Is Anamorphic Still Relevant? - Page 2 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 56 Old 04-14-2013, 08:29 AM
Advanced Member
 
230-SEAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 610
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Andrew, your test doesn't make sense to me. If I read it correctly, you were using a test pattern that was full panel 16:9 and then stretched it and put a lens in front, measured the ftl. Then you unstretched it, removed the lens, and zoomed the full panel test pattern to the width of the anamorphic image, and remeasured the ftl. So, you actually measured a smaller image with the lens in place and then measured a larger image without the lens. With an anamorphic image, there would be black bars top and bottom of the non-lens setup, sure there is still light coming out in those areas but no where near the amount of light from a white image being in those areas. Try it again using anamorphic images and I'm guesing you'll see a bigger difference between the 2.

-Sean

Edit:

Also, if you have the equipment to do this, measure the contrast ratio between the 2, you should find that it takes a hit when you zoom compared to when you use the lens.
230-SEAN is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 56 Old 04-15-2013, 06:22 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
He used a window pattern, not a full screen one, and he said he measured them so they were the same size on the screen in both configurations. His methodology and numbers seem to be correct, especially given te extrapolation that stranger89 provided using cine4home's measurements.

You and stranger are correct about the contrast hit from zooming though, as I previously pointed out.

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

HogPilot is offline  
post #33 of 56 Old 04-15-2013, 10:39 AM
Advanced Member
 
230-SEAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 610
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

He used a window pattern, not a full screen one, and he said he measured them so they were the same size on the screen in both configurations. His methodology and numbers seem to be correct, especially given te extrapolation that stranger89 provided using cine4home's measurements.

You and stranger are correct about the contrast hit from zooming though, as I previously pointed out.

I reread, still sounds like it was a full panel test pattern. He said that he measured them so they were the same width, not size. Full panel 16:9 pattern would be larger in size than a stretched lensed image of equal width.

-Sean
230-SEAN is offline  
post #34 of 56 Old 04-15-2013, 10:57 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 230-SEAN View Post

I reread, still sounds like it was a full panel test pattern. He said that he measured them so they were the same width, not size. Full panel 16:9 pattern would be larger in size than a stretched lensed image of equal width.

-Sean

He said he measured a 6 foot wide white box on his 10 foot/120 inch diagonal (104 inch wide) screen; thus it was a window pattern.

Either way, the FOV of his light meter is relatively narrow, so using a full screen pattern vs a window should have made a minimal amount of difference in the measured light output in each configuration.

Edit: corrected screen dimensions

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

HogPilot is offline  
post #35 of 56 Old 04-15-2013, 12:54 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,964
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 92 Post(s)
Liked: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by 230-SEAN View Post


Also, if you have the equipment to do this, measure the contrast ratio between the 2, you should find that it takes a hit when you zoom compared to when you use the lens.

I've been wondering about that too.

Theoretically that should be the case, that if employing an A-lens means using less zoom (out) on your projector, then some level of better contrast ought to be preserved in the A-lens image. Especially with a projector like the JVC. But has anyone done both objective measurements of the contrast difference of the same sized image zoomed vs using an A-lens? As well as actually observing the difference in actual movie images?

(I've been too lazy to do such a comparison up to this point and my system is "down" for the moment so I can't do it).
R Harkness is offline  
post #36 of 56 Old 04-15-2013, 02:46 PM
Senior Member
 
Yzfbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Frisco, TX
Posts: 258
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
This has been an interesting dicussion. My build won't be done for a few more weeks, but when it is done ill attempt the same test. (Brightness)

It would be great if others could too. I would love to see a larger sample size.

Here is my build thread:

---->Like a Boss Theater Build<----
Yzfbossman is offline  
post #37 of 56 Old 04-15-2013, 03:44 PM
Advanced Member
 
230-SEAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 610
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

He said he measured a 6 foot wide white box on his 10 foot (120 inch) wide screen; thus it was a window pattern.

I read that. To me that means that he had an anamorphic image on his screen that measured 72" wide and 30.6" tall. In other words he created a 30.6" CIH display area inside of his 120" screen.

Next, he unstretched the IRE White Pattern and removed the lens from the light path.

This left him with a 16:9 image on his screen that would have measured roughly 54.4" wide and 30.6" tall.

Then he zoomed that image to the 72" width that he had from the image with the lens on the PJ. In other words he created a 16:9 image that measured 72" wide and 40.5" tall. He INCREASED the height of his image by about 33%.



That is how I read it, but the results don't make sense, as the 16:9 image should have been brighter, right? I would like clarification on what was actually done, just out of curiosity.

-Sean
230-SEAN is offline  
post #38 of 56 Old 04-16-2013, 04:36 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 230-SEAN View Post

I read that. To me that means that he had an anamorphic image on his screen that measured 72" wide and 30.6" tall. In other words he created a 30.6" CIH display area inside of his 120" screen.

Next, he unstretched the IRE White Pattern and removed the lens from the light path.

This left him with a 16:9 image on his screen that would have measured roughly 54.4" wide and 30.6" tall.

Then he zoomed that image to the 72" width that he had from the image with the lens on the PJ. In other words he created a 16:9 image that measured 72" wide and 40.5" tall. He INCREASED the height of his image by about 33%.



That is how I read it, but the results don't make sense, as the 16:9 image should have been brighter, right? I would like clarification on what was actually done, just out of curiosity.

-Sean

You're reading all kinds of things into his post that weren't there. Go back and re-read his post again - he absolutely said he measured the two boxes so they were the same size - he never said same width, only you did. He also did this on HIS setup - why would he bother to zoom the image all the way down to 72" wide on his 104" wide screen when he can easily use the window patterns built into his DVDO processor? What you're saying he did makes no sense on a number of levels.

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

HogPilot is offline  
post #39 of 56 Old 04-16-2013, 06:51 AM
Advanced Member
 
230-SEAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 610
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Robinson View Post

....

My projector sits approximately 17 feet back from my 120-inch diagonal screen (lens to material). I started by measuring my projector’s light output with an anamorphic lens attached. I zeroed out my projector, that is to say I set it back to its factory defaults. I then put a 100% IRE white pattern through the projector via my DVDO Duo connected by a 1 meter HDMI cable. I set my projector to its appropriate anamorphic mode, which resulted in a large white box appearing on my screen. The white box was 6 feet wide on my 120-inch screen -this will be important. Using a calibrated C6 meter and SpectraCal’s CalMan v.4 software I measured the 100% IRE box with the anamorphic lens attached at 4.3 foot lamberts. Remember, don’t get hung up on the projector’s light output, we don’t care about that right now, our only focus is light output with lens versus without. I took over a dozen readings and 4.3 was pretty much the figure.

Now, I removed the lens and turned off my projector’s anamorphic mode and resent the same 100% IRE pattern to the screen. It was smaller so I zoomed out until the box was the same size as it was when using the anamorphic lens. Doing so simulated the effect of using lens zoom or memory, opposed to an anamorphic lens attachment. With the box now the same size as it was with the anamorphic lens in place I re-measured the projector’s light output. Remember, I didn’t move or touch anything but the projector’s zoom function, which is entirely remote controlled. The measured light output without the anamorphic lens was an even 4 foot lamberts.

....

Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

You're reading all kinds of things into his post that weren't there. Go back and re-read his post again - he absolutely said he measured the two boxes so they were the same size - he never said same width, only you did. He also did this on HIS setup - why would he bother to zoom the image all the way down to 72" wide on his 104" wide screen when he can easily use the window patterns built into his DVDO processor? What you're saying he did makes no sense on a number of levels.

I highlighted the parts that I've been referring to in bold. This is where I'm getting the 6 foot wide figure from (zooming to "the same size" requires the image to be 6 feet wide, regardless of window pattern or full 16:9 panel). If you're saying he used a window pattern then I guess that is what he used, however that isn't stated. If that is the case, then I'm left to wonder why? Since he seems to think anamorphic is no longer relevant, I must assume that his 120" diagonal screen is 16:9. So this 6 foot wide test pattern would only light up 68% of the screen at best (assuming it was 72" x 59"), and the rest of the image projected would be black on the remaining 32% of the screen (left and right pillar bars).

Why would someone do a test on image brightness between stretching a letterboxed image to full panel size and adding a lens vs zooming a letterboxed image to fill a 2.35:1 screen if the image they are using is going to leave 32% of the screen with a black image?

Now do you see where I'm confused? If the test was done how I read it, it doesn't make sense. If the test was done how you read it, it doesn't make sense.

-Sean
230-SEAN is offline  
post #40 of 56 Old 04-16-2013, 07:52 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 230-SEAN View Post

Why would someone do a test on image brightness between stretching a letterboxed image to full panel size and adding a lens vs zooming a letterboxed image to fill a 2.35:1 screen if the image they are using is going to leave 32% of the screen with a black image?

Because, as I already stated, the light sensor he is using has a narrow FOV and takes spot measurements in area-agnostic units. With the sensor within a foot or two of the screen, there will be no difference in the light reading when using a full screen pattern vs window pattern.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 230-SEAN View Post

Now do you see where I'm confused?

No, not really - he clearly said that the images were the same size. He seems like an intelligent person who would know that an apples-to-apples comparison would NOT be achieved by measuring two test patterns with clearly different aspects and areas. Additionally, stranger89 already verified Andrew's numbers by interpolating cine4home's measurements. Andrew's measurements seem perfectly reasonable. I don't agree with his overall conclusions about anamorphic lenses and image quality, but his objective measurements thus far are sound.

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

HogPilot is offline  
post #41 of 56 Old 04-16-2013, 08:31 AM
Advanced Member
 
230-SEAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 610
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

Because, as I already stated, the light sensor he is using has a narrow FOV and takes spot measurements in area-agnostic units. With the sensor within a foot or two of the screen, there will be no difference in the light reading when using a full screen pattern vs window pattern.

I see what you're saying here. I was just confused because, to me, some details were vague and I would have done the test much differently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

Additionally, stranger89 already verified Andrew's numbers by interpolating cine4home's measurements.

I just read his post, makes sense to me.


What this all boils down to is that this is just another thread started in the CIH forum trying to say that there is no point in CIH with anamorphic lenses, and then coming to conclusions that there actually are some advantages to doing it. Whether or not someone sees the advantages to be worth the cost is a personal opinion, but what was the point? How many more threads must we have that go through the same things over and over? Just like receivers and separates, I prefer pre-amps and amplifiers. Or heating and cooling, I prefer my geothermal system over conventional heating and cooling. The list of things goes on and on, but I'm not going into receiver forums and asking if they are relevant nor am I going into A/C and Gas/Oil/Electric furnace forums and asking if they are still relevant. It just seems silly.

-Sean
230-SEAN is offline  
post #42 of 56 Old 04-16-2013, 09:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 60
A few comments.

1. The 30% increase in brightness claim is easy to verify:

  • Take a light meter measurement of the 2.35:1 image using an anamorphic lens, with the the projector at, say, 16 foot from the screen.
  • Now, move the lens out of the way, but instead of zooming the projector lens in to fill the 2.35:1 screen, physically move the projector back in the room until the letter-boxed portion of the image fills the same 2.35:1 area as it did with the a-lens (the projector may now be about 18 - 20 foot from the screen). Take another light meter measurement.

You should get around a 30% increase in brightness using the anamorphic lens. This is also more of an apples to apples comparison, since opening up the projector lens using the zoom method may increase the overall brightness of the image but at the same time decrease the contrast. In other words, using the zoom method from the same throw distance may come closer to achieving equivalent brightness as the lens method, but the overall contrast will be decreased. Even so, even with Andrew's testing, the brightness was still higher using the lens.

2. As many here have pointed out, some projectors have a variable f-stop throughout the zoom range, so opening up the lens for zooming also increases light output (at the expense of contrast, as outlined above). Other projectors have essentially a fixed f-stop so that there will be no real increase in brightness using the zoom method. In the case of these projectors, you will again get closer to the 30% increase in brightness we are discussing.

3. If you read through the various posts I have made - and those of others who are involved with the manufacture of anamorphic lenses - you will see that we usually claim about a 20% increase in brightness over zoom, because we take into account the variables listed above. In our testing here at Panamorph, we have seen drastic increases in brightness (the 30% figure mentioned above) as well as minimal increases in brightness (about 5 - 10%) depending on projector model, throw distance, throw ratio, etc. However, I still stand behind the 30% increase in brightness as a true and verifiable marketing claim since it can be achieved with almost any projector model using the method I outlined in point #1. Real world results will vary, as they will with any product, since every possible combination of projector, lens, screen, and room cannot possibly be taken into account.

4. It is often pointed out that the light spill resulting from the black bars being projected onto the wall can be compensated for by putting light absorbing material onto the wall above and below the screen. To me, this is a "remedy" that applies to maybe 3 - 5% of the people likely to install a 2.35:1 / CIH system in their home. I have been promoting and selling front projection systems to end users from about 2002 right up until the present, literally dealing with hundreds of customers in that time frame. The number of people who would have even considered putting black velvet (or the equivalent) onto their living room / family room wall is extremely small. Now I realize that the type of person who regularly posts on AVS Forum may very well be the type of person who would do this, the reality is the vast majority of people who just come here to read and learn would never even consider such a plan. Most "home theaters" are actually mixed use family / media rooms, not dedicated, blacked-out caves. On top of that, putting black velvet onto your screen wall top and bottom does nothing to help you when you go back to the disk menu and it is now projected onto black velvet and even harder to read.

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 #43 of 56 Old 04-16-2013, 11:57 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
^^ +1 - well put and spot on!

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

HogPilot is offline  
post #44 of 56 Old 04-16-2013, 03:23 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,964
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 92 Post(s)
Liked: 318
I'm one of those who has a screen surrounded in black velvet. But that was mostly because I prefer to see an image floating in black. I used the zoom method and a Panamorph lens.

Anyway...I've been somewhat puzzled by the occasional posts that posit that, using the zoom method, the "black bars" zoomed off the screen would be a distraction. I have a JVC projector and I can't imagine noticing the projected black bars on the screen wall beyond the image on anything but the lightest screen wall. (And even then...?) And if one's walls are that light to begin with, it doesn't seem like high performance is much of a priority to begin with.

Does anyone zooming really see the projected black bars outside of their screen?
R Harkness is offline  
post #45 of 56 Old 04-16-2013, 04:21 PM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,002
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

I'm one of those who has a screen surrounded in black velvet. But that was mostly because I prefer to see an image floating in black. I used the zoom method and a Panamorph lens.

Anyway...I've been somewhat puzzled by the occasional posts that posit that, using the zoom method, the "black bars" zoomed off the screen would be a distraction. I have a JVC projector and I can't imagine noticing the projected black bars on the screen wall beyond the image on anything but the lightest screen wall. (And even then...?) And if one's walls are that light to begin with, it doesn't seem like high performance is much of a priority to begin with.

Does anyone zooming really see the projected black bars outside of their screen?


I NEVER see them with my JVC projectors that I have used Rich, but I can see the bars when using my brighter/higher black level BenQ 7000 on my flat black painted screen wall. Some velvet would probably do the trick though just like I have used elsewhere.

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is offline  
post #46 of 56 Old 04-16-2013, 06:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

I'm one of those who has a screen surrounded in black velvet. But that was mostly because I prefer to see an image floating in black. I used the zoom method and a Panamorph lens.

Anyway...I've been somewhat puzzled by the occasional posts that posit that, using the zoom method, the "black bars" zoomed off the screen would be a distraction. I have a JVC projector and I can't imagine noticing the projected black bars on the screen wall beyond the image on anything but the lightest screen wall. (And even then...?) And if one's walls are that light to begin with, it doesn't seem like high performance is much of a priority to begin with.

Does anyone zooming really see the projected black bars outside of their screen?

I have black walls and ceiling too, since I want the very best contrast possible - and because I do like that "floating in black" effect as well. I've even covered my subs and main speakers in Velux to make them "disappear."

I hope I didn't come across as recommending against covering your reflective surfaces in black. In fact, I recommend it. I am just saying that the vast majority of people will never do such a thing. I have helped design literally hundreds of front projection theaters for people, over the phone, via e-mail, and in person. As you may have noticed even with my posts here on the Forum, I am always pointing out that "light control" does not simply mean being able to pull the drapes and turn off the lights, it means making sure your walls and ceiling are non-reflective as well. I always recommend painting these areas a very dark color at a minimum. Yet despite this constant recommendation, most people still leave their walls and ceiling a light color. Why? Because they are setting up their projectors and screens in their living or family rooms. Black walls and ceilings are not very popular in those locations smile.gif

For this reason, I end up recommending screens like the Firehawk and Black Diamond depending on how much of an issue light pollution is. While I own a Studiotek 130, I would not recommend that screen material to anyone with a white or light beige room.

It's just like how many people who claim to care about great sound quality, yet never spend a dime on acoustic treatments. It's not that they are "wrong," it's that they are happy with the experience they are currently getting even though it could be better.

I have seen several posts by people complaining about how the black bars are a distraction, but those people usually have light colored walls. My point is only that those who have blackout or near blackout home theaters are few and far between. We do get a distorted view here on the Forum, because those of us who do post are generally those who care enough to go through these extra steps to get the extra performance. But think about it. How many people do you know - friends, family, or acquaintances - who have acoustic treatments paired with their home theater systems? Include in that figure even those who consider a flat panel and a sound bar a home theater. When you think about that percentage, you will have an idea of what I have encountered over the last 11 years in helping people put in front projection systems.

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 #47 of 56 Old 04-16-2013, 07:44 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,964
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 92 Post(s)
Liked: 318
I didn't think you were recommending against blacking around the screen wall. I'm just generally perplexed that using the zoom method the black bars would be visible, let alone distracting, outside of the screen, with any half decent projector these days. I'm not stating it isn't the case...just that I haven't ever seen this issue myself.

And when we are talking about employing an anamorphic lens and CIH system, we are already talking about an extreme minority niche to say the least. That anyone would be so motivated as to get into CIH and do so in a very bright room (making projected black bars on walls an issue) would, it seems to me, be an even smaller minority.

But....Toe says he can see the projected black bars on his wall with his BenQ 7000, so that's interesting to me.
R Harkness is offline  
post #48 of 56 Old 04-17-2013, 08:59 AM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,002
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 419
I was actually pretty surprised myself when I noticed the bars with the BenQ since I literally cant see them at all with the JVCs I have used. I think this is a nice compliment to JVCs native contrast for one since the BenQ is clearly on a much lower level here. When you also throw in the fact that the BenQ is a considerably brighter projector, it only amplifies the lackluster black level and as a result I can see it on my wall as far as the bars go. They don't stand out all the time however as it takes a certain type of scene (dark) for them to stick out a bit, but still is unfortunate. It has not bothered me enough to try and solve it yet with putting up more velvet, especially since I mostly only use the 7000 for 3d, but at some point I might see if velvet will help which I think it will.

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is offline  
post #49 of 56 Old 04-18-2013, 03:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
blee0120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Merillville, IN 46410
Posts: 3,567
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 56
So, is it clear that A-lens don't give you any extra resolution? I seen how you get the full 1920x1080 instead of 1920x816 without one. When I read the review, I often wondered how do you stretch the image but increased resolution. Didn't make sense to me.

Also, I used a jvc projector with the zoom method, which I see some hate. I have an electric screen, so I have it low enough that when I raised it up, I didn't think it was too high. But it worked for both formats and I never seen any bars at all. With the e-shift, I also got more resolution. I like the zoom method
blee0120 is online now  
post #50 of 56 Old 04-18-2013, 03:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by blee0120 View Post

So, is it clear that A-lens don't give you any extra resolution? I seen how you get the full 1920x1080 instead of 1920x816 without one. When I read the review, I often wondered how do you stretch the image but increased resolution. Didn't make sense to me.

Also, I used a jvc projector with the zoom method, which I see some hate. I have an electric screen, so I have it low enough that when I raised it up, I didn't think it was too high. But it worked for both formats and I never seen any bars at all. With the e-shift, I also got more resolution. I like the zoom method

To be clear:

The lens itself does not create any extra resolution.

The process of going from 1920 x 810 to 1920 x 1080 does create extra resolution, but does not create any additional picture detail. The same is true of E-shift. It increases your virtual pixel count (resolution) but does not add any additional picture detail. Some of this is just semantics.

No hate on the zoom method, it's simply another way of accomplishing CIH home cinema that has its pluses and minuses.

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 #51 of 56 Old 04-19-2013, 04:38 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,357
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 85 Post(s)
Liked: 128
The one complication is, sometimes (depending on a number of factors like the quality of scaling, viewer, etc) increased resolution, can make detail that was there, but was hidden by noise, more or more easily visible. This is one reason why many like e-Shift on the JVC projectors. The increased resolution reduces the quantization noise (the "error"/artifacts casued by the pixels being hard/square), allowing fine high frequency detail to be "unburied" by the pixel grid noise.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
post #52 of 56 Old 04-30-2013, 07:59 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
AV Science Sales 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: A beautiful view of a lake
Posts: 7,468
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 239 Post(s)
Liked: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

The one complication is, sometimes (depending on a number of factors like the quality of scaling, viewer, etc) increased resolution, can make detail that was there, but was hidden by noise, more or more easily visible. This is one reason why many like e-Shift on the JVC projectors. The increased resolution reduces the quantization noise (the "error"/artifacts casued by the pixels being hard/square), allowing fine high frequency detail to be "unburied" by the pixel grid noise.

Scaling definitely makes a difference. I often times read a post where a guy tries out a lens and he says, it is not as sharp. If the guy is using a good lens, then the problem is the scaling. My Lumagen clearly does a better job of vertical stretch (scaling) than the projector.

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 #53 of 56 Old 04-30-2013, 09:05 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,357
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 85 Post(s)
Liked: 128
Yeah, everything looks more "solid" (best way I can describe it, which isn't a very good way) since I added my Radiance.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
post #54 of 56 Old 05-04-2013, 12:19 AM
Advanced Member
 
RLBURNSIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 753
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Liked: 129
Mike, I don't doubt the projector's built-in scaling is probably not the best in every case, but as far as upstream scaling, it can be done quite well by videocards, using any number of techniques that people who are familiar with Media Player Classic filters such as Bicubic. It's not a question of maintaining 1:1 which is silly when talking about projectors, it's more a question of getting the best upscaling filter you can get since it needs to be upscaled by 25% in one direction only. However, from my extensive experience with MPC, the scaling is quite good. I wouldn't necesserily vouch for how sharp a windows desktop would look upscaled by a projector, but I think my AMD videocard can even do resolution independent aspect ratio (i.e. non -square pixels). I've never tried it though.

I wonder if there is a way on a PS3 to play back Blurays in full frame mode? (i.e. vertical stretch). Now would be very cool, as my projector won't do the upstretching in 3D.

In my next big game I will try to push supporting custom aspect ratios that are also resolution independent (i.e. you could render 2.35 natively at 1080p and not do any stretching). I love widescreen gaming! I hope there's more of it in the future.
RLBURNSIDE is offline  
post #55 of 56 Old 05-07-2013, 01:51 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
AV Science Sales 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: A beautiful view of a lake
Posts: 7,468
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 239 Post(s)
Liked: 388
Projectors are a niche market. A-lens users are a smaller subset of that. A-lens users with HTPC's are a small subset of A-lens users. While what you say may be true, very few will be willing to go through the trouble of getting this working flawlessly using an HTPC. This is coming from an A-lens user with an HTPC. smile.gif My windows desktop looks good, using my Lumagen and A-lens on my 9' wide screen.

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 #56 of 56 Old 05-08-2013, 04:40 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,357
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 85 Post(s)
Liked: 128
Perhaps OT, but my biggest problem using an HTPC these days, at least for disc playback, is there's no good software for it. MPC-HC is fine, but it's not "home theater" software, the entire interface is setup to use on a PC with a keyboard and mouse. The last good "Home Theater" disc player for PC was Theatertek, it's really a shame Blu-ray licensing killed it.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 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