Anamorphic Lens Vs. Zoom, Best Review yet!! - Page 2 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-27-2013, 02:22 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
AV Science Sales 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: A beautiful view of a lake
Posts: 8,256
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 604 Post(s)
Liked: 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrda View Post

I agree. I'm a proponent of long throws as well for that very reason. But with a curved screen, a short throw and large screen works good. It allows one to do something that's impossible with zooming.

Yes it does. Allows me to have a 9' wide screen in my depth challenged room, but it definitely requires a curved screen. smile.gif

Mike Garrett, AV Science Sales Call Me: 585-671-2968
Email Me: Mike@AVScience.com
Brands we sell: http://avscience.com/brands/ 
Call for B-stock projectors
Stewart, Seymour, SE, SI, Falcon, DNP & more.
RBH, Martin Logan, Triad, Atlantic Tech., MK Sound, BG Radia, SVS & Def Tech, Denon, Marantz & Yamaha .
AV Science Sales 5 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 06-27-2013, 02:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kelvin1965S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 3,255
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Just to comment that you don't have to use a sled to be able to use all the pixels for 16:9 and 2.35:1. My Isco II has a very strong stand that I can physically put away when not using my projector. It doesn't seem to 'slip' it's adjustment so I don't have to fine tune everytime I use it. It literally takes me 10 seconds to line it up left/right if I'm about to watch a 2.35:1 film as I have my projector on a deep shelf with plenty of room in front for the Isco.

I also went to the trouble to set up two user memories in my JVC X35 with different aperture settings so I get exactly the same fL on the screen for both 16:9 and 2.35:1 set ups. As my Isco II slightly magnifies the image height as well, I actually use the lens memory feature to align the image with and without the lens. I also use a different CMS memory in my Lumagen for lens and non lens use (and there are some differences in the values, so there may be some truth in the lens slightly changing the colour temperature).

So in some ways I'm combining zooming with lens use to get an optimum image for 16:9 and 2.35:1. While I would love an Isco III on a sled I actually like that I get such a great image in both ARs and that the ugly (IMHO) lens isn't on show when I'm not using my projector (as it's also my living room).




Zooming: Been there, done that, bought the lens...
Kelvin1965S is offline  
Old 06-27-2013, 06:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Brian B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,344
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bardia View Post

Biggest projector lift I have found is from Chief and can accomodate a 22.8" deep projector.

The 4810 is 18.5"
FVX200 is 4"
I need about 2 inches for the HDMI cable even with a 90' degree adapter

That's about 24"

Here: http://www.auton.com/products/ceiling-lifts/projector-lifts/

There are a few that are bigger. I use one with a JVC myself.

B.
Brian B is online now  
Old 06-27-2013, 09:15 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Bardia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian B View Post

Here: http://www.auton.com/products/ceiling-lifts/projector-lifts/

There are a few that are bigger. I use one with a JVC myself.

B.

Thank you. I think I had seen this one. I will have to experience zoom vs A lens and then I can decide. It's hard to find a place that has the set up
Bardia is offline  
Old 06-29-2013, 12:40 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 12,047
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked: 371
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrda View Post

Now, on to the the Key Advantages of owning an A lens and there are four. 1. Brightness gain(typically 20%)

That depends on the projector/lens set up. There's been a lot of back and forth on this over the years here, with the occasional measurements, and it seems the light difference between zooming and an A-lens can be negligible. (At least one anamorphic lens producer, I forge which one, said as much here as well). I think the ever popular JVC projectors are one such case
as they increase brightness when zooming out. The Cine4home guys measured a %15 light increase with an A-lens on a Panasonic projector.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrda View Post

2. Pixel density gain(33%).

Except many people here now own JVC projectors with E-shift, which negate that advantage for an A-lens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrda View Post

3. Larger screen sizes per TR. 4.

Again, depends on the projector. I think that is a negligible benefit with something like a JVC projector. (With the exception of using an A-lens to help with a shorter throw situation, where you
want more image width).

Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrda View Post

Instantaneous Scaling.

Well, yeah, but depending on how you do it, you may be sacrificing available resolution for your 16:9 image size. Or you move your lens out of the way. If a manual system, that's not exactly instantaneous. Even with an automated sled, it's not instantaneous when switching between ARs.

I use the JVC RS55 mostly in zooming mode, but also paired with a Panamorph UH480 lens and automated sled. I love the A-lens, especially because it allows me an even larger image in my room than I'd get without it. But in terms of the image quality and ergonomics vs zooming, I don't find it a big difference. (The macros on my remote have re-zooming down pretty fast). YMMV of course.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrda View Post

I checked my brightness by measuring ftls at the screen using the 100% APL of the digital video essentials bluray and my AEMC CA813 light meter. With the A lens I measured 13.78 ftls, without the A lens and zoomed I measured 11.13 ftls. or a 24% increase in brightness.

I've forgotten: which projector do you use again?
R Harkness is offline  
Old 06-29-2013, 10:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coolrda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 1,047
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 14
JVC RS40. I know we've gone over this dozens and dozens of times over the last decade. That's the reason for not going into much detail. Ill clarify a few statements. With 5 different projectors and two lenses tested, the light difference has always been around the 20 percent mark. That has stayed pretty constant with different brands. Minimum throws/max zoom are where the lenses can give you a larger picture, as you stated. Pixel density always improves with an A lens even with a true 4k projector. However, when I sitting at 2xPH before and needing every pixel(zoom was unacceptable), now at 3.25xPH zooming is fine. But TR has become an issue for me. Before I was at 2.1. Now I'm at 1.8TR and want to move to larger screen. I maxed out my zoom to fill the screen to take the light numbers. So if I want a larger screen I have to use an A lens. I could make an argument for not needing the 20 percent light increase. I've lived with 8ftls just fine before. Even had a complaint from a friend that my projector was too bright. Go figure. Even with blanking, lens memory and matching the light output by closing the iris, I still prefer the lens. Even the one negative of pincushion is an asset to those that insist on curved screens.
coolrda is online now  
Old 06-30-2013, 06:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,342
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 65
I try to stay out of these threads, since as a consultant for Panamorph I can understandably be accused of bias. That said:

Claim that resolution is negatively affected by the vertical stretch scaling process. Part of this depends on how you define resolution. The resolution actually goes UP (from 1920 x 810 to 1920 x 1080), however, there is no increase in real picture detail. Some have pointed out here that, even though there is no real additional picture detail added by the V-stretch scaling process, you do have a greater number of pixels with which to draw the image. This can result in smoother edge boundaries and an overall "more solid" looking image. That is why many here prefer the lens image vs. zoom, mostly attributable to greater pixel density.

But the real heart of the claim here is that the V-stretch process itself actually destroys real picture resolution. Rather than just dismissing this claim (as some have), I would like to address it. There is *some* validity to this assertion. A poor scaling engine doing V-stretch can result in visible degradation of the upscaled image when looking at a test pattern. If you think about it, this makes sense. You are trying to make 13.3 vertical pixels out of 10 (since you are increasing the vertical resolution by 33%). If you have a test pattern with an extremely tightly spaced grid - one that tests the limits of 1080P resolution, say within single pixel limits - you will see most cheap scalers make hash out of the pattern in the vertical direction once the V-stretch is engaged. This was true years ago in the world of cheap scalers and processors. I think the poster of the original article linked to in this thread goes WAY out on a limb to claim that only a "$75,000 Runco system" is able to overcome this limitation. Lumagen, for example, makes an excellent scaler for a tiny fraction of that price. It is also true that the scaling engines in most projectors currently on the market are capable of good quality vertical stretch scaling.

As to visible picture detail in actual picture content, that is a different story altogether. This was the challenge I put to a very prominent challenger of the anamorphic method at CES a few years back. I suggested a doing a blind shootout between the two methods to determine whether or not anyone could actually *see* the supposed degradation even with a cheap scaling engine using 1080P video content (NOT a test pattern). I was not taken up on the challenge.

One thing I can dismiss as ridiculous is the assertion in the original article that we end up with only slightly better than DVD resolution when going with the anamorphic method. I suggest anyone compare a DVD and Blu-ray of the same movie, throw the worst scaler at it you can get your hands on, and then see if there really is hardly any noticeable difference in picture detail between the DVD and Blu-ray.

Another issue I have is with the assertion that the resolution difference is more noticeable than the brightness difference. Not so, as many studies regarding picture quality have concluded. In fact, in SMPTE's test (and others), resolution has always come in dead last as a determiner of overall PQ in relation to brightness, color, and contrast. People see differences in brightness and contrast much more readily than they do differences in resolution. This was brought home to me many years ago when I did a blind shootout between a 480P DLP projector against a 720P LCD. The DLP won unanimously in a room with over 60 people. Most of this had to do with the far superior image contrast of the DLP.

Which brings me to the other major point made in the original article:

There is very little difference in brightness when comparing zoom vs. lens.
As others - including myself - have pointed out here, that depends greatly on the projector brand and model. It is true that zooming on the current JVC models also increases picture brightness, making the zoom vs. lens methods essentially equivalent in terms of overall brightness of the resulting image. However, zooming increases brightness at the expense of picture contrast. Sure, it is true that there is a slight loss of contrast by passing the image through another piece of glass, the loss is not nearly as great as you get by zooming in the image in many cases.

Our tests have shown over the years that the brightness increase using a lens typically hovers somewhere around 20%, sometimes higher, sometimes lower. A 20% increase in brightness is perceivable by almost anyone.

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  
Old 07-01-2013, 12:10 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
biliam1982's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Daytona Beach, FL
Posts: 865
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post

It is true that zooming on the current JVC models also increases picture brightness, making the zoom vs. lens methods essentially equivalent in terms of overall brightness of the resulting image. However, zooming increases brightness at the expense of picture contrast. Sure, it is true that there is a slight loss of contrast by passing the image through another piece of glass, the loss is not nearly as great as you get by zooming in the image in many cases.

Our tests have shown over the years that the brightness increase using a lens typically hovers somewhere around 20%, sometimes higher, sometimes lower. A 20% increase in brightness is perceivable by almost anyone.

How do the JVC's increase brightness by zooming?
biliam1982 is offline  
Old 07-01-2013, 12:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,508
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Liked: 45
Many projectors brightness increases with the use of zoom. It's how the lens elements change during the process as does the F stop of the lens. Some Sony's measured a 25% difference in lumen output when going from least zoom (smallest image through the pj lens, highest contrast, least lumens), and full zoom (largest image through the pj lens, highest lumens, least contrast) - all on the same size screen (you will move the pj back or forward to fill the screen before taking a measurement). What you usually find, is that with the lens zoomed smallest, the contrast goes up, and the lumens go down. When zoomed largest, contrast goes down, and lumens go up.

Gary

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
Old 07-01-2013, 08:02 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kelvin1965S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 3,255
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 48
I also think that it isn't a linear change. If you are at the zoom extremes like I am (minimum zoom for lens use) then I think there is a bigger change in brightness as you 'come off the stops' so to speak. Certainly in my set up my old HD350 and current X35 are only a tiny fraction brighter (0.2fL or so with a target of 15fL) when using my lens compared to zooming.

I still prefer to use the lens for other reasons, but brightness is not the driver in my case.

Zooming: Been there, done that, bought the lens...
Kelvin1965S is offline  
Old 07-03-2013, 10:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coolrda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 1,047
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelvin1965S View Post

I also think that it isn't a linear change. If you are at the zoom extremes like I am (minimum zoom for lens use) then I think there is a bigger change in brightness as you 'come off the stops' so to speak. Certainly in my set up my old HD350 and current X35 are only a tiny fraction brighter (0.2fL or so with a target of 15fL) when using my lens compared to zooming.

I still prefer to use the lens for other reasons, but brightness is not the driver in my case.

Huh. I've tried min and max zoom of 5 different projectors and never got more than a few percentage points on either side of 20 percent. As there have been many that have came up with the same numbers you did, I'd be interested to know how you tested.
coolrda is online now  
Old 07-03-2013, 11:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coolrda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 1,047
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post

Many projectors brightness increases with the use of zoom. It's how the lens elements change during the process as does the F stop of the lens. Some Sony's measured a 25% difference in lumen output when going from least zoom (smallest image through the pj lens, highest contrast, least lumens), and full zoom (largest image through the pj lens, highest lumens, least contrast) - all on the same size screen (you will move the pj back or forward to fill the screen before taking a measurement). What you usually find, is that with the lens zoomed smallest, the contrast goes up, and the lumens go down. When zoomed largest, contrast goes down, and lumens go up.

Gary

Yes. And that's the correct way to check it by moving the projector forward as you zoom. To be absolutely dead on with the readings the projector should also be dead center of screen throughout the test.
coolrda is online now  
Old 07-03-2013, 11:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coolrda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 1,047
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 14
It dawned on me why people have been saying there's not light gain or loss from zooming when compared to using an A lens. There's two different tests used wrt to testing light properties of using an A lens. The first tests how much light is lost through an A lens. Without the lens you measure foot lamberts or candelas at the screen and calc with the screen area to get a lumen figure. Then you move lens in and take a reading and calc with the new screen area. This calculation will give you the light lost by the glass. The better the lens the less loss. Mine measures virtually the same. This is a good thing as is proves how good an A lens is at letting light pass unaffected. This does use a calculation. I believe this is where some of these online websites are going awry. It's just not an important test nowadays. Most lenses or 97percent or better. Do not use this test to calc how bright your picture is between the two options, lens or zoom. The correct is so simple. Let your projector warm for an hour to stabilize the bulb. Take a reading with the lens in using a 100 percent APL test pattern. Remove the lens and zoom to fill screen then take the reading. Use a quality light-meter like the CA813 and not a colorimeter. The meter should been against the screen pointing back at projector. You will have two different readings. No calc is needed. This is the correct to compare light readings between the two. I will take a reading next time and see how far you can close the iris down with the use of an A lens to give you a rough idea about the light difference were talking here.
coolrda is online now  
Old 07-04-2013, 08:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kelvin1965S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 3,255
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrda View Post

Huh. I've tried min and max zoom of 5 different projectors and never got more than a few percentage points on either side of 20 percent. As there have been many that have came up with the same numbers you did, I'd be interested to know how you tested.

I mean that the change in brightness say from minimum zoom (1.0 in the case of my X35) to say 1.33 might be less than the change from 1.33 to 1.66. I don't know if this is the case, only that when I go from 1.0 with lens to 1.33 zoomed there is very little difference in the measured lux at the screen (with the 2.35:1 screen filled in both cases). Bottom line (and my signature of course wink.gif ) is that I prefer the lens, but it has nothing to do with brightness which seems to be a preoccupation for many people: I just made sure my screen size and gain are compatable with my projector's light output to allow for dimming of the lamp too.

Zooming: Been there, done that, bought the lens...
Kelvin1965S is offline  
Old 10-27-2013, 06:53 AM
Senior Member
 
odedia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 252
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trepidati0n View Post


But i'll leave it at this. Everything I have read say that CineVista lens provides a superior experience compared to zoom for 2:35+:1 material w/ a decent projector (e.g. in the $2.5k-$4k class). The question is...is $1200 worth it. That price is low enough where I might bite.

Where did you see the Cinevista available for 1200$? I'll snatch one up in a heart beat. I guess the price increased since this post was made?
odedia is offline  
 
Thread Tools


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