Help! Can I use lens memory for 2.35 with no anamorphic lens? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 34 Old 05-06-2012, 05:19 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
manning99's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Indiana
Posts: 65
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I've read a lot of very helpful posts regarding 2.35, but I still have one question. Is anyone using lens memory for 2.35 rather than an anamorphic lens? What's the downside of doing so?

Just to set it up, I have had my pj for 6 years now, and it is not compatible with an anamorphic lens. So rather than spend $2-$3k on a lens plus another $2-$3k on a projector, I'm wondering if I can get away with using something like the Panasonic AE 7000 without the lens (or is there a better choice in that price range?).

I'm currently using a 133" 16:9 screen which works great for watching games and the few 16:9 movies that are out there. Therefore, the wife sees no need to invest $$8-$9k in a new screen and pj setup. Women. And I'm not looking for the best available picture quality, just want the flexibility of no bars for movies and 16:9 for games.

Thanks for all of your helpful posts.
manning99 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 34 Old 05-06-2012, 05:28 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rboster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 17,542
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 55
You are asking about "zooming" vs lens, which can lead to bitter debates among some members. I would hate for "another one of those Vs threads". Here's a thread that should help you with your questions:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...hlight=zooming

"Retired" AVS Moderator
rboster is offline  
post #3 of 34 Old 05-06-2012, 06:40 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
manning99's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Indiana
Posts: 65
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thanks rboster. I was looking for input from someone who uses the zoom setup, and I found that in the thread you attached. Specifically wanted to know if the projected bars show up on black walls or screen frame, sounds like they don't. Thanks again.

BTW, are you aware of any manual masking screens? I've got plenty of width but height restrictions. So I'm looking for something that can mask the sides when watching 16:9. Went to Ovation and they showed me a $15k Stewart screen, which didn't interest me. Thanks.
manning99 is offline  
post #4 of 34 Old 05-06-2012, 08:10 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rboster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 17,542
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 55
The best way to search the forum is using the advance search, limit search words to one or two. Use the drop down option of title search only and make sure to the appropriate forum is highlighted from the list to the right.

In this case, CIH, screens, DIY screens, DIY CH forums would be where you want to search. Use mask or masking as your search words.

"Retired" AVS Moderator
rboster is offline  
post #5 of 34 Old 05-09-2012, 05:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
srauly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: W Simsbury, CT, USA
Posts: 1,529
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
No, you don't need a francy-shmancy anamorphic lens to do 2.35:1. You can get a projector like the Panny that you mentioned, which will simplify life for you, or you can go completely ghetto and just get a projector with a wide zoom/shift range and do it by hand. My Epson 8350 falls into that latter category, and it can be found for under $1200. Personally, I think the effort involved in zooming/shifting isn't worth worrying about. IMO, in a typical evening, I might optimize the zoom for a 16:9 window inside the 2.35:1 screen so as to watch some TV, then spend two minutes re-zooming it to watch a 2.35:1 movie. Big deal.

Scott R
--------------
I'd much rather watch a great movie in B&W at 240 lines of resolution than a lousy movie in 1080p with lossless audio.
srauly is offline  
post #6 of 34 Old 05-09-2012, 07:10 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
No you certainly do not have to have an A-lens. Here are the options for a 2.35 CIH set up in order of increasing cost:

1. Manual zoom and electronic vertical shift. Zero additional cost.
And no big deal. I manually zoomed and shifted my Panny 700 for 7 years, and it took less than 30 seconds. Of course you have to be able to reach the projector, so you need to shelf mount.

2. Projector with lens memory for instant remote zooming, vertical positioning, and focussing. The Panny AE4000 and AE7000 are the lowest cost of the very few projectors that have this capability. Projector will be in the range of 2-3k. The lens memory feature works incredibly well, with auto aspect ratio switching taking less than 10 seconds, and the projector can now be up on the ceiling if that is your wish.

3. Use an Anamorphic lens. This is regarded by some as the ultimate solution, although as the Moderator has stated, the whole benefits of zooming versus A-lens issue is very controversial. What is not controversial is that the A-lens solution can be very expensive, with the lens perhaps costing much more than your new projector. And there may be additional significant costs such as the need for a sled and even a curved screen. Certainly the top tier home theaters (the ones in the home theater magazines) always seem to use an A-lens.
taffman is offline  
post #7 of 34 Old 05-14-2012, 09:42 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
manning99's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Indiana
Posts: 65
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thanks all for your input. I believe I've decided to go with the motorized zoom w/memory function. I'm not opposed to the manual option, except I can't reach my projector without a stepladder.
manning99 is offline  
post #8 of 34 Old 05-14-2012, 09:48 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Brad Horstkotte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 5,116
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 57
There is also the option of using a projector with motorized zoom / shift / focus, but no memory - so it can still be ceiling mounted, but manually adjusted between aspect ratios. This is the setup I use with a JVC RS-20.
Brad Horstkotte is offline  
post #9 of 34 Old 05-16-2012, 05:54 AM
wnl
Senior Member
 
wnl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 282
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The "zoom method" can be easily used with the Panasonic projectors by presetting the zoom and focus settings then saving them in what the projector calls lens memory. It is very effective and the Panasonics are very good about restoring the zoom and focus when recalled from memory.

However: be aware that in order for the zoom method to work the lens of the projector must be within the vertical bounds of the screen itself. In other words, if you ceiling mount your projector the lens must be no higher than the top of the screen. Wherever you place the projector it must be no higher than the top of the screen and no lower than the bottom of the screen. If your projector is too high (or too low) then when you zoom the image it will move off the screen and can't be shifted back on to the screen. The Panasonics have an image shift control both horizontal and vertical, but it is manual and not controlled by lens memory.

Another alternative to achieving CIH without an A-lens is to use a good video processor like a Lumagen to resize the image for ratios taller than 2.35:1. This is what I have ended up with. Yes I know I have sacrificed vertical lines of resolution, but the Lumagen does such a superb job of resizing that it result still looks great.
wnl is offline  
post #10 of 34 Old 05-16-2012, 05:57 AM
wnl
Senior Member
 
wnl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 282
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by manning99 View Post

Thanks all for your input. I believe I've decided to go with the motorized zoom w/memory function. I'm not opposed to the manual option, except I can't reach my projector without a stepladder.

If you are thinking of buying a Panasonic for this, and the projector is mounted higher than the top of the screen then automatic zooming will not work! See my previous post.
wnl is offline  
post #11 of 34 Old 05-16-2012, 10:23 AM
Senior Member
 
5mark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 465
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnl View Post

The "zoom method" can be easily used with the Panasonic projectors by presetting the zoom and focus settings then saving them in what the projector calls lens memory. It is very effective and the Panasonics are very good about restoring the zoom and focus when recalled from memory.

However: be aware that in order for the zoom method to work the lens of the projector must be within the vertical bounds of the screen itself. In other words, if you ceiling mount your projector the lens must be no higher than the top of the screen. Wherever you place the projector it must be no higher than the top of the screen and no lower than the bottom of the screen. If your projector is too high (or too low) then when you zoom the image it will move off the screen and can't be shifted back on to the screen. The Panasonics have an image shift control both horizontal and vertical, but it is manual and not controlled by lens memory.

Another alternative to achieving CIH without an A-lens is to use a good video processor like a Lumagen to resize the image for ratios taller than 2.35:1. This is what I have ended up with. Yes I know I have sacrificed vertical lines of resolution, but the Lumagen does such a superb job of resizing that it result still looks great.

Agreed on the Lumagen scaling doing a great job with the shrink method. Even though my RS55 has lens memory I still often shrink with my Lumagen. I've found zooming only makes a significant difference on stellar transfers like say a Pixar film.

BTW, the Panny projectors have a version of the shrink method built in (I assume the 7000 still has it) called 16:9s. Could be an option if a high ceiling mount is required. Even if properly set up for lens memory, I'd still recommend using 16:9s for menus, trailers etc for quick AR changes and saving wear on the motors.
5mark is offline  
post #12 of 34 Old 05-16-2012, 10:51 AM
Senior Member
 
JoeBoy73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 252
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 25
The Mits 7800d also has the zooming feature. It is also a DLP projector, I've seen it in person (zoomed in on a 2.35 screen) and it's a very nice picture!
JoeBoy73 is online now  
post #13 of 34 Old 05-16-2012, 12:02 PM
wnl
Senior Member
 
wnl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 282
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5mark View Post

BTW, the Panny projectors have a version of the shrink method built in (I assume the 7000 still has it) called 16:9s. Could be an option if a high ceiling mount is required.

Yes, 16:9s. That's what I used before I got my Lumagen. I considered lowering my projector but that would have put it within "head height" of the back row.

Part of this blog post explains the challenges I had and my thoughts on using a video processor to overcome them. It was written before I purchased the Lumagen:

http://wnl256.blogspot.com/2011/10/t...it-better.html
wnl is offline  
post #14 of 34 Old 05-16-2012, 12:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,761
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnl View Post

If you are thinking of buying a Panasonic for this, and the projector is mounted higher than the top of the screen then automatic zooming will not work! See my previous post.

Actually it does work, you just have to tilt the projector and use the vertical manual adjusment to compensate.

Good movies are as rare as an on topic discussion.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #15 of 34 Old 05-16-2012, 02:18 PM
wnl
Senior Member
 
wnl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 282
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Actually it does work, you just have to tilt the projector and use the vertical manual adjusment to compensate.

Yes I think that will work within certain limits (haven't tried). Beyond that you would have to use a keystone adjustment, which introduces its own issues.
wnl is offline  
post #16 of 34 Old 05-17-2012, 10:40 AM
Newbie
 
CRBrownsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I have a question about the Panasonic PT-AR100U. One of the features it advertises is "Screen Area Memory". I would like to do CIH and ceiling mount the projector. Will I need a step ladder to switch between 2:35 and 16:9 with the PT-AR100U, or will this screen area memory do the trick?
CRBrownsFan is offline  
post #17 of 34 Old 05-17-2012, 12:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
d.j.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,243
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Manning99

The Sony 95ES projector have an motorized image shift control both horizontal and vertical ( + focus and zoom ), and IS controlled by the lens memory ( 5 presets ), so you can adjust to different aspect ratio┬┤s ( etc. like : 1.33:1, 1.78:1, 1.85:1, 2.35:1 , 2.40:1 ) with only a few press off a buttom
very nice.

dj
d.j. is offline  
post #18 of 34 Old 05-17-2012, 03:17 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
manning99's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Indiana
Posts: 65
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thanks d.j., but I'm hoping to stay more in the $3k range and I think the Sony's a bit beyond that.

Besides, my A/C just went out and now, thanks to our intrusive government deciding what kind of HVAC systems Americans are allowed to buy, it costs $5k to replace when 5 years ago it would have been $1500. So if anything my HT upgrade budget is going down. Sorry for the off-topic rant, but needed to vent.
manning99 is offline  
post #19 of 34 Old 05-17-2012, 03:22 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
manning99's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Indiana
Posts: 65
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnl View Post

If you are thinking of buying a Panasonic for this, and the projector is mounted higher than the top of the screen then automatic zooming will not work! See my previous post.



I also recently heard that the AE7000 lacks the brightness needed for a 166" screen, 2.35, and that a JVC would be a better choice. Thoughts? My theater is in the basement with no windows.
manning99 is offline  
post #20 of 34 Old 05-18-2012, 05:15 AM
Member
 
Monitorman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 194
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by manning99 View Post

I also recently heard that the AE7000 lacks the brightness needed for a 166" screen, 2.35, and that a JVC would be a better choice. Thoughts? My theater is in the basement with no windows.

Hi manning99,

Actually neither of those projectors is anywhere near capable of driving a screen that size. If you want movie theater brightness at 12 fTL., which is what you need at a minimum you should be looking at a high brightness DLP projector preferably a 3-chip.

Kevin Miller
ISF Technician
Co-Instructor ISF Level I & II Seminars
Display Product Development Consultant
kevin@isftv.com
Co-founder tweaktv.com
Monitorman is offline  
post #21 of 34 Old 05-18-2012, 09:57 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
manning99's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Indiana
Posts: 65
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monitorman View Post

Hi manning99,

Actually neither of those projectors is anywhere near capable of driving a screen that size. If you want movie theater brightness at 12 fTL., which is what you need at a minimum you should be looking at a high brightness DLP projector preferably a 3-chip.

BenQ W6000? Seems bright enough, but that goes back to no memory for zoom and focus. But it's inexpensive, if I can find one. Not sure about the 7000, don't know if it has memory, or at least remote adjustment.
manning99 is offline  
post #22 of 34 Old 05-18-2012, 08:01 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rboster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 17,542
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by manning99 View Post

BenQ W6000? Seems bright enough, but that goes back to no memory for zoom and focus. But it's inexpensive, if I can find one. Not sure about the 7000, don't know if it has memory, or at least remote adjustment.

Just a heads up....Kevin won't brag on himself, but he's one of the TOP industry guys on ISF calibration. He knows a thing or two about projectors.

http://www.imagingscience.com/personnel.php

I had the benefit of his calibration services (years ago) on a tour through the midwest (Kansas City)...he does a terrific job.

"Retired" AVS Moderator
rboster is offline  
post #23 of 34 Old 05-20-2012, 06:00 AM
Senior Member
 
autox320's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NC
Posts: 454
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 32
I really like my panny ae4000 for zooming with memory. While not much time till recently to play with my setup, I just learned about the auto masking also. It sets the shutter to completely cut off light bleed so no need for masking either. We use a 115" 235 screen.

"I should really see what dB levels I'm pushing. Long as it can't foam my beer during a movie we are ok "
autox320 is offline  
post #24 of 34 Old 05-20-2012, 09:07 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
manning99's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Indiana
Posts: 65
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monitorman View Post

Hi manning99,

Actually neither of those projectors is anywhere near capable of driving a screen that size. If you want movie theater brightness at 12 fTL., which is what you need at a minimum you should be looking at a high brightness DLP projector preferably a 3-chip.

Kevin - can you help me put this in perspective? For the past 6 years I've been using a Sony VPL HS51 on a 1.0 gain, 133" diag, 16:9 screen. I've always been and am still happy with the picture. I have 1300 hours on the original lamp.

If I go to a 166" diag 2.35 screen with 1.1 gain, will the AE7000 or JVC produce a picture that is less bright than what I currently have? In the Fry's in Fishers, IN, I have seen the BenQ W6000 and the LG AF115. Those are the two they had running. They project through glass onto a screen that I'm guessing is 200"+. And when I say screen I mean a piece of drywall. And my thought when watching either of those was not that they were lacking brightness.

It's difficult to make these decisions when you have no way of seeing them in action. I'm trying to determine if these options would be less than ideal but better than what I have, or altogether crappy. Thanks
manning99 is offline  
post #25 of 34 Old 05-21-2012, 07:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
srauly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: W Simsbury, CT, USA
Posts: 1,529
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Can you zoom out your current PJ and simulate a larger 2.35:1 screen? I've done this to test things out with my current 16:9 45x80" screen. I put on a 2.35:1 movie and zoom it out so that there are no more black bars - the height fills the screen and the width overspills onto the wall. Then, focus on the screen and see if it seems bright enough.

Scott R
--------------
I'd much rather watch a great movie in B&W at 240 lines of resolution than a lousy movie in 1080p with lossless audio.
srauly is offline  
post #26 of 34 Old 05-22-2012, 05:58 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rboster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 17,542
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by manning99 View Post

Kevin - can you help me put this in perspective? For the past 6 years I've been using a Sony VPL HS51 on a 1.0 gain, 133" diag, 16:9 screen. I've always been and am still happy with the picture. I have 1300 hours on the original lamp.

If I go to a 166" diag 2.35 screen with 1.1 gain, will the AE7000 or JVC produce a picture that is less bright than what I currently have? In the Fry's in Fishers, IN, I have seen the BenQ W6000 and the LG AF115. Those are the two they had running. They project through glass onto a screen that I'm guessing is 200"+. And when I say screen I mean a piece of drywall. And my thought when watching either of those was not that they were lacking brightness.

It's difficult to make these decisions when you have no way of seeing them in action. I'm trying to determine if these options would be less than ideal but better than what I have, or altogether crappy. Thanks

Kevin may not see your questions...if you want to contact someone specifically, you should use the PM system.

"Retired" AVS Moderator
rboster is offline  
post #27 of 34 Old 05-22-2012, 07:09 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
manning99's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Indiana
Posts: 65
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rboster View Post

Kevin may not see your questions...if you want to contact someone specifically, you should use the PM system.

I will try to pm Kevin. Also, anyone who knows (or has an opinion), feel free to weigh in. Thanks.
manning99 is offline  
post #28 of 34 Old 05-29-2012, 07:09 AM
Member
 
Monitorman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 194
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by manning99 View Post

Kevin - can you help me put this in perspective? For the past 6 years I've been using a Sony VPL HS51 on a 1.0 gain, 133" diag, 16:9 screen. I've always been and am still happy with the picture. I have 1300 hours on the original lamp.

If I go to a 166" diag 2.35 screen with 1.1 gain, will the AE7000 or JVC produce a picture that is less bright than what I currently have? In the Fry's in Fishers, IN, I have seen the BenQ W6000 and the LG AF115. Those are the two they had running. They project through glass onto a screen that I'm guessing is 200"+. And when I say screen I mean a piece of drywall. And my thought when watching either of those was not that they were lacking brightness.

It's difficult to make these decisions when you have no way of seeing them in action. I'm trying to determine if these options would be less than ideal but better than what I have, or altogether crappy. Thanks

Hi Manning99,

All I am saying is based on my extensive experience with the JVC projectors your screen size is much too large to achieve the minimum of 12 fTL. The environment your projector is in and the color of the walls will also affect perceived contrast ratio and brightness. If you are in a black hole it might be O.K. The Sony SXRD projectors are also not capable of being very bright. I am getting the impression you must be viewing all of these projectors in their brightest picture mode and uncalibrated.

For example, if you put the Sony in Cinema Mode and find the gamma curve closest to 2.3 to 2.4 for a totally dark and light controlled environment, and calibrate it properly you will be lucky to get 12 fTL. on a 100" diagonal screen with a gain of 1.3. Hope this helps.

Kevin Miller
ISF Technician
Co-Instructor ISF Level I & II Seminars
Display Product Development Consultant
kevin@isftv.com
Co-founder tweaktv.com
Monitorman is offline  
post #29 of 34 Old 05-31-2012, 04:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
[Irishman]'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,375
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by srauly View Post

No, you don't need a francy-shmancy anamorphic lens to do 2.35:1. You can get a projector like the Panny that you mentioned, which will simplify life for you, or you can go completely ghetto and just get a projector with a wide zoom/shift range and do it by hand. My Epson 8350 falls into that latter category, and it can be found for under $1200. Personally, I think the effort involved in zooming/shifting isn't worth worrying about. IMO, in a typical evening, I might optimize the zoom for a 16:9 window inside the 2.35:1 screen so as to watch some TV, then spend two minutes re-zooming it to watch a 2.35:1 movie. Big deal.

Here's a question for you.

If an anamorphic lens was in your budget, would you jump on one?

[Irishman] is online now  
post #30 of 34 Old 06-02-2012, 08:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
srauly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: W Simsbury, CT, USA
Posts: 1,529
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
It isn't really an option for me now that I've made my LR my theater room. The Epson 8350 is already awful big. Otherwise, I don't know. If I had money to burn? Maybe. To be honest I never gave it serious thought due to cost.

Scott R
--------------
I'd much rather watch a great movie in B&W at 240 lines of resolution than a lousy movie in 1080p with lossless audio.
srauly is offline  
Reply 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat

User Tag List



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