2:35 screen vs 16x9 - Page 13 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 1Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #361 of 420 Old 04-10-2014, 11:11 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,208
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 399 Post(s)
Liked: 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edgar_in_Indy View Post

In response to my previous post, I just went onto Amazon and found this under the specifications for the DVDO Edge processor:

Presets: 4:3 full frame, 4:3 letterbox, 16:9 full frame, Panorama (non linear stretch)

So it looks like it has a NLS "Panorama" preset to stretch 4:3 material to the edges of a 16:9 screen. Just thinking about it, it seems like for somebody using the zoom method for CIH, that the 4:3 stretch would also work? Or would it over due the stretch, so that you would lose the edges of the 16:9 image? If so, I think you can also manually adjust the stretch with +/- controls, so even if it was not perfect, perhaps it could be tweaked to work?

If you use the Zoom method for CIH and try to watch 16:9 content, picture at the top and bottom of the image will spill off the screen onto the wall. Applying a non-linear stretch at that point would not be enough in itself. You first need to scale the image down so that it's contained within the 2.35:1 portion of the frame, and then stretch. I don't believe that DVDO's controls are sophisticated enough to do that.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #362 of 420 Old 04-10-2014, 11:31 AM
Senior Member
 
Edgar_in_Indy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 263
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by drjay71 View Post

Thanks for posting this. I was also wondering the same as the DVDO is a less expensive option.

Hopefully somebody can answer the question definitively, but if not, then it may be worth your time to try it out. If the DVDO does not work out for your needs, you could always re-sell it and lose little or no money. But if it does work, it would be a big savings versus the Lumagen.

My home theater gallery Epson 5010 Projector, 133" Cinemascope Screen, Klipsch RF-7
Edgar_in_Indy is offline  
post #363 of 420 Old 04-10-2014, 11:33 AM
Senior Member
 
Edgar_in_Indy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 263
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

If you use the Zoom method for CIH and try to watch 16:9 content, picture at the top and bottom of the image will spill off the screen onto the wall. Applying a non-linear stretch at that point would not be enough in itself. You first need to scale the image down so that it's contained within the 2.35:1 portion of the frame, and then stretch. I don't believe that DVDO's controls are sophisticated enough to do that.

I see what you're saying.

My home theater gallery Epson 5010 Projector, 133" Cinemascope Screen, Klipsch RF-7
Edgar_in_Indy is offline  
post #364 of 420 Old 04-10-2014, 03:45 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,427
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 175 Post(s)
Liked: 431
All I can say is, I've been using my first time front projection set-up since last week having gone with a 2:35:1, 108" wide screen. I absolutely love it and I am so glad I went this route.

And my initial concerns beforehand about 1:85:1 movies not looking big enough was completely unfounded as they look plenty big projected at 99" diagonally as I am sitting about 9.5 to 10 feet back.

Having every movie at the same height just looks so aesthetically pleasing and see scope films is just mind blowing. biggrin.gif

Funny thing is, I don't even feel the need right now to make mattes for 1:85. The bars seems pretty dark (JVC RS4810 projector) and seeing them on the sides vertically is FAR less distracting as opposed to seeing them horizontally as was the case on my plasma with 2:35:1 content. I still might try it at some point, but not in a hurry.

On any rate, 2:35:1 is THE WAY to go for a film lover.
blastermaster likes this.

DavidHir is online now  
post #365 of 420 Old 04-10-2014, 05:03 PM
AVS Special Member
 
srauly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: W Simsbury, CT, USA
Posts: 1,531
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 13
You shouldn't need to buy a DVDO Edge to figure this out. Go to the company's website and email them with very specific, detailed questions and I'm sure they can tell you what it can/can't do in this regard.

Scott R
--------------
I'd much rather watch a great movie in B&W at 240 lines of resolution than a lousy movie in 1080p with lossless audio.
srauly is offline  
post #366 of 420 Old 04-10-2014, 05:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
srauly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: W Simsbury, CT, USA
Posts: 1,531
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 13
DavidHir, I agree. My living room is also my movie theater. I've got a pretty darn big 2.35:1 screen (I can never remember the size, but it's more than 120" diagonal) and the seating distance is pretty close, too, so 16:9 content looks plenty big. I also don't bother with masking, and the dark gray bars don't bother me enough to bother trying to come up with some solution for masking them.

Scott R
--------------
I'd much rather watch a great movie in B&W at 240 lines of resolution than a lousy movie in 1080p with lossless audio.
srauly is offline  
post #367 of 420 Old 04-13-2014, 12:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,487
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 44
I didn't bother masking my first 2.35 screen at first, because like you the side bars weren't that distracting. But later on, just for completion, I used a cheap corded curtain track with black velvet curtains. It does tidy things up, but for me it wasn't that urgent that I did it. It doesn't affect the image of course, but might have a perceived effect when viewing.

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  
post #368 of 420 Old 04-13-2014, 11:16 PM
Member
 
AidenL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ireland
Posts: 140
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schlarb View Post

The only way to obliterate the black bars is to use black velvet or something like it. They will be very faint with dark and non-reflective walls, but they'll bug you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post

Good comments, but just wanted to point out that opening the iris also causes a drop in contrast (as does zooming).

So, is the only answer to no black bars when using a scope screen, to use an Anamorphic lens?

I'm using a motorised tab tensioned screen, so can't mask.

Display : JVC X500 Projector | 130" ReAct 2.1 2.35:1 Screen | Panasonic 65VT30 |
Sources : Oppo 103 D Multizone | Apple TV3 | HTPC | Sky HD | Sonos Connect | Synology 24Tb |
Audio : Anthem MRX 510 | KEF R700 | KEF R600c | KEF E301 Sides & Rears | Paradigm Sub 1 |
Control : Harmony Ultimate |
AidenL is offline  
post #369 of 420 Old 04-14-2014, 05:34 AM
Senior Member
 
Edgar_in_Indy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 263
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by farsider3000 View Post

If I buy a projector with great black levels such as the new JVC X700, and use it in my light controlled theater room will I actually see the black bars above and below a 16x9 screen when playing a 2.4:1 widescreen blu-ray or will it just blend with the blackness of the wall behind the screen?

I have an Epson 5010, and my walls are dark brown, with velvet on the ceiling and to either side of the screen. I could usually see the black bars when my walls were white, but with the brown walls I rarely see the bars. It has to be a bright scene with the iris fully open, and even then you really have to look for them. So I would say YMMV on whether or not the zooming method will bother you in terms of black bars. But in my experience, it's not a problem with dark walls and a high-contrast projector.


My home theater gallery Epson 5010 Projector, 133" Cinemascope Screen, Klipsch RF-7
Edgar_in_Indy is offline  
post #370 of 420 Old 04-20-2014, 06:19 PM
Senior Member
 
drjay71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 206
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I definitely want to go 2.35:1 and NOT use a lens. I have used the zoom method before with my JVC HD950 projector and will do the same but looking for a new projector and have it down to the JVC X35 or the JVC X500R projectors. I know both are great and probably an upgrade from my old projector. My biggest dilemma (and I know this may sound blasphemous) is that I want to use a NLS to fill my screen when watching 16:9 screen. So far, the only way I have found to do this without a lens is a Lumagen Radiance processor. Is there ANY other, hopefully less expensive, way?

Thanks!
drjay71 is offline  
post #371 of 420 Old 04-28-2014, 05:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,331
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edgar_in_Indy View Post

I have an Epson 5010, and my walls are dark brown, with velvet on the ceiling and to either side of the screen. I could usually see the black bars when my walls were white, but with the brown walls I rarely see the bars. It has to be a bright scene with the iris fully open, and even then you really have to look for them. So I would say YMMV on whether or not the zooming method will bother you in terms of black bars. But in my experience, it's not a problem with dark walls and a high-contrast projector.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edgar_in_Indy View Post

I have an Epson 5010, and my walls are dark brown, with velvet on the ceiling and to either side of the screen. I could usually see the black bars when my walls were white, but with the brown walls I rarely see the bars. It has to be a bright scene with the iris fully open, and even then you really have to look for them. So I would say YMMV on whether or not the zooming method will bother you in terms of black bars. But in my experience, it's not a problem with dark walls and a high-contrast projector.


Nice looking room!

Any chance you can paint your ceiling too? If that is a white screen you will get a rather substantial increase in contrast. If you can see the ceiling when you are watching a movie, that means it is a light source.

Then again, as I look at the picture, it looks like you have some acoustic treatments on the ceiling right in front of the screen. Is that correct?

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 #372 of 420 Old 04-28-2014, 05:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,331
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by drjay71 View Post

I definitely want to go 2.35:1 and NOT use a lens. I have used the zoom method before with my JVC HD950 projector and will do the same but looking for a new projector and have it down to the JVC X35 or the JVC X500R projectors. I know both are great and probably an upgrade from my old projector. My biggest dilemma (and I know this may sound blasphemous) is that I want to use a NLS to fill my screen when watching 16:9 screen. So far, the only way I have found to do this without a lens is a Lumagen Radiance processor. Is there ANY other, hopefully less expensive, way?

Thanks!

The only way I know of to fill a 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 screen with a 16:9 image is either with a Lumagen processor or by getting an anamorphic lens.

The only ways of actually eliminating black bars (so that they don't get projected onto the walls) are by using an anamorphic lens or by purchasing one of the super high end projectors that internally mask (emulating how it is done in a Digital Cinema). AFAIK only uber-expensive projectors from Wolf and DPI do this (30K plus).

FYI the Lumagen Radiance gets you into the price range of an anamorphic lens. Is there a reason you are anti-lens other than cost?

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 #373 of 420 Old 04-28-2014, 05:34 PM
Senior Member
 
Edgar_in_Indy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 263
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post


Nice looking room!

Any chance you can paint your ceiling too? If that is a white screen you will get a rather substantial increase in contrast. If you can see the ceiling when you are watching a movie, that means it is a light source.

Then again, as I look at the picture, it looks like you have some acoustic treatments on the ceiling right in front of the screen. Is that correct?

Thanks!

Yeah, my screen is in an alcove that is four feet deep, so I have the first four feet of ceiling out from the screen covered in black velvet. So while there is some reflection from the rest of the ceiling, the worst of it has been eliminated.

After installing the velvet on the ceiling and the velvet curtains on either side of the screen, my contrast was greatly improved. I no longer get a washed out image when there is a scene with simultaneous dark and bright areas. I don't want to go too cave-like, since the home theater is located in one corner of a large multipurpose basement room, so I'm very happy with the light levels now when watching movies.

Here's a better picture showing how much of the ceiling has been treated:



And I have more before/after pics and more info on the ceiling installation here:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1528626/edgar-in-indys-home-theater-improvement-thread-before-and-after-pics

My home theater gallery Epson 5010 Projector, 133" Cinemascope Screen, Klipsch RF-7
Edgar_in_Indy is offline  
post #374 of 420 Old 04-28-2014, 05:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,331
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Cool! I totally get where you are coming from, and that was a great idea to extend the black velvet out on the ceiling.

The other thing you can do (if you get the upgrade bug, and we all do) is to get some acoustic treatments and cover them with the same black velvet.

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 #375 of 420 Old 04-28-2014, 09:36 PM
Senior Member
 
drjay71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 206
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post

The only way I know of to fill a 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 screen with a 16:9 image is either with a Lumagen processor or by getting an anamorphic lens.

The only ways of actually eliminating black bars (so that they don't get projected onto the walls) are by using an anamorphic lens or by purchasing one of the super high end projectors that internally mask (emulating how it is done in a Digital Cinema). AFAIK only uber-expensive projectors from Wolf and DPI do this (30K plus).

FYI the Lumagen Radiance gets you into the price range of an anamorphic lens. Is there a reason you are anti-lens other than cost?

Thanks for your reply. I am really not in favor of getting a lens mainly for cost. Also, since I would like to stretch 16:9 content to fill a 2.35:1 screen, I would like to do so using a non linear stretch.

I have a related quick question. I noticed the Sony VPL-HW55ES has a "Wide Zoom" function when cycling through the different options provided by the "Aspect" button on the remote. My understanding it is supposed to take 4:3 content and stretch it to fill a 16:9 screen. Does that also mean that it can take 16:9 content and stretch it to fill a 2.35:1 screen?

Thanks
drjay71 is offline  
post #376 of 420 Old 04-28-2014, 09:41 PM
Senior Member
 
drjay71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 206
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12


BTW, This is what I am referring to from the User Manual
drjay71 is offline  
post #377 of 420 Old 04-29-2014, 05:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Socio's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 2,267
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edgar_in_Indy View Post

I have an Epson 5010, and my walls are dark brown, with velvet on the ceiling and to either side of the screen. I could usually see the black bars when my walls were white, but with the brown walls I rarely see the bars. It has to be a bright scene with the iris fully open, and even then you really have to look for them. So I would say YMMV on whether or not the zooming method will bother you in terms of black bars. But in my experience, it's not a problem with dark walls and a high-contrast projector.

[

Hey that is a great idea, what did you use to cover in velvet and mount on the ceiling, my side walls and ceiling are white so I am thinking a 2-3ft wide top and side wall panels in black velvet, sort of create a black box around the screen?
Socio is offline  
post #378 of 420 Old 04-29-2014, 07:01 AM
Senior Member
 
Edgar_in_Indy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 263
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socio View Post

Hey that is a great idea, what did you use to cover in velvet and mount on the ceiling, my side walls and ceiling are white so I am thinking a 2-3ft wide top and side wall panels in black velvet, sort of create a black box around the screen?

I cut four equal-sized pieces of velvet, and I actually just attached the velvet directly to my ceiling using a staple gun. I then used fluted casing, painted glossy black, to trim around the edges of the velvet. You can get more detailed information and see pictures of the installation process at the following thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1528626/edgar-in-indys-home-theater-improvement-thread-before-and-after-pics

For my sides, I found velvet curtains to be the easiest solution, and they look really great. The curtains on either side also give me a great place to hide my speaker grills and my 16:9 masking panels when I'm not using them.

My home theater gallery Epson 5010 Projector, 133" Cinemascope Screen, Klipsch RF-7
Edgar_in_Indy is offline  
post #379 of 420 Old 04-29-2014, 08:22 AM
Senior Member
 
ajvandenb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 347
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by drjay71 View Post

I definitely want to go 2.35:1 and NOT use a lens. I have used the zoom method before with my JVC HD950 projector and will do the same but looking for a new projector and have it down to the JVC X35 or the JVC X500R projectors. I know both are great and probably an upgrade from my old projector. My biggest dilemma (and I know this may sound blasphemous) is that I want to use a NLS to fill my screen when watching 16:9 screen. So far, the only way I have found to do this without a lens is a Lumagen Radiance processor. Is there ANY other, hopefully less expensive, way?

Thanks!

Another cheaper option is to buy a 16:9 and use lens shift and zoom with a single velvet mask attached at the bottom of the screen for 2.35:1 . I presently do this with the X35 and I like it. But I understand that this will be blasphemous for others here. If you don't mind that your 16:9 image is bigger than 2.35:1 than you won't have to look at any stretched image at all. The only thing you would need to do is use the lens memory and apply and remove the mask depending on the content. Just a thought.

ajvandenb is offline  
post #380 of 420 Old 04-29-2014, 08:57 AM
Senior Member
 
ajvandenb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 347
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajvandenb View Post
 

Another cheaper option is to buy a 16:9 and use lens shift and zoom with a single velvet mask attached at the bottom of the screen for 2.35:1 . I presently do this with the X35 and I like it. But I understand that this will be blasphemous for others here. If you don't mind that your 16:9 image is bigger than 2.35:1 than you won't have to look at any stretched image at all. The only thing you would need to do is use the lens memory and apply and remove the mask depending on the content. Just a thought.

Or better still look at other masking screens such as the "Multi-Format Frame Projection Screen" from Monoprice.

ajvandenb is offline  
post #381 of 420 Old 04-29-2014, 09:08 AM
Senior Member
 
Edgar_in_Indy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 263
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajvandenb View Post

Or better still look at other masking screens such as the "Multi-Format Frame Projection Screen
" from Monoprice.

That screen is a great option, but for somebody interested in cinemascope, it really limits your scope screen size. I wish they would make something similar in 2.35 format, with side masking panels.

My home theater gallery Epson 5010 Projector, 133" Cinemascope Screen, Klipsch RF-7
Edgar_in_Indy is offline  
post #382 of 420 Old 04-29-2014, 09:15 AM
Senior Member
 
drjay71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 206
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edgar_in_Indy View Post

That screen is a great option, but for somebody interested in cinemascope, it really limits your scope screen size. I wish they would make something similar in 2.35 format, with side masking panels.

I agree. I guess I just don't like the idea of 2.35 content being smaller than 16:9 content. Kind of defeats the purpose in my mind.
drjay71 is offline  
post #383 of 420 Old 04-29-2014, 09:19 AM
Senior Member
 
Edgar_in_Indy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 263
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by drjay71 View Post

I agree. I guess I just don't like the idea of 2.35 content being smaller than 16:9 content. Kind of defeats the purpose in my mind.

I feel the same way. There really is no perfect solution.

As a compromise, I've considered going with a screen somewhere between 2.35:1 and 16:9...something like 2:1. (I'm sure there's a ratio where 2.35:1 and 16:9 content ends up with equal screen area, but I don't know what it is off the top of my head). You would need to have both vertical and horizontal masking bars on hand depending on whether you are watching 16:9 or 2:35:1, but at least you would end up with a screen where everything is roughly the same overall size, regardless of the format.

In my case, I don't want to go with a scope screen that is less than my current 122" wide (133" diagonal) image. I actually wouldn't mind a few more inches in scope format. But a 16:9 image that is 122" wide would end up being 140" diagonal, and that is uncomfortably large for my seating distance. So it seems like a split-the-difference 2:1 screen would be the only way to get my ideal sizes for both 2.35 and 16:9.

My home theater gallery Epson 5010 Projector, 133" Cinemascope Screen, Klipsch RF-7
Edgar_in_Indy is offline  
post #384 of 420 Old 04-29-2014, 10:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,331
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by drjay71 View Post

Thanks for your reply. I am really not in favor of getting a lens mainly for cost. Also, since I would like to stretch 16:9 content to fill a 2.35:1 screen, I would like to do so using a non linear stretch.

I have a related quick question. I noticed the Sony VPL-HW55ES has a "Wide Zoom" function when cycling through the different options provided by the "Aspect" button on the remote. My understanding it is supposed to take 4:3 content and stretch it to fill a 16:9 screen. Does that also mean that it can take 16:9 content and stretch it to fill a 2.35:1 screen?

Thanks

Unfortunately no, because the SXRD chip on the Sony projector is still 16:9 native in shape. If you did this while zoomed, you would still overshoot the top and bottom of the screen, plus if it did work, it would just end up cropping off the left and right portions of the image, since the Sony has no way of knowing you have a 2.35:1 screen. The only way to "change the shape" of the light coming out of the Sony is with an anamorphic lens, or by using the Lumagen to scale everything down to 2.35:1 height (810 vertical pixels) and using the zoom.

Here is what happens when you use the Lumagen method combined with "stationary" zoom (by stationary, I mean you just leave the projector zoomed in to fill the width of the 2.35:1 screen at all times):

  • UltraWide 2.35:1 films are presented at 1920 x 810, just zoomed in so that the extra 270 rows of pixels that represent the black bars fall onto the wall above and below the screen.
  • Standard 16:9 material is displayed at 1440 x 810 if you want it pillarboxed (black bars on the sides), or at 1920 x 810 if you want it to fill the whole screen (using Non Linear Stretch, or Linear Stretch). The same unused 270 rows of pixels fall onto the wall above and below the screen.

If you go the fixed anamorphic lens method (which you can do for under $2K, and does not require a separate scaler with most projectors unless you really want the Non Linear Stretch), here is what you end up with:

  • UltraWide 2.35:1 films are presented at 1920 x 1080 and black bars are eliminated (in other words, they are not projected onto the wall). The projector stretches the image from 810P to 1080P so that the whole imaging chip is used - 1920 x 1080. While it is true that this process does not add any real additional picture detail (the movie is hard encoded onto the disc at 1920 x 810, or thereabouts), it does use 33% more pixels to "draw" the image. It also usually results in about a 20% brightness gain over zoom (depending on a number of factors).
  • Standard 16:9 material is displayed at 1440 x 1080 if you want it pillarboxed (black bars on the sides), or at 1920 x 1080 if you want it to fill the whole screen. In the latter method, no resolution or brightness are lost, as the anamorphic lens is what is stretching the image, not a scaler. You also have the ability to watch 16:9 "cropped" when using the lens method. To do this, you just engage the same vertical stretch on the projector as you would for 2.35:1 material. The result is a 16:9 image that fills the whole 2.35:1 screen but without geometric distortion. The downside is that the very top and bottom of the image are missing (you lose things like the tickers at the top and bottom of the screen, and sometimes people can get scalped).

The long and short of it is that going with a "fixed zoom" method limits you to 810P resolution, while using a lens can get you 1080P resolution (with the caveats listed above).


Hope this helps clarify things.

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 #385 of 420 Old 04-29-2014, 10:33 AM
Senior Member
 
drjay71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 206
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post

Unfortunately no, because the SXRD chip on the Sony projector is still 16:9 native in shape. If you did this while zoomed, you would still overshoot the top and bottom of the screen, plus if it did work, it would just end up cropping off the left and right portions of the image, since the Sony has no way of knowing you have a 2.35:1 screen. The only way to "change the shape" of the light coming out of the Sony is with an anamorphic lens, or by using the Lumagen to scale everything down to 2.35:1 height (810 vertical pixels) and using the zoom.

Here is what happens when you use the Lumagen method combined with "stationary" zoom (by stationary, I mean you just leave the projector zoomed in to fill the width of the 2.35:1 screen at all times):

  • UltraWide 2.35:1 films are presented at 1920 x 810, just zoomed in so that the extra 270 rows of pixels that represent the black bars fall onto the wall above and below the screen.
  • Standard 16:9 material is displayed at 1440 x 810 if you want it pillarboxed (black bars on the sides), or at 1920 x 810 if you want it to fill the whole screen (using Non Linear Stretch, or Linear Stretch).

If you go the fixed anamorphic lens method (which you can do for under $2K, and does not require a separate scaler with most projectors unless you really want the Non Linear Stretch), here is what you end up with:

  • UltraWide 2.35:1 films are presented at 1920 x 1080 and black bars are eliminated (in other words, they are not projected onto the wall). The projector stretches the image from 810P to 1080P so that the whole imaging chip is used - 1920 x 1080. While it is true that this process does not add any real additional picture detail (the movie is hard encoded onto the disc at 1920 x 810, or thereabouts), it does use 33% more pixels to "draw" the image. It also usually results in about a 20% brightness gain over zoom (depending on a number of factors).
  • Standard 16:9 material is displayed at 1440 x 1080 if you want it pillarboxed (black bars on the sides), or at 1920 x 1080 if you want it to fill the whole screen. No resolution or brightness are lost, as the anamorphic lens is what is stretching the image, not a scaler. You also have the ability to watch 16:9 "cropped" when using the lens method. To do this, you just engage the same vertical stretch on the projector as you would for 2.35:1 material. The result is a 16:9 image that fills the whole 2.35:1 screen but without geometric distortion. The downside is that the very top and bottom of the image are missing (you lose things like the tickers at the top and bottom of the screen, and sometimes people can get scalped).

The long and short of it is that going with a "fixed zoom" method limits you to 810P resolution, while using a lens can get you 1080P resolution (with the caveats listed above).


Hope this helps clarify things.

Yes it does. Thanks so much for such a detailed and informative response.
drjay71 is offline  
post #386 of 420 Old 04-29-2014, 11:18 AM
Advanced Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 952
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edgar_in_Indy View Post

I feel the same way. There really is no perfect solution.

As a compromise, I've considered going with a screen somewhere between 2.35:1 and 16:9...something like 2:1. (I'm sure there's a ratio where 2.35:1 and 16:9 content ends up with equal screen area, but I don't know what it is off the top of my head). You would need to have both vertical and horizontal masking bars on hand depending on whether you are watching 16:9 or 2:35:1, but at least you would end up with a screen where everything is roughly the same overall size, regardless of the format.

In my case, I don't want to go with a scope screen that is less than my current 122" wide (133" diagonal) image. I actually wouldn't mind a few more inches in scope format. But a 16:9 image that is 122" wide would end up being 140" diagonal, and that is uncomfortably large for my seating distance. So it seems like a split-the-difference 2:1 screen would be the only way to get my ideal sizes for both 2.35 and 16:9.

Why would you not just go with a 2.35:1 that maintains the same height? 16:9 would be the same size as it is now. 2.35:1 would be the largest format as it is intended. To me it's "perfect". Material is presented the same way it is in the majority of cinemas.

jeahrens is offline  
post #387 of 420 Old 04-29-2014, 11:49 AM
Senior Member
 
Edgar_in_Indy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 263
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post

Why would you not just go with a 2.35:1 that maintains the same height? 16:9 would be the same size as it is now. 2.35:1 would be the largest format as it is intended. To me it's "perfect". Material is presented the same way it is in the majority of cinemas.

Because I don't want my 16:9 image to be that much smaller than my 2.35:1 image. The 16:9 image isn't just for TV and sports. In fact, I hardly ever use my projector for anything other than Blu-ray movies. I would prefer if all movies were scope, but there are a lot of epic movies that are 16:9 (or 1.85:1) and cry out for a large screen.

When I'm watching a movie like 'Pacific Rim', which is 16:9, I want the same super-sized, impactful image I get right now from my 133" scope screen. But when I display a 16:9 image on my current screen, it is only about 108", which I feel is a little small. Ideally, I would like to have a 16:9 image in the 120"-125" range. I've played with my lens zoom, and I've discovered that I would enjoy a slightly larger 16:9 image. I just don't want to go all the way up to 140", which is what would be required to maintain my 2.35 size.

My home theater gallery Epson 5010 Projector, 133" Cinemascope Screen, Klipsch RF-7
Edgar_in_Indy is offline  
post #388 of 420 Old 04-29-2014, 11:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,331
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edgar_in_Indy View Post

Because I don't want my 16:9 image to be that much smaller than my 2.35:1 image. The 16:9 image isn't just for TV and sports. In fact, I hardly ever use my projector for anything other than Blu-ray movies. I would prefer if all movies were scope, but there are a lot of epic movies that are 16:9 (or 1.85:1) and cry out for a large screen.

When I'm watching a movie like 'Pacific Rim', which is 16:9, I want the same super-sized, impactful image I get right now from my 133" scope screen. But when I display a 16:9 image on my current screen, it is only about 108", which I feel is a little small. Ideally, I would like to have a 16:9 image in the 120"-125" range. I've played with my lens zoom, and I've discovered that I would enjoy a slightly larger 16:9 image. I just don't want to go all the way up to 140", which is what would be required to maintain my 2.35 size.

You are referring to "Constant Area" projection. Anthony Grimani of PMI was an advocate of it a few years back, as an alternative to Constant Height. He prefers Constant Height overall but proposed this Constant Area as a solution for people just exactly like yourself. Here is a link to his press release about it (with the proper aspect ratio listed):

http://www.pmiltd.com/downloads/PMI.2.0%20Solution.PR.FNLdoc.pdf

He and I discussed it at a shared training event at Stewart Filmscreen.

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 #389 of 420 Old 04-29-2014, 12:07 PM
Senior Member
 
Edgar_in_Indy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 263
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post

You are referring to "Constant Area" projection. Anthony Grimani of PMI was an advocate of it a few years back, as an alternative to Constant Height. He prefers Constant Height overall but proposed this Constant Area as a solution for people just exactly like yourself. Here is a link to his press release about it (with the proper aspect ratio listed):

http://www.pmiltd.com/downloads/PMI.2.0%20Solution.PR.FNLdoc.pdf

He and I discussed it at a shared training event at Stewart Filmscreen.

Thanks for the link. From what I can tell, he proposes the 2:1 ratio. Such a screen, given my target width of 122" for scope content, would give me a height of 61". That would result in a 16:9 image that is 125" diagonal, which would be just about perfect for my needs.

I just built my scope screen a couple months ago, and I made the 16:9 masking panels only a week ago, so my wife will think I'm crazy(ier) if I tell her I already want a new screen. But it's definitely something I'll be thinking about in the upcoming months, after I get a few other projects out of the way.

My home theater gallery Epson 5010 Projector, 133" Cinemascope Screen, Klipsch RF-7
Edgar_in_Indy is offline  
post #390 of 420 Old 04-29-2014, 12:51 PM
Senior Member
 
drjay71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 206
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edgar_in_Indy View Post

Because I don't want my 16:9 image to be that much smaller than my 2.35:1 image. The 16:9 image isn't just for TV and sports. In fact, I hardly ever use my projector for anything other than Blu-ray movies. I would prefer if all movies were scope, but there are a lot of epic movies that are 16:9 (or 1.85:1) and cry out for a large screen.

When I'm watching a movie like 'Pacific Rim', which is 16:9, I want the same super-sized, impactful image I get right now from my 133" scope screen. But when I display a 16:9 image on my current screen, it is only about 108", which I feel is a little small. Ideally, I would like to have a 16:9 image in the 120"-125" range. I've played with my lens zoom, and I've discovered that I would enjoy a slightly larger 16:9 image. I just don't want to go all the way up to 140", which is what would be required to maintain my 2.35 size.

That's exactly how I feel. I used to have a 2.35:1 screen and used the zoom method with my JVC projector. It was great for scope movies however for movies in a 16:9 ratio and more importantly sports and other HDTV the image was just too small and I really didn't like having the black bars on the side. I really couldn't go any bigger with the 2.35:1 ratio screen and so I was stuck with a smaller 16:9 screen when viewing that content.

After going 2.35 I don't see myself going back and I feel like that's the best single aspect ratio. For that reason, I don't mind stretching 16:9 ratio content in order to make it feel more immersive even though that will introduce some distortion but from what I can tell using the nonlinear stretch, the distortion isn't terrible.

I suppose constant image area would be another way to go but I would have to have four-way masking and it seems like more of a compromise.
drjay71 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