CIH and HTPC -- Am I on the Right Path? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 6 Old 02-22-2013, 02:34 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Gabuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 64
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hi all,

I am upgrading my current living home theater (Pioneer Kuro 6070) to a projector. This is my 2nd foray into a projection system; my first was a 7 inch CRT paired to a StudioTek 130 16x9. Amazing for its time.

I am debating if I should stay with 16x9 or make the switch to 2.35/2.40. This system will be used for movies (HTPC/WHS and Oppo 103), sports (football on Saturdays and Sundays), TV, and console/PC gaming. All the content played back from the WHS are uncompressed, movie-only 1080p/480p MKVs. 80% of the time I will be watching movies and/TV content at night.

This will be installed in my apartment living room which is 12x17 feet with white walls and ceiling. To counter the white walls, ceiling, and ambient lighting from the back of the room, I am going with either an SI Black Diamond Zero Edge 100” 16x9 or an SI Black Diamond Zero Edge 106” 2.35/2.40. The projectors I am looking at are the Sony HW50ES (first choice) or possibly the Panasonic AE8000.

I have researched as much as possible on these forums on how to display anamorphic material. I am hoping some of you can let me know if I am on the right path or completely clueless. If I am wrong, I’d appreciate some guidance.

Anamorphic on Sony HW50ES

1) HTPC via MPC-HC with its Zoom function set to Ultra Widescreen
a. Does anyone use this specific Zoom function for anamorphic content?
b. If so, is the scaling high quality?
c. Do you lose brightness?
d. How does the quality compare to a Panamorph or Lumagen?

2) Lumagen Radiance Mini 3D
a. Use its anamorphic zoom function for the HTPC and Oppo
b. How does the Lumagen’s Zoom compare to MPC-HC?
c. If desired, use the 16x9 NLS feature for HDTV content if I don’t want pillar boxes on the left/right sides (I’ve seen some videos on Youtube, thanks BrolicBeast, and it’s actually decent)
d. Other great features for calibration, video processing, etc.

3) Anamorphic lens via the Panamorph CineVista
a. Top notch quality and preferred choice
b. However, per SI, I can’t use this setup with a Zero Edge as I won’t have the necessary throw distance (16-10”)
c. I could not use the Zero Edge screen and get a standard bezel which would allow me to use a Panamorph

4) Oppo 103
a. I won’t be able to enable anamorphic content since I can’t use a Panamorph
b. Anamorphic content displayed will still have black borders on the top and bottom

Anamorphic on the Panasonic AE8000

1) Use the Lens Memory and Lens Shift feature for both anamorphic and 16x9 content
a. Seems like the most simple and cost effective
b. Seems to work pretty seamless with either an HTPC or Oppo
c. 16x9 content will have pillar boxes on the left and right sides

2) HTPC via MPC-HC with its Zoom function set to Ultra Widescreen
a. Has anyone compared the Panasonic’s Lens Memory feature to the Ultra Widescreen Zoom from MPC-HC?
b. If so, who did a better job?

3) Lumagen Radiance Mini 3D
a. Bypass the Panasonic’s Lens Memory and Shift features
b. Use its anamorphic zoom function for the HTPC and Oppo
c. How does the Lumagen’s Zoom compare to the Panasonic’s?

4) Anamorphic lens via the Panamorph CineVista
a. As with the Sony HW50ES, I won’t have the necessary throw distance or I could choose to not use the Zero Edge

FYI…Mike at AVS has been incredible with answering my questions. Can’t wait to finally purchase everything.

Thanks for your help.
Gabuk is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 6 Old 02-23-2013, 01:16 AM
Member
 
jpl0220's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 31
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
If are going with your 6x9 screens why would you have bars on the sides? Now if you had a 2.35 screen you would have bars on the side. We talking constant height 49" to 53"?
Sounds simple to me Panasonic zoom memory no lens or Sony with lens CIH.
jpl0220 is offline  
post #3 of 6 Old 02-23-2013, 02:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kelvin1965S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 3,230
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Note that using the Lumagen for 'filling' a 2.35:1 screen with NLS on 16:9 sources means that you are doing the following:

Zooming the projector so that the 16:9 image overshoots the top and bottom of your 2.35:1 screen (ie so a 2.35:1 source would fit perfectly). Then taking a full 1920 x 1080 image and shrinking it down to approx 1400 x 810 then NLS it to 1920 x 810 So you have lost resolution and deformed the image at the sides of the screen.It is not 'anamorphic' in any way, just resizing and stretching the image. Basically you never use all the pixels of the projector in any aspect ratio.

I have a Mini3D myself and find it a fantastic device for calibration and upscaling (and vertical stretch in my case), but seems a waste to buy it just to not be able to see all the pixels and 'fill' a 2.35:1 screen.

I can't help with the HTPC options, but they will be similar in terms of that you can only crop or distort an image to fit a screen that isn't the same AR as the source.

Also note that if using the cheap CineVista lens you will need a projector with zonal convergence adjustment since this lens doesn't have the correction of the dearer models and you will get colour separation at the image sides: You have to use the zonal convergence to 'correct' this issue (though this in itself may cause other side effects such as loss of resolution). If this bothers you then you need to consider the more upmarket lens models.

Having read Zombie 10K's recent comments comparing the 8000K with the Sony and other current projectors, then it seems that the lens memory is one of the few positive reasons for buying it over the others (apart from the JVCs which have the lens memory and much better blacks, though less brightness than the Sony, they have more calibrated lumens than the Panny anyway despite the specs)

Zooming: Been there, done that, bought the lens...
Kelvin1965S is offline  
post #4 of 6 Old 02-23-2013, 02:21 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Gabuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 64
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thanks, Kelvin. Helps a lot. I was highly considering the JVC X35 but since I watch a lot of football and play console/pc games, it may not be the right fit. I am going to try and see a JVC in person and see if they have any sports/fast moving content to display or a console connected to it.

In the long run, it seems like I should save up for a better lens if I decided to go CIH.

Really appreciate the help.
Gabuk is offline  
post #5 of 6 Old 02-23-2013, 08:20 AM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,249
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabuk View Post

Thanks, Kelvin. Helps a lot. I was highly considering the JVC X35 but since I watch a lot of football and play console/pc games, it may not be the right fit. I am going to try and see a JVC in person and see if they have any sports/fast moving content to display or a console connected to it.

In the long run, it seems like I should save up for a better lens if I decided to go CIH.

Really appreciate the help.

All of the different projectors you are considering are LCD based in some way or another, so all of them should have roughly the same motion issues associated with the technology. I have not heard that the JVC is any worse in that regard, so if you have any information to the contrary I would be interested to see it. Geoff Morrison in the last Sound and Vision reviewed the Sony HW50, the Epson 6020 and JVC RS55 all side by side, and IIRC, they all tested out about the same re: motion resolution. However, the JVC clearly was the winner in terms of contrast. Keep in mind, though, that the actual contrast ratio you will get will depend on screen material choice and how light the walls and ceiling are in your room.

If you want to go the zoom route, JVC will provide arguably the best PQ in terms of contrast but probably the highest cost. My subjective opinion is that the Sony has the crispest and brightest calibrated picture of the three.

RE: the CineVista. Both the JVC and the Sony have the zonal convergence that Kelvin mentions. With both projectors you can dial out the aberration from the lens pretty effectively (assuming you even notice the aberration to begin with). RE: possible resolution loss, I can't comment on the JVC since I have not personally tested ECC on it yet. However, with the Sony I have done extensive testing and can claim no apparent resolution loss when using the correction. In fact, I did a blind test with 3 subjects turning the ECC on and off using a single pixel test pattern. People could clearly see the benefit of the zonal correction because the color fringing disappeared, but they could see literally zero degradation of image sharpness / resolution using the Sony's system. FYI, I did the initial test without the CineVista in place, simply correcting the inherent aberration / panel misalignment of the projector itself. I then put up our HTPC desktop and displayed fine text with ECC on and off and the only apparent difference was the lack of fringing with ECC on. We were all looking for any apparent softness to the text, image borders, etc with ECC on and could literally see none. The test was duplicated with the CineVista in place with identical results. So, I think I can pretty definitively say that the Sony ECC processing does not negatively impact the picture in any visible way. Ideally, I would like some of the folks here on the forum with an HW50 and the CineVista to confirm our findings, because I totally understand the inclination to be skeptical of manufacturer claims. My one disclaimer is that we did not test this same system on a JVC, but I have no specific reason to think the results would be any different.

As far as saving up for a better lens, that has its advantages too, as the Panamorph UH480 and DC1 do not have any aberration to begin with (as well as certain lenses from other manufacturers).
John Schuermann is offline  
post #6 of 6 Old 02-23-2013, 02:41 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Gabuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 64
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thanks, John. The honest feedback is exactly what I am looking for. Great news about the Sony projector. I am headed to my new apartment to re-take measurements. I might be able to place the projector at the specified throw distance Screen Innovations recommends for the Zero Edge screen (FYI...I need 16'2" to use an anamorphic lens).
Gabuk is offline  
Reply 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off