal black bars while we are watching a movie. Your saying that the source material is what has the black bars and a scope screen would simply make the black bars less noticable, but could still be detected spilling over your frame if you don't have dark walls behind your screen?
Is that the jist? I'm planning on purchasing a Panny AE7000U very soon and WAS contemplating a CIH setup... But not if it means I'm going to have spillage on to the walls...

Yes, that's right. Unless you use an anamorphic lens, you will simply be zooming the black bars off the top and bottom of the screen onto the walls. If you have black material on the screen wall, it shouldn't be a problem most of the time.

Gary

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #118 of 127 Old 06-06-2012, 12:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
popalock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Doha, Qatar
Posts: 3,496
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 247 Post(s)
Liked: 625
Send a message via Skype™ to popalock
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post

Yes, that's right. Unless you use an anamorphic lens, you will simply be zooming the black bars off the top and bottom of the screen onto the walls. If you have black material on the screen wall, it shouldn't be a problem most of the time.
Gary

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rREx45OJUQs&feature=endscreen&NR=1

I see no bars above/below the screen... I'm confused?

That video looks awesome, and if that's what I'm in for by getting a 2.35:1 screen with the Panny AE7000U then I might have to take one for the team and just get it.

 

popalock is offline  
post #119 of 127 Old 06-06-2012, 12:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by popalock View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post

Yes, that's right. Unless you use an anamorphic lens, you will simply be zooming the black bars off the top and bottom of the screen onto the walls. If you have black material on the screen wall, it shouldn't be a problem most of the time.
Gary

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rREx45OJUQs&feature=endscreen&NR=1

I see no bars above/below the screen... I'm confused?

That video looks awesome, and if that's what I'm in for by getting a 2.35:1 screen with the Panny AE7000U then I might have to take one for the team and just get it.

That's because the light that is on the wall in that demo room, is brighter than the black bars that are overspilling onto it, so you don't see them. That screen is designed to be used in ambient light and/or bright décor conditions to preserve on screen simultaneous contrast (that's why there are lamps on in the room - it's part of the selling point of the screen), but many people have normal white screens with a little gain in dark rooms. In those circumstances, if the image is dark, you might see the lighter black borders slightly illuminate the wall behind the screen. That was about the only time I saw the black bars on my last set up when I was zooming.

Gary

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #120 of 127 Old 06-07-2012, 06:09 AM
Advanced Member
 
mrfattbill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 806
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Gary, if you happen to own the remake of "True Grit" can you pop it in and tell me if you think the black bars on that are really really bright. I notice that I can see the overspill in that movie way more than any other movie on both my old Panny AE4K and now my JVC X30.

Thanks

Bill
mrfattbill is offline  
Reply 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off