A newbie question - projector doing native CIH - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 25 Old 08-11-2011, 01:30 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
contentedbloke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 112
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Guys,

I'm planning to buy the Mits HC4000 as I'm told that it can do CIH as well 16x9. Here is where I have my doubts:

What do you mean by saying that the Mits can do CIH? From what I learnt by browsing the forum and faqs, one needs the following to do CIH:

1. Content
2. HTPC / scalar
3. Anamorphic Lens
4. A 16x9 projector
5. A 2.35:1 screen

Does the Mits HC4000 or Panasonic AE4000 replace item 3 (i.e. the anamorphic lens) when it does CIH? What exactly does the zoom mode do which other projectors cannot do? How is it different from the anamorphic lens? Will we lose content (while watching 2.35 or 16:9 source) when the projector does the CIH zoom (due to cropping)?

I honestly tried searching the forums but did not get any clarity. Can you guys explain it to me?
contentedbloke is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 25 Old 08-11-2011, 01:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,391
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by contentedbloke View Post
Guys,

I'm planning to buy the Mits HC4000 as I'm told that it can do CIH as well 16x9. Here is where I have my doubts:
The Mitsubishi can scale for CIH. It has "anamorphic mode 1" (vertical stretch) and "anamorphic mode 2" (horizontal squeeze).

What do you mean by saying that the Mits can do CIH? From what I learnt by browsing the forum and faqs, one needs the following to do CIH:

1. Content - in the form of letterboxed Blu-ray
2. HTPC / scalar - external can be used, but the HC4000 has both scaling modes built in.
3. Anamorphic Lens - needed when you scale.
4. A 16x9 projector - the HC4000 is a native 16:9 projector @ 1920 x 1080.
5. A 2.35:1 screen - or upto 2.40:1 pending on the setup.

Quote:
Does the Mits HC4000 or Panasonic AE4000 replace item 3 (i.e. the anamorphic lens) when it does CIH?
The Panny offers an auto zoom feature that allows you to project a over sized 16:9 rectangle. Because the program one projects with this mode is letter boxed, the black bars are shot off the top and bottom.
Quote:
What exactly does the zoom mode do which other projectors cannot do?
Zoom is often referred to as the "poor man's CIH". It does save you the expense of the anamorphic lens and external scaler.

Quote:
How is it different from the anamorphic lens? Will we lose content (while watching 2.35 or 16:9 source) when the projector does the CIH zoom (due to cropping)?
HD projectors have 1080 vertical pixels. When you zoom, you throw away 270 or thereabouts of those pixels. Using an anamorphic lens allow you to use the full panel.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #3 of 25 Old 08-11-2011, 02:39 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
contentedbloke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 112
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thanks CAVX! Let me try to understand this using the pictures in this thread as the basis.

You're saying that the HC4000 will do CIH by digitally stretching the vertical aspect and by optically (through the lens) stretching the horizontal aspect? Or is it stretching both digitally? If so, then it is replacing the HTPC as well as the anamorphic lens?

What happens when the image is not letterboxed? For example, I have a full HD mkv movie with the dimensions of 1920x817 pixels which I play through my HTPC (XBMC). How will the HC4000 or my HTPC project this image?

And you're saying that all projectors can zoom like this? The Panny and Mits just make it easier?
contentedbloke is offline  
post #4 of 25 Old 08-11-2011, 03:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,391
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by contentedbloke View Post

You're saying that the HC4000 will do CIH by digitally stretching the vertical aspect and by optically (through the lens) stretching the horizontal aspect? Or is it stretching both digitally? If so, then it is replacing the HTPC as well as the anamorphic lens?
The digital stretch is vertical. It will also do a horizontal squeeze. Both modes require optical expansion from the anamorphic lens.

Quote:
What happens when the image is not letterboxed? For example, I have a full HD mkv movie with the dimensions of 1920x817 pixels which I play through my HTPC (XBMC). How will the HC4000 or my HTPC project this image?
The projector is 1920 x 1080, so when you play the MKV at 1920 x 817, you will have black bars top and bottom. Mode 1 scaling will vertically stretch the image to remove the black bars.

Quote:
And you're saying that all projectors can zoom like this? The Panny and Mits just make it easier?
Zoom as in shoot the bars off the top/bottom of the screen? Yes. Any projector with more than 1.33x zoom can. The Panny just has an automated option for doing this. Others will require you to manually zoom the image.

Both the Panny and Mits have both Scaling modes as well for use with an anamorphic lens.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #5 of 25 Old 08-12-2011, 11:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
StevenC56's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 31
The HC4000 will do scope without a lens! Lot of owners including myself are successfully doing so. You set up the screen size to be 2.35 in the advanced menu and then position and adjust the zoom so that scope movies fill your scope screen. When watching material that's not scope-You can use the aspect control on the remote and change to 16:9. The picture will fill your scope screen height with side bars and no other adjustment is needed to switch back and forth between scope and 16:9. You are not getting 1080 horizontal like using a lens, however the picture is quite amazing for the small amout of $ you'll spend.
StevenC56 is offline  
post #6 of 25 Old 08-13-2011, 04:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,391
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenC56 View Post

The HC4000 will do scope without a lens! Lot of owners including myself are successfully doing so. You set up the screen size to be 2.35 in the advanced menu and then position and adjust the zoom so that scope movies fill your scope screen. When watching material that's not scope-You can use the aspect control on the remote and change to 16:9. The picture will fill your scope screen height with side bars and no other adjustment is needed to switch back and forth between scope and 16:9. You are not getting 1080 horizontal like using a lens, however the picture is quite amazing for the small amout of $ you'll spend.

So it has a built in "shrink method"? If so, it means that the on screen pixel count is:
SCOPE - 1920 x 810
16:9 - 1440 x 810

Conventional ZOOM:

SCOPE - 1920 x 810
16:9 - 1920 x 1080

ONLY with an anamorphic lens is it possible to do:

SCOPE - 1920 x 1080
16:9 - 1920 x 1080.

Even when leaving the lens in place as I do you get:

SCOPE - 1920 x 1080
16:9 - 1440 x 1080

Having done zoom and now using a lens, I have seen both and know that the more vertical pixels the better in projection. HD has 1080 and you really want to use that all the time.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #7 of 25 Old 08-13-2011, 06:10 AM
Senior Member
 
5mark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post


So it has a built in "shrink method"? If so, it means that the on screen pixel count is:
SCOPE - 1920 x 810
16:9 - 1440 x 810

Conventional ZOOM:

SCOPE - 1920 x 810
16:9 - 1920 x 1080

ONLY with an anamorphic lens is it possible to do:

SCOPE - 1920 x 1080
16:9 - 1920 x 1080.

Even when leaving the lens in place as I do you get:

SCOPE - 1920 x 1080
16:9 - 1440 x 1080

Having done zoom and now using a lens, I have seen both and know that the more vertical pixels the better in projection. HD has 1080 and you really want to use that all the time.

StevenC56 made a very helpful, enthusiastic post and you just dumped all over it. Did you stop to consider what a cool feature this is to be built into an entry level projector? Not everyone can afford an expensive cylindrical anamorphic lens. And not every setup even needs one depending on the screen size, seating distance, projector type etc.

How about saying, "Thanks for the info. That could be a nice feature to have. Sounds like it's working great in your setup".
5mark is online now  
post #8 of 25 Old 08-13-2011, 07:19 AM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,331
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 266 Post(s)
Liked: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5mark View Post

StevenC56 made a very helpful, enthusiastic post and you just dumped all over it. Did you stop to consider what a cool feature this is to be built into an entry level projector? Not everyone can afford an expensive cylindrical anamorphic lens. And not every setup even needs one depending on the screen size, seating distance, projector type etc.

How about saying, "Thanks for the info. That could be a nice feature to have. Sounds like it's working great in your setup".

A BIG +1!

I know in my setup with my ~1.8 seating distance for 1.78, a lens would do very little for me as far as overall PQ goes (I can also understand how a lens would be a very nice thing to have in a different setup). Just recently I also upgraded the FW on my Oppo player so I could do 1/2x zoom for 1.78/85 material when I am zoomed out for 2.35 and honestly at my seating distance, I cant tell the difference so far from shrinking it down to zooming it down and using the full resolution. There are many variables to consider with all this and a lens is not always going to be worth it depending on the situation. Having a lens memory feature like in the Panny 4000 and HC4000 is one awesome feature for those that dont want to use a lens for whatever reason. I hope to have this in my next projector!

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is online now  
post #9 of 25 Old 08-13-2011, 09:52 AM
CIH USER
 
Franin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 17,593
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 299 Post(s)
Liked: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post


A BIG +1!

I know in my setup with my ~1.8 seating distance for 1.78, a lens would do very little for me as far as overall PQ goes (I can also understand how a lens would be a very nice thing to have in a different setup). Just recently I also upgraded the FW on my Oppo player so I could do 1/2x zoom for 1.78/85 material when I am zoomed out for 2.35 and honestly at my seating distance, I cant tell the difference so far from shrinking it down to zooming it down and using the full resolution. There are many variables to consider with all this and a lens is not always going to be worth it depending on the situation. Having a lens memory feature like in the Panny 4000 and HC4000 is one awesome feature for those that dont want to use a lens for whatever reason. I hope to have this in my next projector!

Hey Todd it will be nice if Jvc got into the game also in able to do what the Panny can do. Definitley worth it which ever way you go.

_________________________

Frank
Franin is online now  
post #10 of 25 Old 08-13-2011, 11:27 AM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,331
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 266 Post(s)
Liked: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

Hey Todd it will be nice if Jvc got into the game also in able to do what the Panny can do. Definitley worth it which ever way you go.

I agree Franin. Curious to see what JVC has on tap for this year.

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is online now  
post #11 of 25 Old 08-13-2011, 12:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coolrda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 1,054
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Sometimes it's easy to lose track of things. I had family in from from the bay area and Oregon last weekend and had about twenty packed in my theater. My nephew loved it, wants one and asked the cost. I started totaling the purchases(high side of $50k though i paid wholesale for the gear)and just the component cost staggered me. I never really gave it much thought. Then I proceeded to quote him a complete system for about 4-5k total. You can get a rockin system that would please most for that, even me. Imagine a whole system for less than my A-lens cost. So while I prefer a top shelf A Lens, if I was forced to down size, I could certainly live with zooming. I did just this while deciding on A lenses, using the above mentioned constant zoom+Oppo 1/2 zoom method(about 1.91 aspect I think). It would turn my projector into a 800 pixel unit but it's still CIH which is the important thing. Brightness and pixel density loss could be nullified by proper screen choice or ratio's. Technically a view distance of 2.66x screen height (i use 2x for mine) or preferably a 25% smaller screen area would give you comparable performance. Blackout the zoom bars and don't look back.
coolrda is online now  
post #12 of 25 Old 08-13-2011, 05:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,391
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5mark View Post

StevenC56 made a very helpful, enthusiastic post and you just dumped all over it. Did you stop to consider what a cool feature this is to be built into an entry level projector? Not everyone can afford an expensive cylindrical anamorphic lens. And not every setup even needs one depending on the screen size, seating distance, projector type etc.

How about saying, "Thanks for the info. That could be a nice feature to have. Sounds like it's working great in your setup".

Just stating the facts so that those considering this as an option can make an informed decision. Native Scope is 2560 x 1080, not 1920 x 810 and it is NOT entry level. The ONLY way to achieve this at less expense is to employ an anamorphic lens with a 16:9 projector.

The OP also is aware of the extra euipment that is required and is obviously looking for an alternate to the "expensive cylindrical anamorphic lens" route. The purpose of my post is to simply inform people of the facts.

It is good that this available and if I was not using a lens myself, I would do the shrink method over the zoom method because the on screen pixel density remains the same.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #13 of 25 Old 08-13-2011, 10:40 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
contentedbloke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 112
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post


So it has a built in "shrink method"? If so, it means that the on screen pixel count is:
SCOPE - 1920 x 810
16:9 - 1440 x 810

Conventional ZOOM:

SCOPE - 1920 x 810
16:9 - 1920 x 1080

ONLY with an anamorphic lens is it possible to do:

SCOPE - 1920 x 1080
16:9 - 1920 x 1080.

Even when leaving the lens in place as I do you get:

SCOPE - 1920 x 1080
16:9 - 1440 x 1080

Having done zoom and now using a lens, I have seen both and know that the more vertical pixels the better in projection. HD has 1080 and you really want to use that all the time.

CAVX, you lost me. What's the difference between shrink method and conventional zoom? What method would I be using if I had the Mitsubishi, a 2.35 screen and no anamorphic lens?
contentedbloke is offline  
post #14 of 25 Old 08-14-2011, 01:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,391
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by contentedbloke View Post

CAVX, you lost me. What's the difference between shrink method and conventional zoom? What method would I be using if I had the Mitsubishi, a 2.35 screen and no anamorphic lens?

I forgot to add an important part - pixel size.

SHRINK:

SCOPE - 1920 x 810
Vertical Pixel Size - 1:1
Horizontal Pixel Size - 1:1

16:9 - 1440 x 810
Vertical Pixel Size - 1:1
Horizontal Pixel Size - 1:1

Conventional ZOOM:

SCOPE - 1920 x 810
Vertical Pixel Size - 1.33:1
Horizontal Pixel Size - 1.33:1

16:9 - 1920 x 1080
Vertical Pixel Size - 1:1
Horizontal Pixel Size - 1:1

A-LENS 1 [moved for 16:9]

SCOPE - 1920 x 1080
Vertical Pixel Size - 1:1
Horizontal Pixel Size - 1.33:1

16:9 - 1920 x 1080.
Vertical Pixel Size - 1:1
Horizontal Pixel Size - 1:1

A-LENS 2 [remains in light path]

SCOPE - 1920 x 1080
Vertical Pixel Size - 1:1
Horizontal Pixel Size - 1.33:1

16:9 - 1440 x 1080
Vertical Pixel Size - 1:1
Horizontal Pixel Size - 1.33:1

Given your only concerned with the first 2, you need to look at the size and shape of the pixels Vs the the total amount of pixels that make up the image. Then make a decision based on that.

If the Mitsubishi can do SHRINK and you don't want to use an A-Lens, then I suggest watching video of both ARs to see if you really miss those pixels or not for the Shrink inn 16:9.

Horizontally I don't miss them, but it seems vertically I do because last night I watched NOMEO AND JULIET (1.85:1). Because there was slivers of black top and bottom, I hit the overscan to fill the vertical height of the panel (which made my wife happy). What happened here is that image is no longer 1:1 mapped vertically, and whilst it was still a very clean image, I didn't think it looked as sharp as it would be if I had left the small letter-boxing bars on screen and applied a small amount of trim-zoom to fill the vertical height of the screen. And we are only talking 4% here. You stand to lose 25% of the height.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #15 of 25 Old 08-14-2011, 07:02 AM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,331
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 266 Post(s)
Liked: 559
It would be good to know more about the OPs setup/seating distance. If he has a longer view ratio (like me) a lens/scaler would not be worth it all things considered and going the zoom route would make more sense most likely.

What are the details of your setup contentedbloke?

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is online now  
post #16 of 25 Old 08-14-2011, 07:51 AM
CIH USER
 
Franin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 17,593
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 299 Post(s)
Liked: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrda View Post

Sometimes it's easy to lose track of things. I had family in from from the bay area and Oregon last weekend and had about twenty packed in my theater. My nephew loved it, wants one and asked the cost. I started totaling the purchases(high side of $50k though i paid wholesale for the gear)and just the component cost staggered me. I never really gave it much thought. Then I proceeded to quote him a complete system for about 4-5k total. You can get a rockin system that would please most for that, even me. Imagine a whole system for less than my A-lens cost. So while I prefer a top shelf A Lens, if I was forced to down size, I could certainly live with zooming. I did just this while deciding on A lenses, using the above mentioned constant zoom+Oppo 1/2 zoom method(about 1.91 aspect I think). It would turn my projector into a 800 pixel unit but it's still CIH which is the important thing. Brightness and pixel density loss could be nullified by proper screen choice or ratio's. Technically a view distance of 2.66x screen height (i use 2x for mine) or preferably a 25% smaller screen area would give you comparable performance. Blackout the zoom bars and don't look back.

20 packed!! You must have a large theatre cooldra I only have 4 seats in mine which are reserved for my family only.

_________________________

Frank
Franin is online now  
post #17 of 25 Old 08-14-2011, 10:19 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
contentedbloke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 112
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

It would be good to know more about the OPs setup/seating distance. If he has a longer view ratio (like me) a lens/scaler would not be worth it all things considered and going the zoom route would make more sense most likely.

What are the details of your setup contentedbloke?

My throw distance is 13.6 feet and I was planning to use a 100-110 inch 16x9 screen before I started considering a 2.35 setup. I will exclusively be using a htpc running xbmc for scaling. I'm not planning to buy an A-lens, hence the reason for this post.
contentedbloke is offline  
post #18 of 25 Old 08-14-2011, 10:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
StevenC56's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

So it has a built in "shrink method"? If so, it means that the on screen pixel count is:
SCOPE - 1920 x 810
16:9 - 1440 x 810

Conventional ZOOM:

SCOPE - 1920 x 810
16:9 - 1920 x 1080

ONLY with an anamorphic lens is it possible to do:

SCOPE - 1920 x 1080
16:9 - 1920 x 1080.

Even when leaving the lens in place as I do you get:

SCOPE - 1920 x 1080
16:9 - 1440 x 1080

Having done zoom and now using a lens, I have seen both and know that the more vertical pixels the better in projection. HD has 1080 and you really want to use that all the time.

My understanding is that the Mitsubishi manipulates this function digitally. Yes-The facts are that the resolution is reduced. Another fact is that it works quite well producing a very satisfactory picture. I'm using a Seymour motorized 105" wide screen and the picture is awesome from our primary seating 12.5' from the screen and even acceptable from the front row at 7.5'. As I've stated before-I'm sure using a lens would produce a better picture, but at a large cost to do so. The scope method on the Mitsubishi is an affordable option and a great bang for the buck for people with a limited budget. (And there are quite a few of us Mitsubishi owners happily doing so)
StevenC56 is offline  
post #19 of 25 Old 08-14-2011, 10:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,391
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

20 packed!! You must have a large theatre cooldra I only have 4 seats in mine which are reserved for my family only.

I'm the same. I would love to have double the seating capacity I currently have. Of course that would mean a much larger room. Then I could have that larger screen

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #20 of 25 Old 08-14-2011, 11:30 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
contentedbloke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 112
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Guys, can you help me with the math? I am considering a 2.35 screen that would also yield the largest possible 16x9 image without any distortion using the Mitsubishi HC4000. My specs are given below. What are the maximum dimensions for the scope screen I can expect?

Screen Width - 96"
Screen Height - 54"
Screen Diagonal - 110" (originally planned 16x9)
Distance from Screen bottom to floor - 30"
Distance from screen top to ceiling - 36"
Ceiling height - 120"
Distance from projector mount to screen (throw) - 160"
Distance from floor to projector bottom - 92"
Viewing distance - 160" (projector located directly overhead)
Room length - 19 ft, room width - 14 ft, 100% light controlled
contentedbloke is offline  
post #21 of 25 Old 08-15-2011, 01:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,391
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 48
16:9
Screen Width - 96"
Screen Height - 54"

Scope
Screen Width - 127"
Screen Height - 54"

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #22 of 25 Old 08-15-2011, 04:49 AM
Senior Member
 
clausdk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denmark
Posts: 408
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Liked: 45
I've read the mits hc4000 manuel. I cannot find this shrink method that allows CIH setup without an A-lens?

I myself, would very much like a CIH setup, but the cost of an A-lens is pretty hefty so if the mits HC4000 indeed allows a "decent" CIH setup I would consider it.
clausdk is offline  
post #23 of 25 Old 08-15-2011, 11:52 AM
AVS Special Member
 
StevenC56's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by clausdk View Post

I've read the mits hc4000 manuel. I cannot find this shrink method that allows CIH setup without an A-lens?

I myself, would very much like a CIH setup, but the cost of an A-lens is pretty hefty so if the mits HC4000 indeed allows a "decent" CIH setup I would consider it.

Page 10-(Screen Size)
StevenC56 is offline  
post #24 of 25 Old 08-15-2011, 02:05 PM
Senior Member
 
clausdk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denmark
Posts: 408
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Liked: 45
SCREEN SIZE
You can keep the image display area within the screen by setting SCREEN SIZE in the ADVANCED MENU of IMAGE
menu according to the aspect ratio of the actual screen. Select 16:9 when the aspect ratio of the screen is 16:9 or 4:3,
and select CINEMA SCOPE (2.35:1) when the aspect ratio is 2.35:1 (CinemaScope).
When setting SCREEN SIZE to CINEMA SCOPE (2.35:1):
CinemaScope size movies are projected in the full screen.
Set ASPECT in the FEATURE menu to 16:9 when displaying Vista-size images. In this case, they are squeezed
horizontally.
When ASPECT in the FEATURE menu is set to AUTO and 480i/p, 576i/p, 720p, or 1080i/p signal is input, the part
for displaying subtitles is not projected. To display subtitles, reset SCREEN SIZE to 16:9 and adjust the image
position using VERTICAL LOCATION in the ADVANCED MENU of the IMAGE menu. (To display the menu on the
screen, adjust SHUTTER(U) in the SIGNAL - USER menu to position the menu.)


From page 10, still slightly confused
clausdk is offline  
post #25 of 25 Old 08-15-2011, 02:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
StevenC56's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Image menu-Advanced menu-Screen size-Select 2.35:1. Adjust the zoom, position, and focus of the projector to fit your scope screen using 2.35 material. 2.35 movies will fill your 2.35 screen. When viewing 16:9 material-Use the aspect button on the remote and change from "Auto" to 16:9. The 16:9 image will be height correct filling your 2.35 screen top and bottom with side bars. Use the aspect button to return the the Auto (2.35) mode for scope movies.
StevenC56 is offline  
Reply 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat



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