Leaving The Lens In Place - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 174 Old 02-16-2010, 10:48 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

It is about total PQ as a complete system. This works for me (and many others). If it is not for you, then fine, move the lens (if and when you get one).

In regards to the shrink method, well at least you have made an attempt, not just sat back to throw mud as a select few have. My only take to why you noticed a difference here is that the shrink method requires down scaling in both directions, where the method of leaving the lens in place leaves the vertical at 1:1. Your Scope image is 1:1. With a Lens, it is only 1:1 horizontally. So when you compare the two images, Scope is Scaled vertically, 16:9 horizontally. The pixels are the same size and brightness, so your not seeing any difference as you change AR. The cost of a slide has nothing to do with this equation for me.

+1 I think the fact that we have smaller screens also contributes to the PQ when leaving the lens in place. I don't see any drop in PQ HE'ing the image to fit my scope screen. 90% of my movies are scope, 7% are 16:9 kid flicks, and the rest all types. With that said, why spend the cash on these things if you don't use it as much as you can. By the way...PQ is in the eyes of the beholder.

tony4k
tbase1 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 174 Old 02-16-2010, 10:52 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
GetGray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mid-South USA
Posts: 5,421
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbase1 View Post

Really......I'm not pulling your leg...I'm just trying to understand why moving the lens is such a big deal, because i don't see any visable change in PQ by HE'ing 16:9 as Mark does. I'm limited to a 8' wide screen, so masking about 2' makes no sense to me if I can't see any real PQ change. If I was pulling your leg I would say i'm getting rid of my 3L and start zooming. What makes moving the lens better then leaving it in place?

I don't mean to be rude, but you are apparently missing some fundamentals of the technology, it's application and use. I'll have to leave it to others to help you get up to speed on the basics. I think some have already tried if I remember right. I just can't. No time, too busy working on helping people move their lenses, automatically. Sorry. A thorough read of the FAQ might help, although it is anything but concise. And it may be a little one sided in some issues due to the level of who has time to contribute to it. Nature of a forum.

This horse is dead. Later guys...
GetGray is online now  
post #93 of 174 Old 02-16-2010, 02:19 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,354
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by taffman View Post

Well at least I have the satifaction of knowing that my 4;3 and 16:9 images are better than CAVX's. That's 2 out of 3 in my book!

If I can find myself a Panny 4000, I'll happily do a shootout just for you taffman. I'm guessing that the smoothscreen and loss of HFs will probably bug me more than watching an image made of 1440 x 1080 pixels. At least I know the image on my system made of 1440 x 1080 can still show single display pixel lines of alternating black and white.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is online now  
post #94 of 174 Old 02-16-2010, 03:16 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by GetGray View Post

I don't mean to be rude, but you are apparently missing some fundamentals of the technology, it's application and use. I'll have to leave it to others to help you get up to speed on the basics. I think some have already tried if I remember right.

Scott, Im with mrlittlejeans....you are totally wasting your time here.

--------------------------------------------
"Wow, do you think you are Adonis"...... "Baby, I'm not A-donis, I'm THE-donis"
coldmachine is offline  
post #95 of 174 Old 02-16-2010, 06:21 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,310
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbase1 View Post

Really......I'm not pulling your leg...I'm just trying to understand why moving the lens is such a big deal, because i don't see any visable change in PQ by HE'ing 16:9 as Mark does.

To be 100% crystal clear, 99% of us, me and I'm sure Mark included, do not "HE" 16:9. If we leave the lens in place we horizontally compress 16:9 electronically, in order to undo the lenses optical stretch.

Removing the lens negates optical stretch and the required electronic squeeze and any potential degradation from the process/reduction in resolution.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
post #96 of 174 Old 02-16-2010, 06:51 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
Sorry...did not mean to make anyone mad..... I like what I see, and enjoy the hobby. It's only video.

tony4k
tbase1 is offline  
post #97 of 174 Old 02-16-2010, 06:57 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,310
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 115
No one's mad, there just seems to be confusion over what happens with and how to use a lens.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
post #98 of 174 Old 02-16-2010, 07:27 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

No one's mad, there just seems to be confusion over what happens with and how to use a lens.

When "pros" say they're wasting their time it flys in the face of what I think the forum stands for, but maybe I'm wrong about that too. ( as if posting is time well spent) All I can say is.... I Don't move my lens and I'm 100% setup like the quick panamorph guide instructed for scope. To be clear...I scale and expand....if that's wrong then so be it...I'm happy an that's all that counts. Sometimes I wonder if the forum have been reduced to one track instead of hearing others out in their quest to enjoy good CIH video regardless of how they acheive it. i.e scaling, zooming or a lens I see no distortion expanding the image 1' on each side of the image.


Back to playing around with my HTPC.

By the way.....Thanks for being a real sport about it and not throwing me under the bus. Getgray....I think you were really pro with your comments...look forward to them again...on another subject.

tony4k
tbase1 is offline  
post #99 of 174 Old 02-16-2010, 07:51 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,354
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

To be 100% crystal clear, 99% of us, me and I'm sure Mark included, do not "HE" 16:9.

Correct.

Correct geometry is very important to me so given that I choose to leave a 1.33x anamorphic lens in the light path 100% of the time means that my 1.78:1 images are made up of 1440 x 1080 pixels and my 1.33:1 images are made up of just 1080 x 1080. Again the loss of horizontal rez is not a concern to me as it is the same pixel sensity as my full 1920 x 1080 pixel Scope images.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is online now  
post #100 of 174 Old 02-19-2010, 11:43 PM
 
Aussie Bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 799
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Again the loss of horizontal rez is not a concern to me as it is the same pixel density as my full 1920 x 1080 pixel Scope images.

Sorry again, but that isn't right either.

When you optically expand a scope screen you're using ALL the pixels available, 1920 of them.

When you first compress and then optically expand a 16:9 image you are first reducing the 1920 horizontal pixels to 3/4 of that number - 1440, dropping 25% of them forever - and then optically expanding them out... but you still only have 1440 pixels, not 1920.

I find it intersting that in a forum where every pixel is so jealously guarded and salivated over - we all have 1920x1080 pixel projectors (or mostly all of us), we sweat over exact masking so as not to lose anything of what "the director intended" and so on - yet some then throw away 1/4 of them forever, and so casually.
Aussie Bob is offline  
post #101 of 174 Old 02-20-2010, 12:16 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,354
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 31
1920 x 0.75 = 1440. Optically expand the 1440 x 1.33* and you get an image that equates to 1.78:1 (not exactly based on one of your previous posts). My point being that for a given area of screen, the pixel density does not change. Therefore my picture quality does not change as I change ARs.

During the week, I'll see if I can capture a good RAW shot of something in 1.78:1 or 1.85:1 and something in Scope and post them here for comparison.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is online now  
post #102 of 174 Old 02-20-2010, 07:45 AM
Advanced Member
 
taffman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
QUOTE:[Therefore my picture quality does not change as I change ARs.]

Correct. But its still 25% less than it would be with the lens out of the way, and I don't understand how you can accept that as you are such a stickler for using the maximum number of pixels for 2.35.
What would you say if I electronically de-scaled my 4: 3 and 16:9 so that I had the same screen pixel density as when I zoom for 2.35? Would you not say that is a stupid thing to do because I am throwing away pixels at 16:9 and 4:3?
taffman is offline  
post #103 of 174 Old 02-20-2010, 11:18 AM
Senior Member
 
CRGINC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Thousand Oaks, CA
Posts: 299
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The way I think about it is with my setup I have a horzontal pixel density of 18 pixels per inch of screen. When I de-scale down to 1.78 or 1.33 I still have 18 pixles per inch. One cannot argue that a 1 to 1 pixel mapping give the best picture artifact free quality. I maintain by leaving the lens in place the picture qualilty does not deteriorate more than the anamorphically expanded cinmascope picture. For applications that require the highest possible resolution like computer displays 1 to 1 mapping is best but for film viewing applications leaving the lens in place if fine for me.
CRGINC is offline  
post #104 of 174 Old 02-20-2010, 12:59 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

1920 x 0.75 = 1440. Therefore my picture quality does not change as I change ARs.

But it is handicaping/limiting the 16:9 image quality by going that route.

If it's limiting the 16:9 image quality to the 2.35:1 image quality then could it be said that the stretched 2.35:1 image per unit area is not as as good as the 16:9 image.......

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 174 Old 02-20-2010, 04:37 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,354
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by taffman View Post

QUOTE:[Therefore my picture quality does not change as I change ARs.]

Correct. But its still 25% less than it would be with the lens out of the way, and I don't understand how you can accept that as you are such a stickler for using the maximum number of pixels for 2.35.
What would you say if I electronically de-scaled my 4: 3 and 16:9 so that I had the same screen pixel density as when I zoom for 2.35? Would you not say that is a stupid thing to do because I am throwing away pixels at 16:9 and 4:3?

Given that most of what I watch is Scope anyway, therefore regardless of the AR:
1.1080 vertical pixels are maintained all the time.
2.The same pixel density is maintained all the time.
3.The same colour calibration is maintianed all the time.
4. Pincushion correction is maintained all the time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post

But it is handicaping/limiting the 16:9 image quality by going that route.

If it's limiting the 16:9 image quality to the 2.35:1 image quality then could it be said that the stretched 2.35:1 image per unit area is not as as good as the 16:9 image.......

See the 4 points above Highjinx.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is online now  
post #106 of 174 Old 02-20-2010, 05:59 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Given that most of what I watch is Scope anyway, therefore regardless of the AR:
1.1080 vertical pixels are maintained all the time.
2.The same pixel density is maintained all the time.
3.The same colour calibration is maintianed all the time.
4. Pincushion correction is maintained all the time.



See the 4 points above Highjinx.

With the lens moved out of the light path for 16:9 one would get:

1. Full use of 1920 x 1080 pixels. Higher pixel density.
2. Full brightness of the panel, if one had lens aperture adjustment, one could lower the brightness and gain increased CR.
3. No pincushion correction required. Less light scatter. Increased MTF
4. 1:1 pixel mapping. No scaling artifacts.

I'm playin' with ya!

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 #107 of 174 Old 02-20-2010, 06:01 PM
Senior Member
 
CRGINC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Thousand Oaks, CA
Posts: 299
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post

But it is handicaping/limiting the 16:9 image quality by going that route.

If it's limiting the 16:9 image quality to the 2.35:1 image quality then could it be said that the stretched 2.35:1 image per unit area is not as as good as the 16:9 image.......

Yes I believe that is true. Film is even worse with a X2 anamorphic stretch versus 1.85 flatscreen. Film has more resolution to begin with so I am not sure of the impact.
CRGINC is offline  
post #108 of 174 Old 02-20-2010, 06:04 PM
Advanced Member
 
taffman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post

.
If it's limiting the 16:9 image quality to the 2.35:1 image quality then could it be said that the stretched 2.35:1 image per unit area is not as as good as the 16:9 image.......

I think that is the case whether you zoom or whether you use an A-lens. No one will ever convince me that an electronically vertically stretched 16:9 letterboxed image pushed through an additional series of optical elements (no matter how good they are) to expand it out to 2.35 is as good as a native 16:9 image. It may, or may not, be better than zooming, but no way can it be as good as basic 16:9.
taffman is offline  
post #109 of 174 Old 02-20-2010, 07:38 PM
Advanced Member
 
adude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 729
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 15
I have an easy solution.

Those who want to leave the lens in place, leave it in place.
Those who want to move it, move it.
Those who want to zoom, zoom.

Those who want to argue over it, instead go watch a movie and enjoy. To each his own. All these methods have merits and deficiencies. These threads end up nothing other than virtual fights.

I am surprised why none yet have come up with a thread about the best girlfriend to have. And how anything less won't just cut it. Let's post some screenshots about the best things to have in them and convince others.

Manoj
adude is offline  
post #110 of 174 Old 02-20-2010, 11:05 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,354
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post

With the lens moved out of the light path for 16:9 one would get:

1. Full use of 1920 x 1080 pixels. Higher pixel density.

How many times have I posted about keeping the SAME pixel density? I don't want to see a change in anything except AR.

Quote:


2. Full brightness of the panel, if one had lens aperture adjustment, one could lower the brightness and gain increased CR.

One could however I only feel the need to open the iris a new step as the lamp ages and I only make this adjustment after I calibrate (about every 100 hours). I am at 800 hours now (aiming for 3000) and at position 3 out of 10.

Quote:


3. No pincushion correction required. Less light scatter. Increased MTF

OK so like taffman, you don't like anamrophic lenses either. I think we all get that.

Quote:


4. 1:1 pixel mapping. No scaling artifacts.

Yep and when true anamorphic titles come out, it will very happy days.



Quote:
Originally Posted by adude View Post

I have an easy solution.

Those who want to leave the lens in place, leave it in place.
Those who want to move it, move it.
Those who want to zoom, zoom.

And so I shall continue to leave my lens in place all the time. Thank You adude for your wize words.


Quote:


I am surprised why none yet have come up with a thread about the best girlfriend to have.

Lets do that then. The best GF to have is one that like mine. One that loves me, enjoys spending quality time, has open communication, shares the same reality and therefore brings happyness into my life. She also thinks my MK4 anamorphic lens rocks Sorry no screen shots

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is online now  
post #111 of 174 Old 02-21-2010, 04:51 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,354
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Both images were captured using the RAW setting on my camera.
The camera was custom white balanced using the screen as the referecne white.
The camera was mounted on a tri-pod and timer was used.
I've saved these files as JPEG as seems I can not upload TIFF.

As you can (hopefully) see from the images, pixel density remains the same.

LL
LL

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is online now  
post #112 of 174 Old 02-21-2010, 11:58 AM
Advanced Member
 
ilsiu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 867
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

How many times have I posted about keeping the SAME pixel density?

Obviously you're comparing the pixel density of 1920x1080 pixels in a 2.37 frame vs 1440x1080 pixels in a 16x9 frame. You're correct that they're the same density.

Obviously Highjinx is comparing the pixel density of 1920x1080 pixels (lens out of the way) vs 1440x1080 pixels (lens in place) in the same 16x9 frame. He's correct one is higher than the other.
ilsiu is offline  
post #113 of 174 Old 02-21-2010, 01:48 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,354
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilsiu View Post

Obviously you're comparing the pixel density of 1920x1080 pixels in a 2.37 frame vs 1440x1080 pixels in a 16x9 frame. You're correct that they're the same density.

And the reason for this thread.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is online now  
post #114 of 174 Old 02-21-2010, 07:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kilgore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Huntsville Ontario
Posts: 2,955
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

And the reason for this thread.

Obviously, the quality of a 16:9 image that uses all the pixels of display would be superior to one that doesn't. You can't possibly deny that this is so.

After all, the whole argument for the superiority of anamorphic lenses is that it allows all of the pixel structure of a display to be used when displaying a 2.35:1 image. When you are viewing 16:9 images, the argument has to be the same. Use ALL the pixels of a display.

This "pixel density" concept of yours sounds to me to be a smoke screen argument to justify keeping a lens in place. A better argument would be that keeping a lens in place simplifies the CIH process. You sacrifice quality in the 16:9 image for ease of use with the lens.

I'm not saying you shouldn't keep your lens in place if you want to. All I'm saying is that if you're totally concerned with displaying an image in the best possible representation, you have to take the lens out of the way if you're viewing 16:9 material so that all the pixels are utilized. If you want to simplify the process, then keep it in place and rescale the image, sacrificing pixels to make the process easier.

You can't be saying that 16:9 material looks better with the lens than without. It simply can't be so, otherwise your whole argument for using a lens with 2.35:1 material falls apart by the same reasoning.
Kilgore is online now  
post #115 of 174 Old 02-21-2010, 07:29 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,354
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilgore View Post


You can't be saying that 16:9 material looks better with the lens than without. It simply can't be so, otherwise your whole argument for using a lens with 2.35:1 material falls apart by the same reasoning.

If I didn't own a curved AT screen, then I probably would move the lens for 16:9. Everyone that has challenged me so far either had not seen a lens for themselves, so assumes it is degrading the image to an unwatchable state or simply have not understood my reasons for leaving in place.

I DO NOT WANT MY IMAGES CHANGING IN BRIGHTNESS OR BARRELING!

HDTV is of such poor quality where I live that throwing away 25% of the H rez really doesn't make a difference. BD is a different story, however, like has been posted many times, my system has been set up to give me a fixed level of PQ. If 16:9 has to give, so be it. It doesn't imopress me anyway.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is online now  
post #116 of 174 Old 02-21-2010, 07:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kilgore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Huntsville Ontario
Posts: 2,955
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 163
I should add that if I used an anamorphic lens, I might even do the same thing as you and leave the lens in place. But I would never go so far as to say that the resultant 16:9 image would be superior to one that is squeezed and stretched. That would be ludicrous. A 2.35:1 image that is stretched and expanded is superior? That makes total sense. A 16:9 image that is squeezed and stretched is superior? That's ridiculous.
Kilgore is online now  
post #117 of 174 Old 02-21-2010, 07:38 PM
Advanced Member
 
ilsiu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 867
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

And the reason for this thread.

You list constant pixel density as a reason for using fixed lens, as if constant pixel density is a goal unto itself.

The pixel density of 2.35 can't be improved; the pixel density of 16x9 can either be the same or 33% higher. All other things (color calibration, brightness, source material quality) being equal, what's the benefit to 16x9 material to reducing it's pixel density so it matches 2.35 pixel density?
ilsiu is offline  
post #118 of 174 Old 02-21-2010, 11:20 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,354
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilsiu View Post

You list constant pixel density as a reason for using fixed lens, as if constant pixel density is a goal unto itself.

And it is. If 2560 x 1080 projectors were out, pixel density would be the same. When using the lens in this way, it is simply an optically assisted version.

Quote:


The pixel density of 2.35 can't be improved; the pixel density of 16x9 can either be the same or 33% higher. All other things (color calibration, brightness, source material quality) being equal, what's the benefit to 16x9 material to reducing it's pixel density so it matches 2.35 pixel density?

The point being to match the Scope image.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is online now  
post #119 of 174 Old 02-21-2010, 11:27 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,354
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilgore View Post

I should add that if I used an anamorphic lens, I might even do the same thing as you and leave the lens in place. But I would never go so far as to say that the resultant 16:9 image would be superior to one that is squeezed and stretched. That would be ludicrous. A 2.35:1 image that is stretched and expanded is superior? That makes total sense. A 16:9 image that is squeezed and stretched is superior? That's ridiculous.

Maybe you need to re-read my posts and if I have actually claimed it is superior, please quote me. What it does do is match the Scope image for PQ, nothing more. It is about keeping level playing field, not having ine format suddenly look brighter than another.

What I did say was that our HDTV is such crap that I doubt many would notice there is a differenc to the raw 1920 x 1080 Vs an optically expanded 1440 x 1080 image as so much of it is upscaled SD anyway.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is online now  
post #120 of 174 Old 02-22-2010, 07:22 AM
Advanced Member
 
taffman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Why do'nt you just admit that you are trading off 16:9 PQ for the convenience of not having to move the lens? We could all buy that. But this business of "maintaining a constant pixel density" makes little sense. If that were a real advantage then zoomers would be deliberately de-scaling their 16:9 and 4:3 to get the same pixel density as their zoomed 2.35 image.
taffman 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