JVC RS1 - any sensible way to go to 2.40:1? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 27 Old 06-11-2012, 09:11 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
JeffNebraska's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 729
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I have a five-year old JVC RS1 and a 100" Stewart Film screen (16x9). The picture it delivers is stunning. Still, a part of me really longs for actual widescreen.

What would be the most sensible way, if there is one, to switch to a constant image height setup?

Excluding the cost of the new screen, which will be a lot I know, how much would it take to get a video processor and an anamorphic lens that would give me 2.40:1 (or 2.35:1) without degrading my current image quality at all? Is that even possible with my projector, which has no on-board video processing for widescreen? Would I need the lens to be on a sled, so it can move out of the way when I'm not watching widescreen material?

Apologies for my ignorance in this area, and thanks for any help you can offer.

Jeffnebraska
After 7 Years With a JVC RS1 - Starting to Get the Upgrade Itch
JeffNebraska is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 27 Old 06-11-2012, 12:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 60
You would need an external processor, or simply invest in an Oppo Blu-ray player since it does the necessary vertical stretch scaling. Of course, that would limit you to Blu-ray and DVD (no anamorphic cable or satellite). And of course you need a lens.

The main issue here is screen size. Do you want to keep the same image height as your current 100" screen? The RS1 will have a fairly hard time lighting up an equivalent height 2.35:1 / 2.40:1 screen, especially if you have many hours on the bulb.

John Schuermann, Filmmaker / Film Composer
Home Theater Industry Consultant
JS Music and Sound
Panamorph
Check out my new movie!: www.stephensonmovie.com
John Schuermann is offline  
post #3 of 27 Old 06-11-2012, 02:37 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
JeffNebraska's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 729
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post

You would need an external processor, or simply invest in an Oppo Blu-ray player since it does the necessary vertical stretch scaling. Of course, that would limit you to Blu-ray and DVD (no anamorphic cable or satellite). And of course you need a lens.
The main issue here is screen size. Do you want to keep the same image height as your current 100" screen? The RS1 will have a fairly hard time lighting up an equivalent height 2.35:1 / 2.40:1 screen, especially if you have many hours on the bulb.

Thanks. It's a pretty new bulb and quite a dark room. I guess the size of an equivalent 2.35 screen would be about 135" diagonal. How can I figure out if my RS1 can pull it off?

Is it correct that the lens needs to be able to move to the side for non-ananamorhic, regular 16x9 content? I can't recall how that works.

Also, which video processor is the preferred option today? Buying one is definitely preferable to the Oppo for me.

Jeffnebraska
After 7 Years With a JVC RS1 - Starting to Get the Upgrade Itch
JeffNebraska is offline  
post #4 of 27 Old 06-11-2012, 04:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ronomy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 3,037
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffNebraska View Post

Thanks. It's a pretty new bulb and quite a dark room. I guess the size of an equivalent 2.35 screen would be about 135" diagonal. How can I figure out if my RS1 can pull it off?
Is it correct that the lens needs to be able to move to the side for non-ananamorhic, regular 16x9 content? I can't recall how that works.
Also, which video processor is the preferred option today? Buying one is definitely preferable to the Oppo for me.

Actually projector centrals RS1 calculator is spot on for throw distance and screen size. After I installed my RS1 my measurements were very near identical to what the calculator said. Just remember by the time you get to 1000 hours you could be down another 35-40% or even as high as 55% drop from new readings. I had one bulb that dropped lumens really quickly. Over 20% in the first 100 hours. But the bulb I have now is near 500 hours and still only lost around 20% which is pretty good.

As far as a processor you can use a Radiance 3D mini to do what you want or cheaper option is a used Lumagen HDQ but the image will be softer with the HDQ. Radiance is the way to go.
Ronomy is offline  
post #5 of 27 Old 06-11-2012, 06:41 PM
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 JeffNebraska View Post

I have a five-year old JVC RS1 and a 100" Stewart Film screen (16x9). The picture it delivers is stunning. Still, a part of me really longs for actual widescreen.
What would be the most sensible way, if there is one, to switch to a constant image height setup?
Excluding the cost of the new screen, which will be a lot I know, how much would it take to get a video processor and an anamorphic lens that would give me 2.40:1 (or 2.35:1) without degrading my current image quality at all? Is that even possible with my projector, which has no on-board video processing for widescreen? Would I need the lens to be on a sled, so it can move out of the way when I'm not watching widescreen material?
Apologies for my ignorance in this area, and thanks for any help you can offer.

One sensible (cost effective) way is to get just a VP and do the shrink method. This is downscaling or "shrinking" 16:9 so it fits the height of a 2.35:1 screen. I had great success pairing a Lumagen HDP with my RS1. The scaling is virtually as good as the newer Lumagens but a fraction of the cost.The one button AR changes was well worth a very minor loss of quality for 16:9 vs zooming. As a bonus the basic CMS greatly improved the colors and it could fully calibrate greyscale and gamma. I've since upgraded to an RS55 with lens memory, but I kept the VP and still shrink some material, depending on the content.

Since you appear to be in my area, I'd be happy to show you how well it can work.

BTW, the Oppo players actually have a built in version of the shrink method called 1/2 zoom. But again the downside is it would only work on that source.
5mark is offline  
post #6 of 27 Old 06-11-2012, 09:21 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
JeffNebraska's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 729
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Still waiting on a response re the need for a sled to move the lens in and out of place.

Here's another rookie question - how do I decide on an AR between 2.35 and 2.40? Is 2.35 the more common, or is that my imagination?

Jeffnebraska
After 7 Years With a JVC RS1 - Starting to Get the Upgrade Itch
JeffNebraska is offline  
post #7 of 27 Old 06-12-2012, 12:40 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
HogPilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Good Ol' US of A
Posts: 2,890
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffNebraska View Post

Still waiting on a response re the need for a sled to move the lens in and out of place.

You have a couple choices. The cheapest choice - and the one I started with - is to make a cheap transport using some 100 lb drawer slides from your local hardware store. You'll then manually slide the lens in or out of the way depending upon what you're watching. The next least expensive option is to leave the lens in place all the time, in which case you'd need a video processor capable of squeezing the picture horizontally for any AR less than 2.35:1. The most expensive - but most elegant and convenient solution - is to buy motorized sled that is remote-controlled. GetGray's CineSlide™ is a phenomenal solution that will handle just about any lens, and Panamorph sells a motorized slide for their lenses as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffNebraska View Post

Here's another rookie question - how do I decide on an AR between 2.35 and 2.40? Is 2.35 the more common, or is that my imagination?

Bottom line is that there is a real difference, but the difference is small. Back before 1971, the AR was actually 2.35:1. After that time it was changed (for various reasons) to approximately 2.39:1 - the width actually stayed the same but the height was reduced slightly. However 2.35:1 had been in common usage for some time by then, so the term stuck even though it wasn't technically accurate. To complicate matters more, 2.39:1 is often rounded to 2.40:1, so you'll see that used as well. In the end you're talking about a 1.7% difference in picture height.

If you're doing a zoom-based 'scope setup and wanted to gnat's-ass your screen, you'd want a 2.39:1 screen. For lens setups, the AR that results from putting a 1.33x lens in front of a 1.78:1 display is actually 2.37:1. In reality, any difference between the 3 ratios (2.35:1, 2.37:1, and 2.39:1) is easily compensated for by masking off the image onto the black border of your screen. But any screen manufacturer will produce a custom AR screen for you for no extra charge, so if you're ordering your screen or making it yourself, you might as well go with the AR that you'll actually be producing with your system.

There are 10 types of people: those who understand binary, and those who don't.

HogPilot is online now  
post #8 of 27 Old 06-12-2012, 08:28 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
JeffNebraska's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 729
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I have another question that will betray my ignorance. To switch from 16x9 to 2.37x1, I need to actually zoom my projector, right?

I have to (1) turn on the video processing, (2) move the anamorphic lens into place and (3) zoom to make the image fill my screen, right? Or is it only (1) and (2)? Does the lens automatically accomplish the needed zoom (or is there no zoom needed)?

I ask because the zoom on my RS1 is manual.

Jeffnebraska
After 7 Years With a JVC RS1 - Starting to Get the Upgrade Itch
JeffNebraska is offline  
post #9 of 27 Old 06-12-2012, 08:30 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
JeffNebraska's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 729
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 12
The projector central calculator says I will get 13fL. Thoughts on whether that's adequate?

Looks like I currently have 23fL. That's a scary difference.

Will I have to adjust brightness (and/or contrast) every time I switch to my anapmorhic lens? Do I just not have the light to make this work?

Jeffnebraska
After 7 Years With a JVC RS1 - Starting to Get the Upgrade Itch
JeffNebraska is offline  
post #10 of 27 Old 06-12-2012, 09:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffNebraska View Post

I have another question that will betray my ignorance. To switch from 16x9 to 2.37x1, I need to actually zoom my projector, right?
I have to (1) turn on the video processing, (2) move the anamorphic lens into place and (3) zoom to make the image fill my screen, right? Or is it only (1) and (2)? Does the lens automatically accomplish the needed zoom (or is there no zoom needed)?
I ask because the zoom on my RS1 is manual.

1 and 2. The whole point of the lens is to expand (not zoom) the image for you.

John Schuermann, Filmmaker / Film Composer
Home Theater Industry Consultant
JS Music and Sound
Panamorph
Check out my new movie!: www.stephensonmovie.com
John Schuermann is offline  
post #11 of 27 Old 06-12-2012, 09:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffNebraska View Post

The projector central calculator says I will get 13fL. Thoughts on whether that's adequate?
Looks like I currently have 23fL. That's a scary difference.
Will I have to adjust brightness (and/or contrast) every time I switch to my anapmorhic lens? Do I just not have the light to make this work?

Contrast and brightness are simply picture adjustments that actually adjust white level and black level, respectively. They do nothing to increase light output. Light output is simply a matter of how much light is created by the projector lamp and then passed through the projector optics. There are also picture modes that allow more light output (usually called things like "bright room" or "vivid"), but those modes generally are wildly inaccurate when it comes to color accuracy, gamma and other picture parameters.

Keep in mind too that most of the brightness calculators use the manufacturer's maximum rated light output, which is not a very reliable figure. Usually that figure is taken when the projector is in "torch mode," with the picture adjusted like how I mentioned above. IIRC, the RS1 in one of its more accurate picture modes puts out about 400 lumens, so you might want to use that for your calculations.

Keep in mind too that "bright enough" is partially a personal call. Here's a quick way to determine if the image will be bright enough for you:

Load up a letterboxed Blu-ray.

Zoom the image in on your projector so that the image within the letterbox bars fills the height of the screen (the sides of the image will fall onto the wall on either side of the screen)

Watch the movie for a good 30 minutes or so, concentrating on how bright the image is and if you find it adequate enough (try to ignore the extra picture information falling onto the wall)

If you are satisfied with that brightness, you should be satisfied with the brightness of the 2.35:1 image (HogPilot's answer about aspect ratios was dead on, btw). As a bonus, if you use a good quality anamorphic lens your actual 2.35:1 image will be about 20 - 30% brighter than what you get with the method described above (since anamorphic lens systems take advantage of all of the projectors pixels being lit up vs. the method above only using 75% of the projector's pixels).

Good Luck!

John Schuermann, Filmmaker / Film Composer
Home Theater Industry Consultant
JS Music and Sound
Panamorph
Check out my new movie!: www.stephensonmovie.com
John Schuermann is offline  
post #12 of 27 Old 06-12-2012, 11:27 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 John Schuermann View Post

Load up a letterboxed Blu-ray.
Zoom the image in on your projector so that the image within the letterbox bars fills the height of the screen (the sides of the image will fall onto the wall on either side of the screen)
Watch the movie for a good 30 minutes or so, concentrating on how bright the image is and if you find it adequate enough (try to ignore the extra picture information falling onto the wall)
If you are satisfied with that brightness, you should be satisfied with the brightness of the 2.35:1 image (HogPilot's answer about aspect ratios was dead on, btw). As a bonus, if you use a good quality anamorphic lens your actual 2.35:1 image will be about 20 - 30% brighter than what you get with the method described above (since anamorphic lens systems take advantage of all of the projectors pixels being lit up vs. the method above only using 75% of the projector's pixels).
Good Luck!

This is great advice. Although one could argue that if the brightness is satisfactory, an A-lens may not be needed and the zoom or shrink methods are possible options. When doing the experiment, you can also get a feel for how you like the PQ and greater immersion from your seating position (using a little imagination with the image bleeding off the sides) Also notice if pixel visibility becomes a problem, especially in bright/sky type scenes. Experiment with seating distance if possible. If you find you enjoy viewing close enough to see pixel structure, then an A-lens may be called for. Or you could just upgrade to an RS55...smile.gif
5mark is offline  
post #13 of 27 Old 06-12-2012, 11:48 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
JeffNebraska's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 729
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Thanks for all the hugely helpful replies. I am climbing the learning curve quickly. I thank you. My wallet curses you.

Next question on my quest for knowledge: can I get a video processor that allows me to keep my 2.35 lens in place all the time? Does the Radiance 3D mini allow for this (I assume not, since it's so affordable)? Does any other VP pull it off?

Obviously a fixed anamorphic lens is cheaper and easier to use if there's a VP that allows me to switch to the right AR at the push of a button.

Jeffnebraska
After 7 Years With a JVC RS1 - Starting to Get the Upgrade Itch
JeffNebraska is offline  
post #14 of 27 Old 06-12-2012, 11:53 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
JeffNebraska's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 729
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5mark View Post

Or you could just upgrade to an RS55...smile.gif

Upgrading seems unnecessary, unless I want 3D. I would have to pay for the upgrade and would only save the money I'm spending on the video processor, which ain't much.

Am I missing anything?

Jeffnebraska
After 7 Years With a JVC RS1 - Starting to Get the Upgrade Itch
JeffNebraska is offline  
post #15 of 27 Old 06-12-2012, 12:08 PM
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 JeffNebraska View Post

Upgrading seems unnecessary, unless I want 3D. I would have to pay for the upgrade and would only save the money I'm spending on the video processor, which ain't much.
Am I missing anything?

I was half kidding.wink.gif But along with lens memory, the RS55 and its upscaling e-shift technology completely eliminates pixel visibility and allows for very close viewing while maintaining excellent PQ.

And all the Lumagen VPs will let you keep an A-lens in place for 16:9, even the older ones. Keep in mind that this envolves scaling and losing some horizontal resolution. Keeping the lens in place will also result in pincushion (and possibly other artifacts if an inexpensive lens is used), just like on the 2.35 image.
5mark is offline  
post #16 of 27 Old 06-12-2012, 12:20 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
JeffNebraska's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 729
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5mark View Post

I was half kidding.wink.gif But along with lens memory, the RS55 and its upscaling e-shift technology completely eliminates pixel visibility and alows for very close viewing while maintaining excellent PQ.
And all the Lumagen VPs will let you keep an A-lens in place for 16:9, even the older ones. Keep in mind that this envolves scaling and losing some horizontal resolution. Keeping the lens in place will also result in pincushion, just like on the 2.35 image.

So it sounds like a moveable A-lens is the way to go. I don't want to sacrifice horizontal resolution on my 16X9 to save a few bucks and a little hassle.

I am intrigued by getting a new projector, but I think that needs to wait for me next upgrade cycle. Maybe by then, 3D will be on par with my current 2D picture quality. Anyway, this upgrade is already going to be crazy expensive, with the largest component being a new 2.35:1, powered drop down, 125" diagonal screen, which I will need to have installed. That's going to be a bank breaker, even if I don't stick with Stewart Flimscreen.

I think I'll be lucky to pull this whole thing off for less than $20K, which means I need to do some real soul searching before taking the plunge.

Jeffnebraska
After 7 Years With a JVC RS1 - Starting to Get the Upgrade Itch
JeffNebraska is offline  
post #17 of 27 Old 06-12-2012, 02:01 PM
Advanced Member
 
wildchild22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Deer Lake , Newfoundland
Posts: 590
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Well I just got my rs1 and lumagen mini 3d and also a prismasonic a-lens. I paid less than 3k for all of it and I wouldnt trade it. I watch on a 8 feet wide 2:40:1 screen. The bulb has over 1000hrs and is plenty of bright in my bat cave.
wildchild22 is offline  
post #18 of 27 Old 06-12-2012, 02:25 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
JeffNebraska's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 729
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I did a "zoom and watch" on my current screen. Size was great. Image looked a little soft, which I presume is because of the loss of pixels. The image didn't pop in quite the same way, but that didn't seem to be a function of the loss of brightness, as much as the loss of resolution. More experimenting to come tonight, when the room is completely dark.

Jeffnebraska
After 7 Years With a JVC RS1 - Starting to Get the Upgrade Itch
JeffNebraska is offline  
post #19 of 27 Old 06-12-2012, 03:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffNebraska View Post

I did a "zoom and watch" on my current screen. Size was great. Image looked a little soft, which I presume is because of the loss of pixels. The image didn't pop in quite the same way, but that didn't seem to be a function of the loss of brightness, as much as the loss of resolution. More experimenting to come tonight, when the room is completely dark.

Actually, what you are seeing is almost certainly loss of brightness. Resolution is not as important as contrast and brightness when determining perceived picture quality, esp. "pop" and "sharpness." In other words, what makes a picture pop is the combination of high brightness and high contrast. Your RS1 excels at the high contrast part of the equation, and does quite well in the brightness part too as long as you don't go too large in screen size.

The resolution when zoomed in (like you tried) is exactly the same as zoomed out. Even adding an anamorphic lens, which means using all 1920 x 1080 pixels, does not really add any additional picture detail, since the original Blu-ray source is still 1920 x 810 (typically). The vertical scaling process just scales the 1920 x 810 image to 1920 x 1080 to light up all the pixels. No additional picture detail is added, you just get a higher pixel count and about a 33% increase in brightness because all of the imaging chip is now turned on. That is the main advantage of anamorphic lenses - more brightness reaches the screen vs. the zoom method, which as I mentioned above, is far more important to perceived picture quality than actual resolution.

However, the loss of brightness is more readily apparent if you have some light pollution, which you obviously have during the day. You will get a much better read on things tonight smile.gif

John Schuermann, Filmmaker / Film Composer
Home Theater Industry Consultant
JS Music and Sound
Panamorph
Check out my new movie!: www.stephensonmovie.com
John Schuermann is offline  
post #20 of 27 Old 06-12-2012, 04:07 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
JeffNebraska's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 729
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Thanks John! Great advice.

My plan tonight is to watch a few things that look amazing at my normal settings, and then again zoomed. If I'm satisfied, I know I'll be at least that happy when an anamorphic lens hits the scene.

I'll probably start with the demo material on the Spears and Munsil disc.

Jeffnebraska
After 7 Years With a JVC RS1 - Starting to Get the Upgrade Itch
JeffNebraska is offline  
post #21 of 27 Old 06-13-2012, 11:50 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
AV Science Sales 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: A beautiful view of a lake
Posts: 7,454
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 234 Post(s)
Liked: 385
You are getting a lot of good advice here. With my RS45 I have tried the zoom method and an A-lens. I much prefer the A-lens. If you are going with a lens sled, then you do not have to have a VP, but if you are going to use the system with any material that is not 1080P, the scaling in a VP like the Lumagen makes a big difference. More so with larger screen sizes. If we can help you, let us know.

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 offline  
post #22 of 27 Old 06-13-2012, 02:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Something else to keep in mind. Since you are going to get a new screen, you can purchase a screen with a higher gain to get a brighter image. However, since a 2.35:1 / 2.40:1 image is so much wider than 16:9, hotspotting becomes more of an issue with this aspect ratio. What screen material do you have now?

John Schuermann, Filmmaker / Film Composer
Home Theater Industry Consultant
JS Music and Sound
Panamorph
Check out my new movie!: www.stephensonmovie.com
John Schuermann is offline  
post #23 of 27 Old 06-13-2012, 09:34 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
JeffNebraska's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 729
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post

Something else to keep in mind. Since you are going to get a new screen, you can purchase a screen with a higher gain to get a brighter image. However, since a 2.35:1 / 2.40:1 image is so much wider than 16:9, hotspotting becomes more of an issue with this aspect ratio. What screen material do you have now?

Stewart Filmscreen Firehawk G3 with motorized drop down.

Jeffnebraska
After 7 Years With a JVC RS1 - Starting to Get the Upgrade Itch
JeffNebraska is offline  
post #24 of 27 Old 06-14-2012, 01:26 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
JeffNebraska's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 729
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 12
So "lens memory" on the JVC RS55... That's just an auto zoom and lens shift right? It doesn't utilize all the pixels, right? Is it substantially inferior to using an anamorphic lens?

Jeffnebraska
After 7 Years With a JVC RS1 - Starting to Get the Upgrade Itch
JeffNebraska is offline  
post #25 of 27 Old 06-14-2012, 01:34 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
JeffNebraska's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 729
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post

However, the loss of brightness is more readily apparent if you have some light pollution, which you obviously have during the day. You will get a much better read on things tonight smile.gif

Did some night watching of Iron Man. It looked very good in normal lamp mode, but only looked great in high lamp mode. I guess I could get a hush box, but I'm not sure if high mode will lead to other sacrifices (e.g., color accuracy).

Jeffnebraska
After 7 Years With a JVC RS1 - Starting to Get the Upgrade Itch
JeffNebraska is offline  
post #26 of 27 Old 06-14-2012, 05:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ronomy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 3,037
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffNebraska View Post

Did some night watching of Iron Man. It looked very good in normal lamp mode, but only looked great in high lamp mode. I guess I could get a hush box, but I'm not sure if high mode will lead to other sacrifices (e.g., color accuracy).

If you get a radiance you can calibrate both lamp settings if you want. Don't worry about color accuracy only over all brightness. Don't forget the image will be 30% brighter at that width after you squeeze the image.
Ronomy is offline  
post #27 of 27 Old 06-14-2012, 09:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 60
The Firehawk is a great material, and I would suggest sticking with it if you have ambient light issues or light colored walls and ceiling. If you can black out your room and paint it dark as well, the StudioTek 130 would give you a slightly brighter image and less hotspotting. I recently replaced my Firehawk with StudioTek 130 material, and I have noticed that the image looks overall brighter especially out to the edges. I only considered switching to the StudioTek, though, after I painted my walls and ceiling a dark color.

As mentioned above, adding an anamorphic lens will increase the brightness by approx. 20 - 30% over what you are seeing with the zoom method.

Going to the high lamp mode will not dramatically affect color accuracy, etc - it's changing the picture mode to something like "Vivid" that totally messes with the colors.

Good luck!

John Schuermann, Filmmaker / Film Composer
Home Theater Industry Consultant
JS Music and Sound
Panamorph
Check out my new movie!: www.stephensonmovie.com
John Schuermann is offline  
Reply 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat

Tags
Jvc Dla Rs1 Projector

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