CIH - So Where Are We Now? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 74 Old 07-31-2013, 05:01 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,968
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 94 Post(s)
Liked: 320
Ok, so I don't employ a strictly CIH system, but I am certainly enjoying my anamorphic lens system.

Which got me to thinking: What is the state of CIH these days, in terms of growth, lack of growth, or reduction of growth?

CIH of course remains a niche, but it did seem to enjoy a considerably fast expansion in terms of profile anyway, starting several years ago. Go to AV shows, or higher end AV stores and it seemed
everyone had to demo their CIH system, making 16:9 feel passe. Any projector of note, or scaler, or even the better Blu-Ray players had to offer anamorphic scaling to make sure they didn't let down someone using an A-lens.

But where are we now? Are home theater projector sales still climbing, stalling or falling? Home theaters in general clmbing, stalling or declining? Is CIH still on it's way up? Or has it stalled at it's niche-version of the glass ceiling?

Any opinions, especially informed ones, welcome.
R Harkness is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 74 Old 08-01-2013, 02:53 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,968
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 94 Post(s)
Liked: 320
Seriously? Nuthin'?

Must not have been as interesting a discussion as I thought.
R Harkness is online now  
post #3 of 74 Old 08-01-2013, 04:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Brian B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,293
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Ok, so I don't employ a strictly CIH system, but I am certainly enjoying my anamorphic lens system.

Which got me to thinking: What is the state of CIH these days, in terms of growth, lack of growth, or reduction of growth?

CIH of course remains a niche, but it did seem to enjoy a considerably fast expansion in terms of profile anyway, starting several years ago. Go to AV shows, or higher end AV stores and it seemed
everyone had to demo their CIH system, making 16:9 feel passe. Any projector of note, or scaler, or even the better Blu-Ray players had to offer anamorphic scaling to make sure they didn't let down someone using an A-lens.

But where are we now? Are home theater projector sales still climbing, stalling or falling? Home theaters in general clmbing, stalling or declining? Is CIH still on it's way up? Or has it stalled at it's niche-version of the glass ceiling?

Any opinions, especially informed ones, welcome.

We've seen a decline in projection sales. In our case I believe it is due to the availability of relatively inexpensive large flat panel televisions--70/75/80" etc. It also has to do with ease of setup/cost on installation IMO. However, we are seeing more interest in 2.35 than before. I believe this has to do with the ability to utilize projector memories and obviate the need for an outboard lens (and its added cost, extra installation needs, etc.. Also, more projection screen companies are offering more lower cost 2.35 options.

That's my 2 cents.

B.
Brian B is offline  
post #4 of 74 Old 08-01-2013, 08:52 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,968
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 94 Post(s)
Liked: 320
That makes sense, Brian. Thanks.

I was wondering when/if those larger flat panels would start swaying some people away from projection.
Not me; I couldn't give up my screen size, and the flexibility in terms of how we can view different aspect ratios with a projection set up.
R Harkness is online now  
post #5 of 74 Old 08-02-2013, 05:13 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,359
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

I was wondering when/if those larger flat panels would start swaying some people away from projection.
Not me; I couldn't give up my screen size, and the flexibility in terms of how we can view different aspect ratios with a projection set up.

I think it really comes down to size. I mean not long ago the biggest "TV" you could get was about 60" and they were really expensive. Also not long ago you'd walk into a HT store and you'd see 80"-96" screens, you know, scratch that, that's still the case a lot of the time. The difference between 60" and 80" is pretty dramatic, and not long ago the price difference was too, so it was a no brainer for the "non-enthusiast" to go with the projector and all it's compromises.

Now, like Brian said you can get 70"+ "TV"s for relatively cheap. For the non-enthusiast, that's about a no-brainer, you can just hang it and be done, use it whenever you want, no light control issues, no warmup time, no lamps to replace, and it's a nice big picture "almost as big as a projector".

Add to that that when you walk into a BestBuy, Costco, or even many HT shops, the native environment is terrible for projectors. They either don't have them on, or for practicality reasons they have the lights on. Flat panels obviously look better, you've sort of got to know you want a projector to go down that path anymore.

I'd guess most "non-enthusiasts" don't really think about/know they could put a 120" screen in their home.

I think what I'm trying to say is large flat panels will take the "low hanging fruit", the people who wanted big screen, but aren't interested in a cinema experience.

On the other hand, those that do want that are much more likely to look at CIH, especially now that it's so easy and cheap to get in to (lens memories and all).

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
post #6 of 74 Old 08-02-2013, 07:30 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,968
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 94 Post(s)
Liked: 320
A fine analysis!

It wasn't long ago that a 65" Panasonic plasma blew my mind in terms of image size, and I had to have one (a quest that eventually led me into projection).

Now when I walk into the stores I have to do a double-take when in front of a 65" model "is that a 60" or...?"

And now it's the 80" sized flat panels that feel more like 65" to me. But still small, given what we watch at home.
R Harkness is online now  
post #7 of 74 Old 08-02-2013, 11:29 AM
Senior Member
 
Trogdor2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 335
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 14
While I'm perfectly fine with CIH being a niche, I think they could do a better job at promoting it, considering the apathy people have towards 21:9 televisions and monitors, as well as the high asking prices and lack of serious marketing. I find it odd considering the fact that there is a lot of 2.35:1 films and video content, as well as many PC games that work natively in this aspect ratio, (since video games can be rendered at any resolution). The only video media really excluded from the scope scene is obviously television, some films, and console video games, but console games can transition much more easily by offering a "letterbox mode" for people using CIH front projection and 21:9 televisions.

I would say as long as people become apathetic towards 21:9 TVs, considering that they are offering more larger 16:9 options at affordable prices, there will always be people like you and me watching movies on our front projectors in the way scope is meant to be, which I don't mind. smile.gif
Trogdor2010 is offline  
post #8 of 74 Old 08-02-2013, 11:59 AM
Advanced Member
 
nightfly85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 942
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Lens cost is not a trivial consideration - as most view that as an accessory and shouldn't cost more than the main element (i.e. the projector) for a quality unit.
Q8472 likes this.
nightfly85 is offline  
post #9 of 74 Old 08-02-2013, 12:52 PM
Scott Horton, techht.com
 
GetGray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mid-South USA
Posts: 5,446
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 52
In the high end market I continue to see the lens system and a high end projector a must have. In the mid-range commodity PJ levels (e.g. JVC) and relatively smaller screen jobs, I still sell 90% Scope systems. Maybe higher. Occasionally I sell a 16:9 system, but in every case it was because the customer was limited by room width. I rarely fool with flat panels because I can't give them away and beat Best Buy prices and discounts, usually. I'll throw them in at cost on my projection jobs as a perk for using me if anything. The auto-zooming features have hurt the A-lens business primarily in the markets where it was a hard stretch for the customer to get one. For people who can afford them, we still sell them at the time of installation and as often as not, customers who don't get them, come back later and upgrade due to issues they've had with zooming, and for the improvements the lens brings.
GetGray is offline  
post #10 of 74 Old 08-02-2013, 02:06 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,359
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trogdor2010 View Post

While I'm perfectly fine with CIH being a niche, I think they could do a better job at promoting it, considering the apathy people have towards 21:9 televisions and monitors, as well as the high asking prices and lack of serious marketing.

I think a 21:9 TV is just a tough sell period, they're just not big enough for it to really matter. TVs tend to be like furniture and I don't think 21:9 will really work well there. Conversely a projection setup is more of an architectural feature.

I'm probably not making any sense, I can't really formulate what I mean.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
post #11 of 74 Old 08-02-2013, 02:11 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,968
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 94 Post(s)
Liked: 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trogdor2010 View Post

While I'm perfectly fine with CIH being a niche, I think they could do a better job at promoting it, considering the apathy people have towards 21:9 televisions and monitors,

I think consumer apathy toward 21:9 TVs is understandable. First, of course, barely anyone is aware of them. But even if they became more visible in big box stores I think they would be a very hard sell. For the
16:9 content that makes up the bulk of the typical person's viewing on a TV, that's a lot of unused black bar space on their new wider TV. It would be annoying even to me.

Projection is different because people tend to use projectors to set up home theaters in which movies play a prominent role, and hence the proportion of scope content becomes more compelling. Also, in projection the 16:9 content is so much larger it can be satisfying, whereas on the 2:35:1 TVs, and given typical viewing distances, the reduction in 16:9 mage size is going to hurt much more.
R Harkness is online now  
post #12 of 74 Old 08-02-2013, 04:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Brian B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,293
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
We had years of listening to: "Why are there black bars on the side??" re: 4:3 on 16:9 sets... I can't imagine dealing with the questions and calls (from the average person) on the correct settings for a 21:9 TV. As is, most people set the TV to a mode that "fills" the screen. Most of the TV/sports watching crowd would end up zooming or expanding just to fill the screen.

B.
Brian B is offline  
post #13 of 74 Old 08-02-2013, 05:51 PM
Scott Horton, techht.com
 
GetGray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mid-South USA
Posts: 5,446
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Whats worse in the local cable companies often completely botch it mucking with the broadcast signal.
GetGray is offline  
post #14 of 74 Old 08-04-2013, 12:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JDLIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Marlborough, MA
Posts: 2,900
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Send a message via Yahoo to JDLIVE
We are still a niche within a niche.
JDLIVE is offline  
post #15 of 74 Old 08-06-2013, 11:06 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian B View Post

We've seen a decline in projection sales. In our case I believe it is due to the availability of relatively inexpensive large flat panel televisions--70/75/80" etc. It also has to do with ease of setup/cost on installation IMO. However, we are seeing more interest in 2.35 than before. I believe this has to do with the ability to utilize projector memories and obviate the need for an outboard lens (and its added cost, extra installation needs, etc.. Also, more projection screen companies are offering more lower cost 2.35 options.

That's my 2 cents.

B.

I agree with this for the most part, although I would point out that in the sub $2K projector category sales are better than ever. Of course, none of those sub $2K projectors have lens memory. On the other hand, many of them do have vertical stretch, so we have seen decent attachment with the CineVista lens.

According to our friends at SI and Stewart screens, yes, more people than ever are asking about UltraWIde, which we think has much to do with the proliferation of lens memory. The tech support department at SI tells us that the most frequent question they get is "how can I make the image fill the whole screen all the time?" Of course, you can't do this with zoom without overshooting the top and bottom of a 2.35:1 screen. As GetGray points out, many people who start out with zoom end up adding a lens at some point with this being one of the reasons why.

So, interest is at an all time high, with lens sales being pretty consistent over the last few years. I think it is interesting that lens sales have remained pretty robust, since the lens price is many times higher than the projector price nowadays. Again, I think it has to do with auto-zoom raising the profile of UltraWide even as the lens price seems higher in relation to that of the projector.

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 #16 of 74 Old 08-08-2013, 06:34 AM
Member
 
tvolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 48
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by GetGray View Post

In the high end market I continue to see the lens system and a high end projector a must have. In the mid-range commodity PJ levels (e.g. JVC) and relatively smaller screen jobs, I still sell 90% Scope systems. Maybe higher. Occasionally I sell a 16:9 system, but in every case it was because the customer was limited by room width. I rarely fool with flat panels because I can't give them away and beat Best Buy prices and discounts, usually. I'll throw them in at cost on my projection jobs as a perk for using me if anything. The auto-zooming features have hurt the A-lens business primarily in the markets where it was a hard stretch for the customer to get one. For people who can afford them, we still sell them at the time of installation and as often as not, customers who don't get them, come back later and upgrade due to issues they've had with zooming, and for the improvements the lens brings.

I am installing a new "mid-range" CIH setup over the next several weeks. I fit into the customer category that GetGray is describing in that last sentence. From my perspective, the CIH niche still exists for those that want a large-screen theater experience and the flexibility of displaying both 2.35:1 and 16:9 effectively. Besides, I couldn't figure out how to punch tiny holes into a 100" LED panel to make it acoustically transparent for my false wall.wink.gif

GetGray, thanks for all your help with my theater project! It is very likely I will be one of those customers that "come back later and upgrade due to issues they've had with zooming" !
tvolle is offline  
post #17 of 74 Old 08-08-2013, 08:49 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
I posted this in the CineVista thread, but I think it bears repeating here. Someone was asking about how all this relates to "Joe Six Pack" and their needs / desires:

As long as imaging chips in projectors remain 16:9, there will always be a market for anamorphic lenses.

It's also amazing to me how many Panamorph sales are to people who started out using the zoom method. Speaking of "Joe Six Pack," explaining to him that his DVD / Blu-ray menu is going to display onto the wall and that he can't fill his whole 2.35:1 screen with 16:9 material is a buzzkill for many when it comes to the zoom method. It's the people here who understand aspect ratios and how TV shows and movies are made that have no problem dealing with that when it comes to CIH home cinema, not Joe Six Pack. He just wants a big picture with no black bars.

It's interesting to me that *the* most frequent question SI Screens gets regarding 2.35:1 screens is, "how do I fill the full screen when watching sports and regular TV?" You can't do that with zoom. Joe Six Pack does not care about OAR, as mentioned above he cares about getting the biggest picture possible and getting rid of the black bars. Losing correct picture geometry is an acceptable casualty for the average Joe. Just think about all the people you know who fill stretch 4:3 to fill their 16:9 TVs. It's the same for 2.35:1 and the projection market.

One of the reasons Panamorph has moved to fixed lens solutions at the entry level is because our own internal research shows that most people who own lenses leave them in place all the time no matter what they are watching. They just want to fill the screen.

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 #18 of 74 Old 08-08-2013, 09:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mtbdudex's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 4,258
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 64 Post(s)
Liked: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post

I posted this in the CineVista thread, but I think it bears repeating here. Someone was asking about how all this relates to "Joe Six Pack" and their needs / desires:

As long as imaging chips in projectors remain 16:9, there will always be a market for anamorphic lenses.

It's also amazing to me how many Panamorph sales are to people who started out using the zoom method. Speaking of "Joe Six Pack," explaining to him that his DVD / Blu-ray menu is going to display onto the wall and that he can't fill his whole 2.35:1 screen with 16:9 material is a buzzkill for many when it comes to the zoom method. It's the people here who understand aspect ratios and how TV shows and movies are made that have no problem dealing with that when it comes to CIH home cinema, not Joe Six Pack. He just wants a big picture with no black bars.

It's interesting to me that *the* most frequent question SI Screens gets regarding 2.35:1 screens is, "how do I fill the full screen when watching sports and regular TV?" You can't do that with zoom. Joe Six Pack does not care about OAR, as mentioned above he cares about getting the biggest picture possible and getting rid of the black bars. Losing correct picture geometry is an acceptable casualty for the average Joe. Just think about all the people you know who fill stretch 4:3 to fill their 16:9 TVs. It's the same for 2.35:1 and the projection market.

One of the reasons Panamorph has moved to fixed lens solutions at the entry level is because our own internal research shows that most people who own lenses leave them in place all the time no matter what they are watching. They just want to fill the screen.

As Abbot (or was it Costello?) said............."I'm a bad boy"......yes I've grown tired of my manual masks on/off for 16:9 vs the 2.35:1 scope movies....so like John posted I just leave my lens in place and toggle "full" to stretch 16:9 to fill my scope screen, and when watching a scope movie toggle to ""anamorphic mode" for correct aspect ratio.
So what if the people I watch are slightly fatter than in real life?

btw, I'm not joe 6 pack, just a busy HT enthuasist / dad always on the run.
Someday I will have a "nice" masking system, electro/mechanical push the button.....someday....
mtbdudex is online now  
post #19 of 74 Old 08-08-2013, 10:07 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,359
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 129
Personally I don't have any masking panels but I don't stretch my 16:9, I've never felt the need to use every inch of my screen all the time, I'm fine with the empty space on the sides, and my Lumagen makes AR transitions instantaneous.


Oh, and OT, but Mike, that picture you have as your avatar is awesome, saw the thread over on POTN. cool.gif

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
post #20 of 74 Old 08-08-2013, 10:26 AM
Scott Horton, techht.com
 
GetGray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mid-South USA
Posts: 5,446
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Obviously I move my lens, can't imagine not doing it, and I don't say that because I make a lens transport. I've always recommended to folks who can't afford a transport, whether from me or Panamorph, to move the lens. Use drawer slides or something. Trivial to move the lens, unlike dragging out masking panels.

We just went o vacation and stayed at a friends condo in FL. The owner had all their TV's set to stretch the 4:3 to 16:9. Couldn't stand it. I similarly don't like 16:9 stretched either. I've even tried NLS, but I dislike that even more. Even my kids, trained at what right looks like, are video snobs and complain when it's "wrong".

As for masking, I have a curved Firehawk, a light controlled room, and a bright PJ. I don't need masking. Really. Not even a little bit.
GetGray is offline  
post #21 of 74 Old 08-09-2013, 02:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,380
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 42
My next upgrade will be into 3D (@144Hz) and to do this, I need to employ the MINI3D radiance from Lumagen. This will allow me to not only Scale all my 2D/3D, it also offers full calibration for true video nirvana.
I still leave my lens in place and have not bothered making another sled (though I know I should). I probably will when I make the upgrade. I certainly would not stretch 16:9 to fill my Scope screen as having the correct geometry is very important to me. The MINI3D will also allow both HS and VS at the same time so I can do the odd ball ARs like 2.00:1 and 2.20:1 at true CIH.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #22 of 74 Old 08-09-2013, 09:42 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
I don't want it misconstrued that *I* am advocating for stretched content smile.gif I am just pointing out that that is what "Joe Six Pack" prefers. They don't want black bars ANYWHERE.

Personally, I slide my lens out of the way and mask for 16:9. I can't stand a stretched image.

However, while stretching the image is technically "wrong," personal preference is never "wrong." If someone prefers stretched 16:9 over "proper" 16:9, who am I to tell them they are "wrong" for preferring it that way?

And I can totally relate to Mike's post above. If I had to manually slide a lens and place manual masking panels in place every time I want to watch 16:9 content, I might just put up with stretched as well wink.gif

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 #23 of 74 Old 08-11-2013, 06:52 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
archiguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 18,135
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 267 Post(s)
Liked: 606
The whole masking panel thing seems weird to me. If you have a 'scope screen and you've moved your lens out of the way for 16:9 content, the projector isn't projecting black bars on the sides - there's nothing there but empty screen devoid of photons. In a fully light-controlled room you shouldn't see anything on the sides that's not projected there anyway, no?

I haven't finished building the River Rat Theater™ yet so these kinds of discussions are still somewhat academic to me, but if you're using a movable lens, why would you need or want masking panels? confused.gif

To paraphrase the great, legendary novelist Eric Segal, having an anamorphic lens means never having to use masking panels. smile.gifwink.gif
archiguy is offline  
post #24 of 74 Old 08-11-2013, 07:19 AM
Advanced Member
 
Glenn Baumann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Long Island, NY, USA
Posts: 752
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

The whole masking panel thing seems weird to me. If you have a 'scope screen and you've moved your lens out of the way for 16:9 content, the projector isn't projecting black bars on the sides - there's nothing there but empty screen devoid of photons. In a fully light-controlled room you shouldn't see anything on the sides that's not projected there anyway, no?

I haven't finished building the River Rat Theater™ yet so these kinds of discussions are still somewhat academic to me, but if you're using a movable lens, why would you need or want masking panels? confused.gif

To paraphrase the great, legendary novelist Eric Segal, having an anamorphic lens means never having to use masking panels. smile.gifwink.gif



" In a fully light-controlled room you shouldn't see anything on the sides that's not projected there anyway, no?"



The area on the sides of the projected area without picture content can be illuminated to a degree by any stray light that reflects off of your walls, ceiling and even the floor back on to the screen! eek.gif... Do not underestimate this phenemenon unless your ceiling and floors are painted in a VERY dark and light absorptive color such as flat black.



"why would you need or want masking panels? confused.gif "


Masking panels also provide that nice crisp black framing of the picture giving that floating in space effect and also can increase the perceived overall contrast and pop of your picture! eek.gif

I guarantee you that you would enjoy the picture better with masking panels as opposed to without especially if you are not using a high contrast projector with deep blacks and your room is not very dark.


...Glenn smile.gif
John Schuermann likes this.
Glenn Baumann is offline  
post #25 of 74 Old 08-11-2013, 07:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kelvin1965S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 3,230
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Many projectors produce a narrow line of light at the sides of the image. I know my JVC HD350 did and my X35 does, so even in a black hole there would still be these strips of light at the sides (the top being hidden by the screen border I suppose).

I saw the Sony VW1000ES in a fantastic demo room where the walls and ceiling were a long way from the screen and very dark. It was still very obvious that the sides of the screen weren't jet black as they would be with masking, so for me they would still be required. I made very simple side masks with two strips of black velvet that I hang each side if the whole film is 16:9 and I really find it makes a difference for me (though my room is far from ideal which doesn't help).

Zooming: Been there, done that, bought the lens...
Kelvin1965S is offline  
post #26 of 74 Old 08-11-2013, 08:47 AM
Scott Horton, techht.com
 
GetGray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mid-South USA
Posts: 5,446
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

The whole masking panel thing seems weird to me. If you have a 'scope screen and you've moved your lens out of the way for 16:9 content, the projector isn't projecting black bars on the sides - there's nothing there but empty screen devoid of photons. In a fully light-controlled room you shouldn't see anything on the sides that's not projected there anyway, no?

I haven't finished building the River Rat Theater™ yet so these kinds of discussions are still somewhat academic to me, but if you're using a movable lens, why would you need or want masking panels? confused.gif

To paraphrase the great, legendary novelist Eric Segal, having an anamorphic lens means never having to use masking panels. smile.gifwink.gif

Visibility of the unlighted portions of a screen depend on several things. Screen brand, shape, material, gain, room factors including paint, carpet, distance to walls, etc., 2.35 deployment method (lens or not), and of course the PJ. Whether or not you need masking will depend on all of those things. It can never hurt, it is not always required. If you want to make a road trip to Nashville, I'll show you one case where it is not.
John Schuermann likes this.
GetGray is offline  
post #27 of 74 Old 08-11-2013, 05:04 PM
Member
 
fisher191's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 85
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelvin1965S View Post

Many projectors produce a narrow line of light at the sides of the image. I know my JVC HD350 did and my X35 does,....

That surprises me. I haven't seen a projector that does that. I have been evaluating a 2.35 screen and watched a 16:9 movie on it last night with an X75. I specifically looked to see how the extra screen width impacted the image and found it wasn't distracting - definitely no strips of light. Could it be that another component is introducing these for you? If so, you can hide this on the X series with the mask controls - 2.5%, 5% all round or custom settings.
fisher191 is offline  
post #28 of 74 Old 08-12-2013, 05:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kelvin1965S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 3,230
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 31
The masking controls only remove any pixels from the edge of the panels. This light area is outside of the full screen area. It might be due to my minimum zoom set up or perhaps due to using some vertical lens shift, but I think it's just how it is. I've not been using my projector lately due to holidays and unusually nice UK weather, but I'll try to take a photo next time I do. It's very subtle, but hopefully the camera will pick it up.

Whatever the cause I much prefer using side masks which was my main point.

Zooming: Been there, done that, bought the lens...
Kelvin1965S is offline  
post #29 of 74 Old 08-15-2013, 04:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
OzzieP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Kolob
Posts: 2,017
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

That makes sense, Brian. Thanks.

I was wondering when/if those larger flat panels would start swaying some people away from projection.
Not me; I couldn't give up my screen size, and the flexibility in terms of how we can view different aspect ratios with a projection set up.

When I can get a 110" 4K 3D Display for under 10K I will trade in my projector and screen.
Until then I will hang on to them.
OzzieP is offline  
post #30 of 74 Old 08-15-2013, 07:10 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,359
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 129
Even if you need a forklift and structural modifications (to your house) to install it? We're approaching the point where increasing the size of rigid panel displays is impractical.

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

Tags
Panasonic Tc P65v10 65 Inch 1080p Plasma Hdtv
Gear in this thread - P65v10 by PriceGrabber.com

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