2:35 screen vs 16x9 - Page 7 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 1Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 420 Old 02-16-2014, 12:47 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,397
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 159 Post(s)
Liked: 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post

When I first went CIH I didn't bother with side masking for a while, but later used some normal curtain track that was corded and allowed a simple pull of the cord to open or close the curtains. Quick and simple.

Gary

I think I would probably just make my own mattes if I go the 2:35 route (which I am starting to lean on).

A 2:35 screen would also allow me to wall mount my speakers (from under the screen) a bit higher which will help with audio placement.

I did some experimenting last night and 16:9 content was still rather large in CIH. While not as immersive, kind of more pleasant in one sense - which is probably how comedy and drama is supposed to be viewed. These are movies generally not meant to be experienced in "IMAX". smile.gif

So, yes, I am leaning 2:35 CIH.

DavidHir is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 420 Old 02-16-2014, 12:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,471
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 41
My next room won't have the width for curtains, so some form of removable masking will be needed instead. I've not decided what method to use yet, but I'll be looking for ideas when the time comes. smile.gif

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 online now  
post #183 of 420 Old 02-16-2014, 01:02 PM
 
Cyrano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Northwest Boonies
Posts: 5,738
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 90
I am jumping into this thread to say I wish I could do 2.35. I own an HD131XE 3D projector. I am 12' away from a 100" 16x9 screen. My projector is 9 feet high in a cabinet (above the rear wall) that emulates a rear wall in the room so the projector fires through a framed hole and cannot be seen or heard, or easily touched.
I really can't afford a anamorphic lens although I am reading about combining inexpensive prisms to make a lens.
I would like to get a larger 2.35 screen. CIH is clearly the way to view but from what I read it is either rezooming each time (not really doable for me) or investing in an anamorphic lens ($1500 or so - not going to happen).

I think those are the only two options I have.
Cyrano is offline  
post #184 of 420 Old 02-16-2014, 02:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Tim Glover's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: West Monroe, LA
Posts: 1,428
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post

There will always be some pincushion with an anamorphic lens; the shorter the throw the more pincushion there will be. Panamorph recommends a throw ratio of at least 3X the screen height for a horizontal expansion lens (one that makes the image 33% wider). So, with a 44" tall screen your minimum throw distance should be 11 ft. You are at a slightly greater throw distance than the minimum, which means you will have some pincushion but under the amount most people would call objectionable.

You are also at the focus limits of most anamorphic lenses as well. Just using Panamorph as an example, the higher end UH480 and DC1 lens systems have their absolute sweet spot at 14 to 18 feet, with good performance from 12 - 20 feet. I believe the CineVista's sweet spot is down to 12 foot.

Thanks for your comments, and good luck!

Hey John,

In my setup what would I benefit from having a CIH setup? That's not a flame question smile.gif I'm trying to read all I can LOL to avoid asking silly questions. smile.gif Totally zoomed out on the Sony 50es at 44 feet wide, would I obtain a larger scope image using an anamorphic lens?

I guess a benefit by using one is achieving the full 1080 resolution. With a slight pincushion I could go with a curved screen? IDK what to do...
Tim Glover is offline  
post #185 of 420 Old 02-16-2014, 03:14 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,397
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 159 Post(s)
Liked: 424
So, for those of you who are using CIH without an anamorphic lens, how are you dealing with letter box bars for 2:35? They just spill onto the wall? How does that look? The room I am currently using projecting against the wall is not dark enough for me to tell, but once it's completely, it will be completely black (Rosco paint and carpet).

DavidHir is online now  
post #186 of 420 Old 02-16-2014, 03:43 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,397
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 159 Post(s)
Liked: 424
My JVC RS-4810 does have some masking controls, but not enough range to completely eliminate 2:35 bars (or 16:9 bars at CIH) as far as I can tell.

DavidHir is online now  
post #187 of 420 Old 02-17-2014, 04:41 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,409
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 120 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Glover View Post

Hey John,

In my setup what would I benefit from having a CIH setup?

The benefit is proper relative presentation of scope (~2.35:1) and flat (~1.78:1) material. Maintaining the intent that scope is supposed to be larger and more immersive, exactly the purpose anamorphic was invented for.
Quote:
That's not a flame question smile.gif I'm trying to read all I can LOL to avoid asking silly questions. smile.gif Totally zoomed out on the Sony 50es at 44 feet wide, would I obtain a larger scope image using an anamorphic lens?

You can, but IMO that's not really the "right" way to think about out, reason being it's best to have as long a throw ratio as possible to minimize pincushion/distortion. That said if John says you're within the recommended throw range then that's not really an issue.
Quote:
I guess a benefit by using one is achieving the full 1080 resolution.

That's a benefit of using a lens, but not necessarily CIH in general, since the zoom method has no resolution gain, in fact you effectively lose it (there's less pixel density since the same pixels are spread over a wider area vs 16:9).
Quote:
With a slight pincushion I could go with a curved screen?

Yup

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
stanger89 is online now  
post #188 of 420 Old 02-18-2014, 02:04 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,091
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post

I did some experimenting last night and 16:9 content was still rather large in CIH. While not as immersive, kind of more pleasant in one sense - which is probably how comedy and drama is supposed to be viewed. These are movies generally not meant to be experienced in "IMAX". smile.gif

So, yes, I am leaning 2:35 CIH.

Don't let us bully you into going 2.35:1 if you're ultimately not comfortable with it. Most of us post in this forum because we love Constant Image Height and want to educate others about it. However, what's really important is whatever makes you happiest and your viewing experience most enjoyable.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)
Curator,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


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

Josh Z is online now  
post #189 of 420 Old 02-18-2014, 02:39 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,409
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 120 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Yup, well said. It's easy to get the idea reading this subforum that we're a bunch of hard nosed.... Wait, you probably got the right idea. But seriously, CIH is a minority, there a lots of valid reason to stick with a 16:9 screen. Like Josh said, we've all come to understand and enjoy CIH, and we've probably had a lot of the same thoughts along the way so we just try to share that, along with the reasoning behind it. I'll always recommend CIH for just about anything, but if someone doesn't want to mess with that (it is more complicated), or decides against it for some other reason, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

The only wrong choice is Pan&Scan biggrin.gif

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
stanger89 is online now  
post #190 of 420 Old 02-18-2014, 03:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Tim Glover's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: West Monroe, LA
Posts: 1,428
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I thought I was rather front projector savvy until I started down the "I wonder what a CIH setup would look like?" road. smile.gifsmile.gifsmile.gif

Quickly I learned that I have ALOT to Learn! But it's fun and on the bright side, we CIH virgins will make the rest of you feel like experts. cool.gifsmile.gif
Tim Glover is offline  
post #191 of 420 Old 02-18-2014, 03:46 PM
 
Cyrano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Northwest Boonies
Posts: 5,738
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 90
I wish I could make the CIH thing work w/o the huge cost. It is definitely the way to go.
Cyrano is offline  
post #192 of 420 Old 02-18-2014, 05:10 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,409
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 120 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Well best case, it's essentially "free", if you have the option of picking the right projector and screen, ie just get a scope screen and projector with the right zoom options and ideally lens memory, neither of those options are really more expensive (vs a 16:9 screen or similar projector without the features). Now if you have to start replacing things, new screen, new projector, of if you want to go the lens route, yeah the costs can add up.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
stanger89 is online now  
post #193 of 420 Old 02-18-2014, 05:50 PM
 
Cyrano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Northwest Boonies
Posts: 5,738
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

Well best case, it's essentially "free", if you have the option of picking the right projector and screen, ie just get a scope screen and projector with the right zoom options and ideally lens memory, neither of those options are really more expensive (vs a 16:9 screen or similar projector without the features). Now if you have to start replacing things, new screen, new projector, of if you want to go the lens route, yeah the costs can add up.

Thanks. Do you have any Projectors to recommended? I own an hd131xe and cannot easily access the lens.

I should do research and will but any knowledge about scopeable under 1.5k (under 1k would be better) PJs would appreciated.

And, are there native 2.35 PJs?

Thanks for any info.

(the screen I can DIY, for a while anyway)

EDIT: Okay, I couldn't find any 21x9 PJs. Will we ever get scope native aspect ratio projectors?
And I see some familiar posters in threads discussing 21x9 projectors.
I know I am not up to speed on this.
Cyrano is offline  
post #194 of 420 Old 02-18-2014, 10:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,320
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Read through this relatively short thread for many answers to your questions:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1490097/why-are-anamorphic-lenses-so-expensive


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Home Theater Industry Consultant

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Check out my new movie!:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
John Schuermann is offline  
post #195 of 420 Old 02-19-2014, 04:42 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,409
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 120 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyrano View Post

Thanks. Do you have any Projectors to recommended? I own an hd131xe and cannot easily access the lens.

Off hand my thoughts are the JVC machines or the Panasonic AE7000 (or whatever the current model is), all offer lens memory to automate the zooming process. In the <$1500 range, I'm not familiar with that area.
Quote:
And, are there native 2.35 PJs?

There have been a couple, the Sim2 Nero 235 and the Projection Design Optix Super 235, but both are very expensive, on the order of $20k+

Will we ever get native ones? I don't know, I kind of doubt it, I think more likely is we'll see 4K machines that you just don't bother zooming out (ie only use 3840x1620 of the 3840x2160).

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
stanger89 is online now  
post #196 of 420 Old 02-21-2014, 04:13 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,397
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 159 Post(s)
Liked: 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Don't let us bully you into going 2.35:1 if you're ultimately not comfortable with it. Most of us post in this forum because we love Constant Image Height and want to educate others about it. However, what's really important is whatever makes you happiest and your viewing experience most enjoyable.

Totally understand and I completely make my own decisions. However, I have given all of this more thought and it really makes sense.

I am 75% leaning 2:35 now (25% leaning 2:05 so to open up 16:9 content a bit more. 16:9 is out of the question).

However, I am running into a big issue and that is having enough height to mount my wall speakers below the screen and I need every inch I can get. 2:35 gives me that advantage too.

DavidHir is online now  
post #197 of 420 Old 02-21-2014, 04:21 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,397
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 159 Post(s)
Liked: 424
Another thing is, I am only going to be sitting about 10.5 to 11 feet back from a 109" wide screen which is closer than recommended (but I want the immesiveness - is that a word?). Going taller than 2:35 might be too much over time if you know what I mean. However, the 2:35 height seems really nice at this distance.

DavidHir is online now  
post #198 of 420 Old 02-22-2014, 02:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,384
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 44
People need to keep apples with apples. If the ratio of HDTV is 16:9, then Scope needs to be referred to as 21:9. There is nothing taller than the 9 units tall, just the width is wider for Scope due to ir being 21 unit wide.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #199 of 420 Old 02-22-2014, 04:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,471
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Hi David,

If your 109" wide screen is 2.35, the height is around 3.8 ft tall, and your viewing ratio is around 2.7:1 if you sit 10.5 feet away - that's not as close as you were before so 16:9 might seem a bit small to you.

BUT - more importantly, if you like the height and the feel of things, then go for it. smile.gif

THX suggest 2.4 x SH for best immersion with good quality HD material, and that would mean sitting a little over 9 feet away. I like that ratio myself, and can sit a little closer (and Mark already does) but sometimes the physical distance can become an issue - it's something you have to try and experience for yourself..

Your speakers don't have to go under the screen, they can go above. Do you have the facility to place them above the screen? maybe in a custom soffit or something?

If you don't want to move you seating closer, how would you feel about building a false wall and mounting your speakers in it, and use an acoustically transparent screen instead? That way you don't have a speaker problem and you've moved the seating distance closer without moving the seats. Many people much prefer their speakers behind the screen and it's how a commercial theatre does it, so it might be worth considering. Building a false wall isn't as difficult as you think IMHO.

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 online now  
post #200 of 420 Old 02-22-2014, 09:04 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,397
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 159 Post(s)
Liked: 424
Hey Gary,

I actually have the ability to sit closer so that is definitely an option and I would have no objection to sitting a little closer for scope either. What does THX suggest for 21:9 as far as seating distance? Yeah, sometimes 16:9 content does just seem a little too small Maybe sitting a bit closer can solve that.

That false wall is an interesting idea and maybe something to consider at some point.

DavidHir is online now  
post #201 of 420 Old 02-22-2014, 10:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,471
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 41
THXs 2.4 is based on screen height and good 1080 material to give good immersion and image quality - it's probably the crossover point where they feel sitting closer may start to reveal image artifacts, but it also depends on a few things like if you prefer the immersion over the occasional instance where something in the image may be a little more noticeable than if you had sat further back. People like Mark prefer closer than the 2.4 x SH suggestion and are more than happy there.

Image quality and immersion are both important and there will always be a point where the image may appear not as good when compared to sitting a little further back. That's when it becomes a more personal preference and why these things are just recommendations, but they're recommendations based on testing things. Back in the 50s, Fox suggested that 3 x SH was the optimal point before film grain, scratches and projector mechanics would start to become more noticeable if you sat closer, but since then film grain has improved, and Digital has removed many of the issues film and projectors presented with respect to image quality. Now we have pixels and compression artefacts.

If you zoom for scope, then the screen height effectively changes, and so might the crossover point where the seating distance is now effectively closer than it was before - zooming is like moving your seating 33% closer. But again, it's down to what you can see and what you prefer. There are plenty of people that zoom for scope and don't have any problems with it, so it's something you can experiment with to find your own personal preference. I like sitting closer but a brighter image tends to highlight image artifacts more than a dimmer one, so I set up my image to be similar to the brightness you get in a commercial theatre. For me it looks more cinematic and you have less chance of seeing any issues, even with poorer transfers.

I think like many things, using the guidelines is a good way to get into the ballpark, but testing for personal preference is the best way to get what really floats your boat smile.gif

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 online now  
post #202 of 420 Old 02-23-2014, 10:50 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,397
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 159 Post(s)
Liked: 424
Gary,

I've also seen suggestions that seating should only be up to 1.5 times of the width of the screen which is quite a bit further back from THX. Where did this arise?

DavidHir is online now  
post #203 of 420 Old 02-23-2014, 11:02 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,471
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Hi David,

I think the 1.5 wide thing came from recommendations for a 16:9 screen. With scope, it should be 1 x. That's why using screen heights as a metric can work better because it should work to all formats. Zooming can throw a spanner in the works a little though.

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 online now  
post #204 of 420 Old 02-23-2014, 05:19 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,397
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 159 Post(s)
Liked: 424
Yep, makes sense. That's another reason why I am leaning 2:35 because the height consistency makes sense for viewing in regards to seating distance. And I think sitting around 9 feet back (instead of 11 feet) might just do the trick for me so that 16:9 content now seems at adequate size.

DavidHir is online now  
post #205 of 420 Old 02-24-2014, 09:20 AM
Advanced Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 942
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Glover View Post

This is my issue as well...(by the way John that was a FANTASTIC webcast. I watched the entire thing)...but after watching and speaking to Mike at AVS I also am already fully zoomed on my Sony 50es. I'm throw distance challenged. Fully zoomed out I can achieve right at a 105.5 inch wide image & 44 image height when watching a scope film. I measured while I put in a Harry Potter Blu-ray. I think that makes a 114 or so 2;35 screen? But it's my understanding that since I am fully zoomed already an anamorphic lens wouldn't be ideal and would leave a pin cushion affect? My throw distance is a tad under 12 feet. I'll have to measure again in the morning.

Just checked....it's right at 12 foot throw. And the Sony has a manual zoom. So it's not practical to go back and forth. Anyone who has any thoughts on this I would love to hear it. Most of the movies in my collection are scope.

That would be your limit when zooming the picture.

Looking at the width you are specifying you are seeing a 16:9 picture of 105"x58". When using a lens, it is the height you will base your measurements off of. The lens will then expand this image to a 136x58" scope image (150" diagonal). My recommendation would be to acquire or build an inexpensive 2 prism lens. Yes there are some compromises to the image, but having lived with an inexpensive 2 prism setup for a year, I can tell you they are well worth it. The DIY section has good instructions on building one. I'm going to send you some information you may be interested in via PM.

jeahrens is offline  
post #206 of 420 Old 02-24-2014, 09:57 AM
Scott Horton, techht.com
 
GetGray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mid-South USA
Posts: 5,449
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Or, get a real lens.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
GetGray is offline  
post #207 of 420 Old 02-24-2014, 10:07 AM
Advanced Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 942
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by GetGray View Post

Or, get a real lens.

I believe the poster stated he was on a budget. Which, to those of us that $1700+ USD is a significant amount of money, necessitates compromises. That's where the recommendation came from. If a high quality lens is within your budget, then it's certainly the way to go.

jeahrens is offline  
post #208 of 420 Old 02-24-2014, 01:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,320
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

Well best case, it's essentially "free", if you have the option of picking the right projector and screen, ie just get a scope screen and projector with the right zoom options and ideally lens memory, neither of those options are really more expensive (vs a 16:9 screen or similar projector without the features). Now if you have to start replacing things, new screen, new projector, of if you want to go the lens route, yeah the costs can add up.

I would agree with this but it's my understanding that the least expensive projector with memory zoom streets for around $2500. Obviously there are many 1080P projectors available for way under $2500. I'm not sure what the least expensive projector is with lens shift, my guess would be around $1500. As someone in another thread is struggling right now, without lens shift zooming becomes a real problem.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Home Theater Industry Consultant

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Check out my new movie!:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
John Schuermann is offline  
post #209 of 420 Old 02-24-2014, 02:51 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,409
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 120 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post

I would agree with this but it's my understanding that the least expensive projector with memory zoom streets for around $2500. Obviously there are many 1080P projectors available for way under $2500. I'm not sure what the least expensive projector is with lens shift, my guess would be around $1500. As someone in another thread is struggling right now, without lens shift zooming becomes a real problem.

Right, I guess my point is though that those machines aren't that much because of lens shift/zoom memory. Just as an example, when JVC added lens memory to their projectors, they didn't increase the price any. Nor did Panasonic (that I'm aware of). Lens memory isn't really a "premium feature", not like the way LED machines cost twice as much just because they've got LEDs. The premium for machines with lens shift/lens memory is generally because they are just better machines.

I do sympathize though, my first lens I bought used, and in that case I had to use a lens since the projector was a DLP without sufficient zoom range, and I don't think it had lens shift.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
stanger89 is online now  
post #210 of 420 Old 02-25-2014, 12:43 PM
Member
 
John Schlarb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: GA
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post

As someone in another thread is struggling right now, without lens shift zooming becomes a real problem.

I wouldn't say it's a problem, it's more of a "chore". It's like having to grind your coffee beans because you want the freshest coffee, but don't want to buy one of those coffeemakers that grind-and-brew.
John Schlarb 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