CIH Native PJ soon? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 82 Old 01-21-2010, 03:17 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
rockstar0215's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 148
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 10
With the recent debuts of scope televisions and the more recent Vizio concept at CES, is the step towards native scope PJs closer then ever? This would significantly reduce the costs of a scope set up as well as possibly reach out to a wider consumer group and reduce the technical issues many anamorphic lens users are facing such as pincushion effects.
What's every body's thoughts?
rockstar0215 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 82 Old 01-21-2010, 03:40 PM
Member
 
detached's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 45
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I suppose it depends on what the majority of HT Projector owners are using for source material. Its 100% movies for me so the native Cinemascope would be perfect.
detached is offline  
post #3 of 82 Old 01-21-2010, 03:58 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
rockstar0215's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 148
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 10
A native scope PJ wont be able to display 16:9 material without sacrificing brightness, about 33% with black bars on the side. However, I doubt there is any way of truly enjoying both formats without SOME sacrifices. Either black bars and loose brightness, anamorphic lens with added expenses, or a scope projector but loss of brightness on 16:9 formats.
rockstar0215 is offline  
post #4 of 82 Old 01-21-2010, 04:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
HopefulFred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 2,871
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 178 Post(s)
Liked: 216
I agree with what you're saying in principle, but I expect manufacturers won't bring to market a projector with brightness problems for much of the content people want to enjoy. But like I said: I agree entirely with the idea your expressing about trade-offs. I think they may be coming in other ways, though.

I don't think a 21:9 projector should need anything but a normal projection lens set more or less like the lenses used in 16:9 projectors (spherical/flat - I'm sure one of those terms isn't properly used in this case) to get the geometry right, but shouldn't we expect to make sacrifices in some way in exchange for this? I mean most everything (aside from the laws of physics/optics) can be overcome with money, but won't there be long throw ratios or narrow focus ranges or something I can't foresee complicating things for many home-users?

Maybe these are the problems that keep this from coming to market sooner. I won't hold my breath, but I will cross my fingers.
HopefulFred is offline  
post #5 of 82 Old 01-21-2010, 05:16 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,451
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
Liked: 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockstar0215 View Post

A native scope PJ wont be able to display 16:9 material without sacrificing brightness, about 33% with black bars on the side. However, I doubt there is any way of truly enjoying both formats without SOME sacrifices. Either black bars and loose brightness, anamorphic lens with added expenses, or a scope projector but loss of brightness on 16:9 formats.

IMO it's not a "Loss", not anymore than scope on a normal 16x9 display is "loss" of brightness. It's the same brightness for all ARs, there is no loss.

The brightness "gain" with an anamorphic lens in a scope config is in relation to the same size image but without a lens. It's a very missunderstood concept IMO and really not of much value since there are far too many variables (the idea really came from the use of VC lenses to focus the light of a 4:3 projector down into the smaller 16:9 area for anamorphic DVDs before 16:9 projectors were common).

Quote:
Originally Posted by HopefulFred View Post

I agree with what you're saying in principle, but I expect manufacturers won't bring to market a projector with brightness problems for much of the content people want to enjoy. But like I said: I agree entirely with the idea your expressing about trade-offs. I think they may be coming in other ways, though.

There is no brightness problem. But there are a lot of other technical problems:

Quote:
I don't think a 21:9 projector should need anything but a normal projection lens set more or less like the lenses used in 16:9 projectors (spherical/flat - I'm sure one of those terms isn't properly used in this case) to get the geometry right, but shouldn't we expect to make sacrifices in some way in exchange for this?

You'll need a larger lens for the same performance because the image is wider. You could make the beam smaller (smaller chip) but that has negatives as can be seen in the differences between the 0.65" and 0.95" DMD machines.

Quote:
I mean most everything (aside from the laws of physics/optics) can be overcome with money, but won't there be long throw ratios or narrow focus ranges or something I can't foresee complicating things for many home-users?

You've hit the nail on the head, money. The number of people interested in CIH is very, very small. Frankly I bet there will be more 21:9 LCD flat panels sold than there are HT projectors sold, and that probably won't be many for quite a while. It's going to be a very tough sell for TI, JVC, Sony or Epson to make special 21:9, 2560x1080 panels for the miniscule market that is CIH front projection home theater.

If there were a market for scope-native projectors it would be the commercial cinema market, and they're using anamorphic lenses.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
post #6 of 82 Old 01-21-2010, 06:29 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
rockstar0215's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 148
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I understand it's not a loss but those pixels are not used and "wasted" on black bars. The image itself is not brighter. However, as you stated before CIH is only a small niche. Personally I never heard about it until i came upon this forum. My point was to see if the entrance of "scope" LCD displays into the market will mean PJ with same aspect ratios. So far I am only wishing.
rockstar0215 is offline  
post #7 of 82 Old 01-21-2010, 06:40 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,451
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
Liked: 151
I think it's a promising sign for sure. And no doubt every day is closer than the previous. But I don't think it's can be taken to mean such a machine in imminent or anything.

My guess is still that the first scope projectors will be 4k panels masked down to scope, and 4k panels are still only in the really, really expensive machines.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
post #8 of 82 Old 01-21-2010, 07:03 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coldmachine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Waiting in the weeds
Posts: 5,807
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
TI will be releasing A 21:9 (2.37) chip this year with 2560x1080. Its not been confirmed if its a masked version of the 2560x1600 or a native resolution chip.

Not confirmed yet if it will appear in domestic machines. If it does, I assume it will arrive in a 3 chip form first. I wouldn't expect any action south of $70k.

The 4k DLP chips are due by years end, domestic version will follow.

--------------------------------------------
"Wow, do you think you are Adonis"...... "Baby, I'm not A-donis, I'm THE-donis"
coldmachine is offline  
post #9 of 82 Old 01-21-2010, 07:18 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,451
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
Liked: 151
Very interesting, now just give me a 2560x1080 DLP with LED local dimming south of $10k and I'll be a happy camper

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
post #10 of 82 Old 01-21-2010, 07:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,385
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 44
It is a marketing issue. Sure "build it and they will come", however, what happens if they don't?

16:9 TVs first appeared in 1992 (Phillips and JVC), yet it was not until 2000 that SONY released the first native 1.78:1 projector (HT10). DVD had already been out for two years.

It is great that Phillips have shown initiative with their new 2560 x 1080 LCD, however at a serious cost and no native program to play on it yet.

We represent a very small group of enthusiasts, not the general buying public. People won't just rush out and buy a product that they can not use.

In Australia, DTV didn't even get turned on until 2001, so why would people want to buy a new wide screen set if there was no programming for it?

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #11 of 82 Old 01-22-2010, 03:29 AM
CIH USER
 
Franin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 17,458
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
Liked: 263
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

[

[/size][/font] We represent a very small group of enthusiasts, not the general buying public. People won't just rush out and buy a product that they can not use. [font=Verdana][size=2]

Have to agree. Most of my friends dont care about seeing the letterbox there happy the way it is.

_________________________

Frank
Franin is offline  
post #12 of 82 Old 01-22-2010, 06:51 AM
AVS Special Member
 
pocoloco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,030
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Scope tv's are not at viable as scope pj's.

I don' think 21:9 tv's will ever succeed given that the majority of the market uses a tv to watch.. well... tv programming, which is 16:9 and means they will see black bars most of the time. Why would they want that? Even I wouldn't buy a 21:9 tv.

But for HT projectors.. most use it to watch movies and it makes sense to have a display that matches a large share of the content. I believe the reason CIH is such a small niche in an already larger small niche (HT projection in general), is due to setup complexity, cost, or lack of awareness). Scope projectors would get rid of all those factors and I would imagine that the majority of those in the HT projection market would prefer scope vs. 16:9.
pocoloco is offline  
post #13 of 82 Old 01-22-2010, 07:52 AM
AVS Special Member
 
HopefulFred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 2,871
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 178 Post(s)
Liked: 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by pocoloco View Post

Scope projectors would get rid of all those factors and I would imagine that the majority of those in the HT projection market would prefer scope vs. 16:9.

I know if I walked into a show room to see a 16:9 projector next to a 21:9 projector - one with black bars and the other without - I'd be willing to pay more for the 21:9, all else being equal. The convenience of not having to shop and match a lens and not having to adjust any setting to switch would be worth a good bit. So really, the scope projector could be priced well above comparable 16:9 units - even higher than the projector plus lens.
HopefulFred is offline  
post #14 of 82 Old 01-22-2010, 09:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
pocoloco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,030
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by HopefulFred View Post

So really, the scope projector could be priced well above comparable 16:9 units - even higher than the projector plus lens.

In the short term, yes, but long term, I think the price difference will be small and not a strong factor in purchasing.
pocoloco is offline  
post #15 of 82 Old 01-22-2010, 11:46 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
rockstar0215's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 148
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by pocoloco View Post

Scope tv's are not at viable as scope pj's.

I don' think 21:9 tv's will ever succeed given that the majority of the market uses a tv to watch.. well... tv programming, which is 16:9 and means they will see black bars most of the time. Why would they want that? Even I wouldn't buy a 21:9 tv.

But for HT projectors.. most use it to watch movies and it makes sense to have a display that matches a large share of the content. I believe the reason CIH is such a small niche in an already larger small niche (HT projection in general), is due to setup complexity, cost, or lack of awareness). Scope projectors would get rid of all those factors and I would imagine that the majority of those in the HT projection market would prefer scope vs. 16:9.

I agree with you a 100%. It would make more sense for a 21:9 or scope projector before a TV mainly because TV is all 16:9 while projectors are more for movies and most movies are in scope. However, since the market is bigger for TVs then PJ introducing a "niche" product into the mainstream might bring some benefits into PJ.
rockstar0215 is offline  
post #16 of 82 Old 01-22-2010, 05:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,385
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by pocoloco View Post

Scope tv's are not at viable as scope pj's.

I don' think 21:9 tv's will ever succeed given that the majority of the market uses a tv to watch.. well... tv programming, which is 16:9 and means they will see black bars most of the time. Why would they want that? Even I wouldn't buy a 21:9 tv.

How is that any different to say 10 years ago and 16:9 TVs? So much stuff was 4 x 3 back then. I was shocked to learn that even the 2000 Olympics were shot in 4 x 3 SD. HD cameras were available, however it just was not done.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #17 of 82 Old 01-22-2010, 05:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,385
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by pocoloco View Post

In the short term, yes, but long term, I think the price difference will be small and not a strong factor in purchasing.

If that was correct, wouldn't we all have 3 Chip DLPs by now?

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #18 of 82 Old 01-22-2010, 06:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
pocoloco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,030
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

How is that any different to say 10 years ago and 16:9 TVs? So much stuff was 4 x 3 back then. I was shocked to learn that even the 2000 Olympics were shot in 4 x 3 SD. HD cameras were available, however it just was not done.

Because we all knew that HD 16:9 was the future standard. Now if going forward, the new tv standard is deemed to be 21:9, then just like 16:9, 21:9 tv's would become commonplace. But that's my point, TV content is never going to be 21:9 any time soon, so why would 21:9 tv's become ubiquitous? By your logic, 16:9 tv's would be ubiquitous even if HD 16:9 content never existed, and that's crazy talk.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

If that was correct, wouldn't we all have 3 Chip DLPs by now?

Ha! but we all have 1080p projectors don't we? One isolated example isn't going to prove your point. Going by your logic, we'd all be stuck with 720p projectors because 1080p price remains unreasonably high. And we'd all still own 4:3 pj's vs. 16:9 pj's. All technology comes down in price and in the long term, price isn't going to be a factor of whether or not someone picks a 16:9 vs. 21:9 pj.
pocoloco is offline  
post #19 of 82 Old 01-22-2010, 10:21 PM
Advanced Member
 
Anthony Cler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Lindsay, TX
Posts: 786
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

it was not until 2000 that SONY released the first native 1.78:1 projector (HT10)

Not that it really matters, but the first native 1.78:1 projector was the Sony 400Q which was released in 1996 (before DVD). I know because I owned one .
Anthony Cler is offline  
post #20 of 82 Old 01-23-2010, 01:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,385
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by pocoloco View Post

Because we all knew that HD 16:9 was the future standard.Now if going forward, the new tv standard is deemed to be 21:9, then just like 16:9, 21:9 tv's would become commonplace. But that's my point, TV content is never going to be 21:9 any time soon, so why would 21:9 tv's become ubiquitous? By your logic, 16:9 tv's would be ubiquitous even if HD 16:9 content never existed, and that's crazy talk.

So you new all about HDTV back in 1992? It is early days, and who knows exactly what the future holds. 16:9 is NOT the be all to end all and why many on this forum have gone to great lengths to get a wider imaging system.

Quote:


Ha! but we all have 1080p projectors don't we? One isolated example isn't going to prove your point. Going by your logic, we'd all be stuck with 720p projectors because 1080p price remains unreasonably high. And we'd all still own 4:3 pj's vs. 16:9 pj's. All technology comes down in price and in the long term, price isn't going to be a factor of whether or not someone picks a 16:9 vs. 21:9 pj.

You still seem to be missing the point. The imaging chips may be cheap to manufacture, however the lenses needed to make them clear on screen are not so. Especially when large lenses are required as they will be for 2560 panels. This is one reason why the cheapest 4K machine is still over $70K.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #21 of 82 Old 01-23-2010, 01:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,385
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony Cler View Post

Not that it really matters, but the first native 1.78:1 projector was the Sony 400Q which was released in 1996 (before DVD). I know because I owned one .

Thanks for that. Clearly I was mis-informed then as I was lead to belive these were 4 x 3 with electronic VC for 16:9.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #22 of 82 Old 01-23-2010, 07:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
pocoloco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,030
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

16:9 is NOT the be all to end all and why many on this forum have gone to great lengths to get a wider imaging system.

I'm not arguing against wider imaging systems for movies. I'm arguing them for tv and people are NOT going to great lengths to get a wider imaging system to watch tv. I repeat, 21:9 tv programming is simply NOT going to happen any time soon, hence 21:9 tv's won't be accepted by the mainstream. If you're that passionate and certain about it, go ahead and buy stock in the companies producing those tv's and make a fortune. I'll hedge my bets elsewhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

You still seem to be missing the point. The imaging chips may be cheap to manufacture, however the lenses needed to make them clear on screen are not so. Especially when large lenses are required as they will be for 2560 panels. This is one reason why the cheapest 4K machine is still over $70K.

I clearly understand this point and agree in the short term scope pj's may be expensive. But if scope pj's gain traction, then prices will fall in the long term, just like everything else. I'm not trying to tout a revolutionary concept here. If anything I guarantee you it'll be cheaper than a pj + isco3 + cineslide combo and I consider that huge progress.

In the end, my opinion is that scope PJ's have a much better chance of succeeding than scope tv's.
pocoloco is offline  
post #23 of 82 Old 01-23-2010, 08:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
KramerTC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Huntersville, NC, US
Posts: 1,162
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post


You still seem to be missing the point. The imaging chips may be cheap to manufacture, however the lenses needed to make them clear on screen are not so. Especially when large lenses are required as they will be for 2560 panels. This is one reason why the cheapest 4K machine is still over $70K.

CAVX,

I would appreciate an explanation why the lenses needed to accommodate native scope chips for home theater use would be that much more expensive. I can see the extra cost relative to the larger lens size required for the wider image. But other than the larger size (while retaining the quality) won't the lenses be basically the same?
KramerTC is offline  
post #24 of 82 Old 01-23-2010, 10:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,807
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 104
The 2560x1080/21:9 projector could very well become standard for "2K" projectors both for HT and cinema.

Projectors are mostly (non presentation PJ's) used for movies and the most seen movies are 21:9 which is a great incentive for people to buy a native 21:9 projector when the cost and complexity of rigging an anamorphic lens system is gone.

It all depends on the manufacturers.
If they think native 21:9 projectors as a standard are a good idea, it will become a standard for projectors (even for presentation PJ's).
If the manufacturers don't think this is a good idea (and they often lack imagination), 21:9 projectors will become expensive and far between.

The great incentive for the manufacturers to do this will be to tempt more people to buy new and more projectors as the projectors have come near to the "end of the line" when it comes to their Image quality development possibilities.

A new 21:9 standard for projectors will put a much needed "excitement" into the "2K" standard before they can launch affordable 4K projectors.
Add LED & 3D to the 2560x1080p projector, and "ALL" projector owners will want to buy a new projector.

When it comes to the question of more expensive optics for such a projector; that is just a number depending on manufacturers pricing, margins they want/need, number of projectors they sell and the willingness to "push" a 21:9 projector standard on the marked.
Look at the size difference on the optics on the various technologies of LCD,Lcos & DLP 1080p projectors and the prices (and price drops) and you see that the "expensiveness" of optics often quoted is often an "illusion".
Comparatively; the same is seen in the Camera optics marked.

The projectiondesign 2560x1600 (4megapixel) projector using the chip that will be masked or re-manufactured as 2560x1080,
use the same Chassis as the 2K model (but probably with a slightly larger lens if TI has not managed to shrink 4 megapixel onto a 0.95" DMD??) without redesigning the hole for the lens.

This is of course a expensive 1-chip projector, but so it is in it's 1080p incarnation. projectiondesign F35 2560 x 1600 Native, 16:10 Aspect Ratio
So no reason a 21:9 version of this should be used in 3-chip PJ's first.

There are no reason 21:9 Tv's and projectors should not be popular for native 16:9 material if just the manufacturers used some imagination and insert of features;
If they made it possible to move the 16:9 picture to the side of the display area we would have a large unused space that could be used for PiP of several "thumbnails" of other channels or for internet surfing.

Imagine watching a sports game (or news) on the main picture of a 21:9 AR at the same time as you could keep an eye on the development of other games on other channels running beside the 16:9 picture.

I'm very surprised that the 21:9 TV manufacturers have not utilized this in the features and promotion of these TVs.

Imagination goes a long way
coolscan is offline  
post #25 of 82 Old 01-23-2010, 10:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,487
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldmachine View Post

TI will be releasing A 21:9 (2.37) chip this year with 2560x1080. Its not been confirmed if its a masked version of the 2560x1600 or a native resolution chip.

Not confirmed yet if it will appear in domestic machines. If it does, I assume it will arrive in a 3 chip form first. I wouldn't expect any action south of $70k.

The 4k DLP chips are due by years end, domestic version will follow.

Excellent news - thanks for sharing.

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 online now  
post #26 of 82 Old 01-23-2010, 05:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,385
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post


If they made it possible to move the 16:9 picture to the side of the display area we would have a large unused space that could be used for PiP of several "thumbnails" of other channels or for internet surfing.

That has got to be the coolest idea for the use of side pillars ever!

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #27 of 82 Old 01-24-2010, 09:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
KramerTC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Huntersville, NC, US
Posts: 1,162
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

The 2560x1080/21:9 projector could very well become standard for "2K" projectors both for HT and cinema.

Projectors are mostly (non presentation PJ's) used for movies and the most seen movies are 21:9 which is a great incentive for people to buy a native 21:9 projector when the cost and complexity of rigging an anamorphic lens system is gone.

It all depends on the manufacturers.
If they think native 21:9 projectors as a standard are a good idea, it will become a standard for projectors (even for presentation PJ's).
If the manufacturers don't think this is a good idea (and they often lack imagination), 21:9 projectors will become expensive and far between.

The great incentive for the manufacturers to do this will be to tempt more people to buy new and more projectors as the projectors have come near to the "end of the line" when it comes to their Image quality development possibilities.

A new 21:9 standard for projectors will put a much needed "excitement" into the "2K" standard before they can launch affordable 4K projectors.
Add LED & 3D to the 2560x1080p projector, and "ALL" projector owners will want to buy a new projector.

When it comes to the question of more expensive optics for such a projector; that is just a number depending on manufacturers pricing, margins they want/need, number of projectors they sell and the willingness to "push" a 21:9 projector standard on the marked.
Look at the size difference on the optics on the various technologies of LCD,Lcos & DLP 1080p projectors and the prices (and price drops) and you see that the "expensiveness" of optics often quoted is often an "illusion".
Comparatively; the same is seen in the Camera optics marked.

The projectiondesign 2560x1600 (4megapixel) projector using the chip that will be masked or re-manufactured as 2560x1080,
use the same Chassis as the 2K model (but probably with a slightly larger lens if TI has not managed to shrink 4 megapixel onto a 0.95" DMD??) without redesigning the hole for the lens.

This is of course a expensive 1-chip projector, but so it is in it's 1080p incarnation. projectiondesign F35 2560 x 1600 Native, 16:10 Aspect Ratio
So no reason a 21:9 version of this should be used in 3-chip PJ's first.

There are no reason 21:9 Tv's and projectors should not be popular for native 16:9 material if just the manufacturers used some imagination and insert of features;
If they made it possible to move the 16:9 picture to the side of the display area we would have a large unused space that could be used for PiP of several "thumbnails" of other channels or for internet surfing.

Imagine watching a sports game (or news) on the main picture of a 21:9 AR at the same time as you could keep an eye on the development of other games on other channels running beside the 16:9 picture.

I'm very surprised that the 21:9 TV manufacturers have not utilized this in the features and promotion of these TVs.

Imagination goes a long way

Great post coolscan,

The part I highlighted is, I think, the main reason we can be hopeful that native scope projectors could came to the HT market sooner rather than later. The manufacturers need to keep adding features to maintain growth.
KramerTC is offline  
post #28 of 82 Old 01-24-2010, 01:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,807
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 104

Just for fun I made some mock-ups to see how it would look like to have multiple PiP on a 21:9 screen.

I used the Phillips 21:9 TV as template just for the ease of making it.
This will of course look best on a PJ screen or on a large 21:9 TV, when they eventually makes them. Those they sell (Phillips, Vizio) are of course to small (and expensive) to tempt most people.


I would also like a 21:9 display for my PC, particularly for picture and video editing.

 

 

 

 




For those that are adventurous with a HTPC and a scope screen; I found a software (free, 30 day trial, inexpensive) that claim to being made for doing multi PiP.
If the software works, the largest problem is that you need multiple video cards (one for each channel). That would be easy with analog tuners, maybe a bigger problem for payTV/satellite type of CAM/smartcard tuners.

Might be easier to use multi web TV feeds for the Thumbnail images you have running on the side. But content there are often restricted to News feeds and not so desirable content.

BREEZE
Digital Media Data Center
Play and capture multiple streams of video, audio or pictures...

Surprising really that not more people that do regular sports-nights in their cinemas have tried out this, or that no enterprising people have done a ready package for such a solution for sport-nights at home and in sports bars.

If any adventourus people should try out this it would be great to hear some feedback if/how it works out.

Just a concept idea from my side.

coolscan is offline  
post #29 of 82 Old 01-25-2010, 07:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
blastermaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sunny Okanagan
Posts: 1,010
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 135
Damn, coolscan! That is a really cool mockup and really should be thought of and implemented with any level of R&D from the manufacturer. Especially the one with the main picture pushed off to the right. This actually makes me think of my car for some reason. I mean, how could the manufacturer miss that when I put my coffee mug in the holder that it would totally block all use of climate controls, or that when I move my visor to block the sun that it would knock my rear view mirror out of whack? Twenty points for correctly guessing which modern North American (cough...Pontiac...cough) sedan I own...

blastermaster is offline  
post #30 of 82 Old 01-26-2010, 03:58 AM
Advanced Member
 
Drexler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 944
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 26
How about having a web browser showing the results from the other games to the left?

It would be really cool if it would be possible to in addition having the lower left showing instant replays of goals and other high lights from the other games.
Drexler is online now  
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