235 screen and 16:9 projector - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 21 Old 01-03-2012, 01:53 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
kiwi2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 827
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
This has probably been asked but can I get an explanation as to why I would need an expensive add on lens to get 235 images on a 235 screen.
I understand that the addition of the lens might be better in all respects but they are cost prohibitive.

I have experimented with zooming up the image on my 16:9 screen so the black bars spill over the screen and fill the 16:9 screen entirely. Looks impressive.
So my thoughts are get a pull down 235 to pull down in front of the 16:9 for 235 movies. Make a few adjustments and viola.

What is the downside to this technique? I suppose the black bars are lost pixels but I think there is a net gain with overall screen brightness and size of the picture.
kiwi2000 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 21 Old 01-03-2012, 02:08 PM
Member
 
kumarforyou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Iowa City, IA
Posts: 18
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I've a Panasonic AE7000u with a 2.35:1 133" screen. I'm using the lens memory feature which automatically adjusts the 2.35:1 and 16:9 content depending on the input. Initially you have to save the settings of the lens adjustments for both the formats.
kumarforyou is offline  
post #3 of 21 Old 01-03-2012, 02:42 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
kiwi2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 827
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
And so? How do you find it?
kiwi2000 is offline  
post #4 of 21 Old 01-03-2012, 03:33 PM
Senior Member
 
Trogdor2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 335
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:


This has probably been asked but can I get an explanation as to why I would need an expensive add on lens to get 235 images on a 235 screen.
I understand that the addition of the lens might be better in all respects but they are cost prohibitive.

Rationally, nothing really, and I am a pro Anamorphic lens user. There are benefits to using a lens, mainly in preserving brightness for larger screens, and better pixel density (even for 1080p), but zoom methods have improved, especially for high definition projectors, that it is much more tolerable.

I will use the fL (Footlambert) reference for brightness below, with 12 fLs considered the lowest reccomended, and 16-20 fLs ideal. These are not set in stone, but are benchmarks. Brightness is preference.

I will say on the defense for A-lens that if you are planning to drive a really big screen, you will need all the brightness you can get. A-lens typically lose about 10% of the brightness compared to unzoomed 16:9. When zoomed, you typically lost about 25% of image brightness compared unzoomed. If you were to drive a 20 foot wide scope screen and only have 2000 calibrated lumens on a 1.0 gain screen. If you were to do this zoomed (2.35:1) you will get about 8.9 fLs (Footlambers). If you were to use the 20 foot wide (2.35:1) screen at 15 foot wide 16:9 unzoomed, you will get 15.8 fLs. When placing the A-lens in front of the unzoomed 16:9 image, which will appear to form in the 20 foot wide (2.35:1) screen, you will get 14.2 fLs. That is a big difference. This does not count with the bulb aging which will reduce brightness overtime.

Of course you can always go for a brighter projector/ higher gain screen to fix this, but there will be differences in brightness compared to using an A-lens or using a 2.35:1 projector (which aren't out, but are the most consistent).

Source:

http://carltonbale.com/home-theater/...ter-calculator

Edit: The numbers are a bit off, anyone have a more accurate number for the zoomed picture?
Trogdor2010 is offline  
post #5 of 21 Old 01-03-2012, 09:48 PM
Newbie
 
stayinus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
But a seller of a Denon 4810ci is stating that the AV receiver can perform a 2.35 vertical stretch to fill the screen without the need of an a-lens. Is that true ?
stayinus is offline  
post #6 of 21 Old 01-04-2012, 06:40 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,312
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 115
If you do vertical stretch without a lens the picture will be distorted.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is online now  
post #7 of 21 Old 01-04-2012, 07:05 AM
AVS Special Member
 
carp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,962
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 184 Post(s)
Liked: 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2000 View Post

This has probably been asked but can I get an explanation as to why I would need an expensive add on lens to get 235 images on a 235 screen.
I understand that the addition of the lens might be better in all respects but they are cost prohibitive.

I have experimented with zooming up the image on my 16:9 screen so the black bars spill over the screen and fill the 16:9 screen entirely. Looks impressive.
So my thoughts are get a pull down 235 to pull down in front of the 16:9 for 235 movies. Make a few adjustments and viola.

What is the downside to this technique? I suppose the black bars are lost pixels but I think there is a net gain with overall screen brightness and size of the picture.

I'm using a 2:35:1 screen for movies and masking panels for tv (and movies that aren't 2:35:1) and I zoom in for movies just like you are describing. It's awesome. Is it perfect? No, on dark scenes it's pretty easy to see the bars on the top and bottom that are now of course outside the frame of the screen. On most scenes though you don't notice those bars at all. Maybe some day I will put velvet on my front wall or paint it flat black to help with this, but it's not something I feel the need to do right away.


Panels out, lights out, zoomed in 2:35:1.



Panels in 16:9, lights out.



Panels in, all lights on.





Screen sizes are 124 inches in 16:9 and 158 inches in 2:35:1. Throw is 17 feet, Epson 8350.
Cobb28 likes this.
carp is online now  
post #8 of 21 Old 01-05-2012, 05:40 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
kiwi2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 827
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


carp wrote
I'm using a 2:35:1 screen for movies and masking panels for tv (and movies that aren't 2:35:1) and I zoom in for movies just like you are describing. It's awesome. Is it perfect? No, on dark scenes it's pretty easy to see the bars on the top and bottom that are now of course outside the frame of the screen. On most scenes though you don't notice those bars at all. Maybe some day I will put velvet on my front wall or paint it flat black to help with this, but it's not something I feel the need to do right away.

Thank you for the pictures it really helps to illustrate the point!
The entire front of my wall is black so the black bars top & bottom should not be too much of an issue.

A previous poster wrote that I would experience loss of brightness with this zooming set up. Do you notice this as well or are you able to compensate with projector adjustments to make the 235 brightness the same as viewing 16:9? I suppose that setting could be saved in memory as a input or user setting as well.

How do you accomplish the masking, what material?
kiwi2000 is offline  
post #9 of 21 Old 01-05-2012, 08:45 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
GetGray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mid-South USA
Posts: 5,428
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trogdor2010 View Post


Rationally, nothing really, and I am a pro Anamorphic lens user. There are benefits to using a lens, mainly in preserving brightness for larger screens, and better pixel density (even for 1080p), but zoom methods have improved, especially for high definition projectors, that it is much more tolerable.

I will use the fL (Footlambert) reference for brightness below, with 12 fLs considered the lowest reccomended, and 16-20 fLs ideal. These are not set in stone, but are benchmarks. Brightness is preference.

I will say on the defense for A-lens that if you are planning to drive a really big screen, you will need all the brightness you can get. A-lens typically lose about 10% of the brightness compared to unzoomed 16:9. When zoomed, you typically lost about 25% of image brightness compared unzoomed. If you were to drive a 20 foot wide scope screen and only have 2000 calibrated lumens on a 1.0 gain screen. If you were to do this zoomed (2.35:1) you will get about 8.9 fLs (Footlambers). If you were to use the 20 foot wide (2.35:1) screen at 15 foot wide 16:9 unzoomed, you will get 15.8 fLs. When placing the A-lens in front of the unzoomed 16:9 image, which will appear to form in the 20 foot wide (2.35:1) screen, you will get 14.2 fLs. That is a big difference. This does not count with the bulb aging which will reduce brightness overtime.

Of course you can always go for a brighter projector/ higher gain screen to fix this, but there will be differences in brightness compared to using an A-lens or using a 2.35:1 projector (which aren't out, but are the most consistent).

Source:

http://carltonbale.com/home-theater/...ter-calculator

Edit: The numbers are a bit off, anyone have a more accurate number for the zoomed picture?

You don't lose anywhere near 10% with an Isco lens. I measure just over 1% with mine.
GetGray is online now  
post #10 of 21 Old 01-05-2012, 12:38 PM
Advanced Member
 
Vlubbers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Toad Hill Farm, Kentucky
Posts: 657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2000 View Post

T

A previous poster wrote that I would experience loss of brightness with this zooming set up.

The oft discussed loss of brightness is solely because in almost all cases the same image is now spread over a larger area as result of the zooming. The absolute number of lumens (ignoring the effect of the aperture change in the zoom lens) is constant. The lumens per square foot goes down because the image is larger. You could bump settings on the projector to bring the lumens per SF back up. But most have sweat blood to get the projector to output to some standard (D65 or 709 or something) and they are reluctant to do that. The anamorphic lens allows the entire imager in the projector to be used to project 2.35 and thus gives a bump to brightness (let's say 25%). For me (yes, that is a caveat) this is the largest attraction of the lens (I have used ISCOs in the past). Improved pixel density of the image is not the driver in my case but it is a nice bonus. The light loss through an ISCO requires a meter to measure. I cannot see any.

Sony G90-->D-ILA--> LCD-->Vango LED DLP
Vlubbers is offline  
post #11 of 21 Old 01-05-2012, 01:36 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
kiwi2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 827
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Can anyone recommend a 235: tensioned pull down, with electrics if possible?
kiwi2000 is offline  
post #12 of 21 Old 01-05-2012, 03:08 PM
Senior Member
 
SteveHorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Pelham AL
Posts: 336
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2000 View Post

Can anyone recommend a 235: tensioned pull down, with electrics if possible?

Give this a look. I don't have one of his retractables but have a 115" 2.35 DIY that uses the XD fabric. Seymour screens get high marks for build quality and customer support and satisfaction. See the Screens forum Seymour thread.
SteveHorn is offline  
post #13 of 21 Old 01-05-2012, 06:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
carp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,962
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 184 Post(s)
Liked: 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2000 View Post

Thank you for the pictures it really helps to illustrate the point!
The entire front of my wall is black so the black bars top & bottom should not be too much of an issue.

A previous poster wrote that I would experience loss of brightness with this zooming set up. Do you notice this as well or are you able to compensate with projector adjustments to make the 235 brightness the same as viewing 16:9? I suppose that setting could be saved in memory as a input or user setting as well.

How do you accomplish the masking, what material?

I really don't notice much difference in brightness. I just couldn't stomach the though of having movies be a lot smaller than tv, and after using the Epson on my bare wall so I could choose any size I wanted for 6 weeks I knew I had to have a 2:35:1 screen. Plus I know that projectors are only going to get better and cheaper, and I'm sure some day I'll get one that doesn't have to be zoomed.

I don't change the settings at all for 2:35:1 compared to 16:9. The masking is done with cut to size cintra, I used 61"x 17.5" and covered them in prostar which is a self adhesive very light absorbing material. They fit right in there snug, basically snapping right in there so I don't need anything to hold them in. Super easy to take them in and out.
carp is online now  
post #14 of 21 Old 01-06-2012, 09:37 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
kiwi2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 827
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


carp wrote

I don't change the settings at all for 2:35:1 compared to 16:9. The masking is done with cut to size cintra, I used 61"x 17.5" and covered them in prostar which is a self adhesive very light absorbing material. They fit right in there snug, basically snapping right in there so I don't need anything to hold them in. Super easy to take them in and out.



Can you please provide more information on the masking system you employ, where did you purchase, how did you make it etc?

What kind of screen did you purchase?

So for 16:9 material it fills top to bottom but not sides, then when you watch 235 material you must zoom over the top and bottom of the screen but it fills the sides and entire screen. Un zoom back for 16:9.

I have been researching pricing and a 235 pull down is much a more expensive item than a fixed wall screen. If I can incorporate your masking system then I think a 235 fixed screen purchase is the way to go. If I like it I can get a residual return from the sale of the 16:9 screen.

Hmmm
kiwi2000 is offline  
post #15 of 21 Old 01-06-2012, 12:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
KBMAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Grass Valley, CA
Posts: 2,840
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 36
buy a 2.35 screen and NEVER LOOK BACK.....you can always mask the sides for 16:9 movies, but in my batcave, I don't feel the need to do that unless some lights are on, which I don't do. YMMV
DrZaus likes this.

Terrence
"Hey Vasquez, have you ever been mistaken for a man?...."No, have you?" -ALIENS

KBMAN is online now  
post #16 of 21 Old 01-06-2012, 06:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
carp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,962
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 184 Post(s)
Liked: 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2000 View Post


Can you please provide more information on the masking system you employ, where did you purchase, how did you make it etc?

What kind of screen did you purchase?

So for 16:9 material it fills top to bottom but not sides, then when you watch 235 material you must zoom over the top and bottom of the screen but it fills the sides and entire screen. Un zoom back for 16:9.

I have been researching pricing and a 235 pull down is much a more expensive item than a fixed wall screen. If I can incorporate your masking system then I think a 235 fixed screen purchase is the way to go. If I like it I can get a residual return from the sale of the 16:9 screen.

Hmmm

Another forum member (Mississippi Man) actually painted my wall and constructed the frame. He cut some wood trim from Home Depot and covered that in black velvet, stapling the velvet to the back (lots of staples!). He ordered the cintra pieces from a company called Laird Plastics here in Kansas City, and he knew the size I wanted since I wanted my screen to by 61 inches tall. They cut each piece of cintra to exactly 61x17.5 and he cut the wood trim to be an exact fit. He planned on the possibility of needing to make some kind of tabs to hold in the masking pieces, but it was not needed since they fit in so nice.

It was tricky to get the prostar self adhesive on the cintra without having folds and creases, but it all worked out. In the end I couldn't be happier with the frame and masking but I'm not so thrilled with the actual paint. I like the brightness but it comes at the cost of having a "film" layer that makes it look like the image is trapped under something. Before when I used the bare beige wall you couldn't see a "screen" and now you can and I don't like that.

I hope some of this helped, let me know if you have any more questions.
carp is online now  
post #17 of 21 Old 02-07-2013, 06:28 PM
Member
 
DrZaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New Joisey
Posts: 176
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by carp View Post


I'm using a 2:35:1 screen for movies and masking panels for tv (and movies that aren't 2:35:1) and I zoom in for movies just like you are describing. It's awesome. Is it perfect? No, on dark scenes it's pretty easy to see the bars on the top and bottom that are now of course outside the frame of the screen. On most scenes though you don't notice those bars at all. Maybe some day I will put velvet on my front wall or paint it flat black to help with this, but it's not something I feel the need to do right away.



Panels out, lights out, zoomed in 2:35:1.





Panels in 16:9, lights out.





Panels in, all lights on.








Screen sizes are 124 inches in 16:9 and 158 inches in 2:35:1. Throw is 17 feet, Epson 8350.

Nice set-up.. What brand is your screen? are you using a anamorphic lens?
DrZaus is offline  
post #18 of 21 Old 02-09-2013, 05:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
carp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,962
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 184 Post(s)
Liked: 419
thanks! I zoom 2:35:1 content.

My setup looks a lot different now, different wall color, a lot more velvet, different subs, different speakers.

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1407184/carps-basement-hide-out/210#post_22886774

The velvet blocks all the light from the black bars when I zoom now, they are 100% gone.

Not a screen, I have a painted wall but am very happy with it. I've seen my same projector in other rooms with screens and it looks better in here.
carp is online now  
post #19 of 21 Old 02-11-2013, 03:19 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
AV Science Sales 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: A beautiful view of a lake
Posts: 7,208
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 133 Post(s)
Liked: 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZaus View Post

Nice set-up.. What brand is your screen? are you using a anamorphic lens?

quoted wrong post.

Mike Garrett, AV Science Sales
Call Me: 585-671-2968
Email Me: Mike@AVScience.com

Brands we sell: http://avscience.com/brands/

 

Call for B-stock projectors

Stewart, Seymour, SE, SI & many more.
Klipsch, RBH, Martin Logan, Triad, Atlantic Technology, MK Sound, BG Radia, SVS & Def Tech.

AV Science Sales 5 is online now  
post #20 of 21 Old 02-11-2013, 03:21 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
AV Science Sales 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: A beautiful view of a lake
Posts: 7,208
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 133 Post(s)
Liked: 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by carp View Post


I'm using a 2:35:1 screen for movies and masking panels for tv (and movies that aren't 2:35:1) and I zoom in for movies just like you are describing. It's awesome. Is it perfect? No, on dark scenes it's pretty easy to see the bars on the top and bottom that are now of course outside the frame of the screen. On most scenes though you don't notice those bars at all. Maybe some day I will put velvet on my front wall or paint it flat black to help with this, but it's not something I feel the need to do right away.









Screen sizes are 124 inches in 16:9 and 158 inches in 2:35:1. Throw is 17 feet, Epson 8350.

I get a laugh, when looking at that little center speaker, knowing what you are using now. smile.gif

Mike Garrett, AV Science Sales
Call Me: 585-671-2968
Email Me: Mike@AVScience.com

Brands we sell: http://avscience.com/brands/

 

Call for B-stock projectors

Stewart, Seymour, SE, SI & many more.
Klipsch, RBH, Martin Logan, Triad, Atlantic Technology, MK Sound, BG Radia, SVS & Def Tech.

AV Science Sales 5 is online now  
post #21 of 21 Old 02-11-2013, 05:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
carp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,962
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 184 Post(s)
Liked: 419
Ha, you're right it does look funny now. What's weird is I can't find the other Captivator in the pic. When I had just a single it was always in the front right corner and then when I bought a 2nd they were in each front corner...
carp 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