Is anamorphic lens needed with new 4k JVC - Page 4 - AVS | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 21Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 126 Old 09-19-2014, 11:49 AM
Member
 
Ravetrancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: SWEDEN
Posts: 34
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post
Not really familiar with the Sunfire speakers - just looked them up on line. From what I can tell, they should work fine. The Dolby tech I spoke to suggested standard directional speakers, not dipoles / bipoles. The Sunfires look like they should work.

I see the CRS3C is designed as a center speaker. Are you using those all around?
The CRS3C is a center yes, it has one more mid woofer and has the tweeter situated in the middle of the speaker in difference to the CRS3 that has the tweeter on the upper part of the speaker.

In the protecting felt in front of the speakers there is a diffusor in front of the tweeter so it spreads out the sound. I have removed the diffusor on those speakers that are not used as center.
So i have CRS3C's as fronts, center and surrounds. Rest is CRS3 and back surround is the CRM2 Bip, bipolar speakers.

I have
5x CRS3C
6x CRS3
4x CRM2Bip
2x TS-EQ12 subs

For powering this im using
Sunfires amps
TGA-7400 7x400W
TGA-7401 7x400W

Integra 80.3

I used the Onkyo PR-SC5509 before the Integra and frankly i cant hear any difference between those 2.

I havent used all speakers in my configuration thats been 7.2 with heights alternated with wides.

The tibbon tweeters are very directional so i think then they will be just great in an Atmos setup.

I have a problem though, the left n right front can not be put behind my screen because i cant get the 30 degree angle from my listening point. Is it ok to put them on the side wall where the 30 degree falls from my listening point?

Hope u understand my english, my grammar is really bad at times.
Ravetrancer is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 126 Old 09-19-2014, 12:03 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,359
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravetrancer View Post
The CRS3C is a center yes, it has one more mid woofer and has the tweeter situated in the middle of the speaker in difference to the CRS3 that has the tweeter on the upper part of the speaker.

In the protecting felt in front of the speakers there is a diffusor in front of the tweeter so it spreads out the sound. I have removed the diffusor on those speakers that are not used as center.
So i have CRS3C's as fronts, center and surrounds. Rest is CRS3 and back surround is the CRM2 Bip, bipolar speakers.

I have
5x CRS3C
6x CRS3
4x CRM2Bip
2x TS-EQ12 subs

For powering this im using
Sunfires amps
TGA-7400 7x400W
TGA-7401 7x400W

Integra 80.3

I used the Onkyo PR-SC5509 before the Integra and frankly i cant hear any difference between those 2.

I havent used all speakers in my configuration thats been 7.2 with heights alternated with wides.

The tibbon tweeters are very directional so i think then they will be just great in an Atmos setup.

I have a problem though, the left n right front can not be put behind my screen because i cant get the 30 degree angle from my listening point. Is it ok to put them on the side wall where the 30 degree falls from my listening point?

Hope u understand my english, my grammar is really bad at times.
Ideally you wouldn't use any bipoles in an Atmos setup, since the goal is precise panning between speakers. I don't know how big of a deal this will be, though.

Of course, 30 degrees is a theoretical ideal. I usually just play with placement of L and R until I get a good mix of solid imaging without losing a wide soundstage. Room boundaries, etc, can really affect the sound. Placing a speaker in a corner can really affect sound quality. Listen to someone speaking as they move along a wall and notice how different their voice sounds when they are in the corner. Does side wall mean corner placement?

My main concern would be that sounds that are specifically panned right and left on screen would come from a location way beyond where they visually occur. Unless you plan on doing a lot of two channel music listening in your room (where correct placement becomes critical for imaging / soundstage), I wouldn't worry so much about the angle and put the LRs behind the screen.

Without actually seeing your room (or listening to it), it's really hard to say. Sometimes the theory goes right out the window once you are dealing with practical locations.

Not surprised that you don't hear a difference between the Onkyo and Integra. Any well designed amp performing to proper specifications should sound like any other

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 online now  
post #93 of 126 Old 09-19-2014, 06:48 PM
Member
 
Ravetrancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: SWEDEN
Posts: 34
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post
Ideally you wouldn't use any bipoles in an Atmos setup, since the goal is precise panning between speakers. I don't know how big of a deal this will be, though.

Of course, 30 degrees is a theoretical ideal. I usually just play with placement of L and R until I get a good mix of solid imaging without losing a wide soundstage. Room boundaries, etc, can really affect the sound. Placing a speaker in a corner can really affect sound quality. Listen to someone speaking as they move along a wall and notice how different their voice sounds when they are in the corner. Does side wall mean corner placement?

My main concern would be that sounds that are specifically panned right and left on screen would come from a location way beyond where they visually occur. Unless you plan on doing a lot of two channel music listening in your room (where correct placement becomes critical for imaging / soundstage), I wouldn't worry so much about the angle and put the LRs behind the screen.

Without actually seeing your room (or listening to it), it's really hard to say. Sometimes the theory goes right out the window once you are dealing with practical locations.

Not surprised that you don't hear a difference between the Onkyo and Integra. Any well designed amp performing to proper specifications should sound like any other
Hi John

Do u know if theres any app for like iPad where you could draw your room and put up speakers etc? Like a 3d app.
Ravetrancer is offline  
post #94 of 126 Old 09-20-2014, 12:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,359
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravetrancer View Post
Hi John

Do u know if theres any app for like iPad where you could draw your room and put up speakers etc? Like a 3d app.
I'm sure there are apps like that, but I am not familiar with them. You might try asking on one of the audio forums.

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 online now  
post #95 of 126 Old 09-20-2014, 05:10 PM
Member
 
Ravetrancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: SWEDEN
Posts: 34
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post
I'm sure there are apps like that, but I am not familiar with them. You might try asking on one of the audio forums.


Heres a drawing of my room.

Is it ok to put the fronts 30 degrees on the side walls where the arrows are pointing or should i have them behind the screen even though it isnt 30 degrees there?

I also got my Devore velvet from Whaleyes and will have it on the ceiling and walls from the screenand 10 feet towards the viewing positionClick image for larger version

Name:	ImageUploadedByTapatalk1411254628.338727.jpg
Views:	41
Size:	85.3 KB
ID:	272058
Ravetrancer is offline  
post #96 of 126 Old 09-22-2014, 02:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,359
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked: 78
Are you going to do music listening in this room too, or just movies?
John Schuermann is online now  
post #97 of 126 Old 09-22-2014, 03:02 PM
Member
 
Ravetrancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: SWEDEN
Posts: 34
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post
Are you going to do music listening in this room too, or just movies?
Well, i sold my Mirage M1-si's so mostly it will movies.
Say 95% movies, 5% music.
So i will need to set it up for best possible movie experience, music come second hand.
Ravetrancer is offline  
post #98 of 126 Old 09-23-2014, 09:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,359
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked: 78
Personally I would probably just put them behind the screen. You will have a somewhat limited soundstage when listening to stereo music, but at least the movie sound won't seem to localize from places well outside the screen area.

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 online now  
post #99 of 126 Old 01-26-2015, 02:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kelvin1965S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 3,288
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 53
So...the time is coming that I may have to change my signature.

I've got an X500 coming at the weekend and I plan to compare it using e-shift to my existing X35 with an Isco II lens. I thought that it might be a good time to try to move on my lens before it becomes an unwanted paperweight. Judging by the number of emails and PMs I've already had asking about it then at least I seem to have chosen a good time to sell it (if it comes to it).

The plan is to set up the X500 without DI and if possible use my Lumagen to slightly raise the black level to try to match the on/off contrast of the two set ups. Secondly I will run two fresh auto calibrations using the Lumagen/Chrompure Pro targeting the same rec709 colour gamut and 2.3 gamma. The X500 will be zoomed for 2.35:1 and the X35 will be set up using the Isco. I want to try to minimise the differences between the two models caused by the improved contrast of the latter version.

I'll then be able to play back scenes back to back and just use the 'hide' function and a DVD case to block the light from whichever projector isn't in use. The only issue is that I may have to swap HDMI leads over each time, but I have a 1 x 2 splitter somewhere, so I will try to find that in the meantime.

I'll post back what my findings are, though ultimately it is to help me decide if I can live without the lens (it makes the upgrade virtually cost neutral if I sell the X35 plus Isco). I have previously used the shrink method and of course the X35/500 both have lens memory, so I would use that to set the AR of the main feature and scaling as required for menus/trailers.

I know the X500 isn't 'true 4k' but the higher pixel density caused by the smaller pixel gap of the newer model and the e-shift feature may help to retain a similar end result. Only time and a lot of comparisons will tell though.
Gary Lightfoot likes this.

Zooming: Been there, done that, bought the lens...
Kelvin1965S is offline  
post #100 of 126 Old 01-26-2015, 02:34 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rboster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 17,972
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 191 Post(s)
Liked: 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelvin1965S View Post
So...the time is coming that I may have to change my signature.

I've got an X500 coming at the weekend and I plan to compare it using e-shift to my existing X35 with an Isco II lens. I thought that it might be a good time to try to move on my lens before it becomes an unwanted paperweight. Judging by the number of emails and PMs I've already had asking about it then at least I seem to have chosen a good time to sell it (if it comes to it).

The plan is to set up the X500 without DI and if possible use my Lumagen to slightly raise the black level to try to match the on/off contrast of the two set ups. Secondly I will run two fresh auto calibrations using the Lumagen/Chrompure Pro targeting the same rec709 colour gamut and 2.3 gamma. The X500 will be zoomed for 2.35:1 and the X35 will be set up using the Isco. I want to try to minimise the differences between the two models caused by the improved contrast of the latter version.

I'll then be able to play back scenes back to back and just use the 'hide' function and a DVD case to block the light from whichever projector isn't in use. The only issue is that I may have to swap HDMI leads over each time, but I have a 1 x 2 splitter somewhere, so I will try to find that in the meantime.

I'll post back what my findings are, though ultimately it is to help me decide if I can live without the lens (it makes the upgrade virtually cost neutral if I sell the X35 plus Isco). I have previously used the shrink method and of course the X35/500 both have lens memory, so I would use that to set the AR of the main feature and scaling as required for menus/trailers.

I know the X500 isn't 'true 4k' but the higher pixel density caused by the smaller pixel gap of the newer model and the e-shift feature may help to retain a similar end result. Only time and a lot of comparisons will tell though.
I have the JVC X700R. I couldn't remount my Prismasonic 6000 lens...so I zoomed for 6 months or so. Once I found a mounting system that would work....remounted the lens and MUCH prefer the JVC with the lens (have lumagen mini and OPPO 103D).

In fact, I've been thinking about upgrading to an ISCO 3 from the prismasonic.

"Retired" AVS Moderator
Feeler: I'm thinking of selling my JTR Triple 8HT's Let me know if you are interested?
For Sale: ACS PlanarTrap (freestanding acoustic panel) ($300/pair)[/B]:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/209-au...tic-panel.html
rboster is offline  
post #101 of 126 Old 01-26-2015, 02:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kelvin1965S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 3,288
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 53
That doesn't sound promising for my plan then. If I end up keeping the Isco II then by the time I replace the X500 with a true 4K model then maybe it'll be too late to sell it for any more than peanuts. Having said that I'll have lost way more than what the Isco cost in depreciation on the projectors it's been used with, so I'll have my money's worth out of it if I keep it for another 2 years.

Zooming: Been there, done that, bought the lens...
Kelvin1965S is offline  
post #102 of 126 Old 01-26-2015, 03:53 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 12,144
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 209 Post(s)
Liked: 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by rboster View Post
I have the JVC X700R. I couldn't remount my Prismasonic 6000 lens...so I zoomed for 6 months or so. Once I found a mounting system that would work....remounted the lens and MUCH prefer the JVC with the lens (have lumagen mini and OPPO 103D).

In fact, I've been thinking about upgrading to an ISCO 3 from the prismasonic.
What is it you prefer about the lens system vs zooming? I have the same JVC projector (RS57 version) with a Panamorph UH480 lens system. I don't feel I've noticed any particular bonus with the A-lens in terms of image quality over zooming (and in fact zooming has the more precise-looking image if anything, at least in terms of pin-cushion distortion towards the edges with the A-lens). So I'm curious what you are seeing that makes you so enthusiastic over zooming. (Or is it ergonomics?)
DavidHir and Kelvin1965S like this.
R Harkness is online now  
post #103 of 126 Old 01-26-2015, 06:36 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,693
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelvin1965S View Post
I'll then be able to play back scenes back to back and just use the 'hide' function and a DVD case to block the light from whichever projector isn't in use. The only issue is that I may have to swap HDMI leads over each time, but I have a 1 x 2 splitter somewhere, so I will try to find that in the meantime.
Couldn't you just hook one projector to each output on the Lumagen? You could then calibrate each with in different memories and then just switch between them with a button press?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelvin1965S View Post
That doesn't sound promising for my plan then. If I end up keeping the Isco II then by the time I replace the X500 with a true 4K model then maybe it'll be too late to sell it for any more than peanuts. Having said that I'll have lost way more than what the Isco cost in depreciation on the projectors it's been used with, so I'll have my money's worth out of it if I keep it for another 2 years.
Just to throw some more confusion, maybe it's a good time to get rid of the ISCO II anyway, aren't you probably going to want an ISCO III for 4K?

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is online now  
post #104 of 126 Old 01-27-2015, 01:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kelvin1965S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 3,288
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 53
No the Mini 3D only has a single HDMI output, though I will of course set up two memories.

RE 4K; having seen a Sony VW1000ES zoomed on a much bigger screen than mine I'm not planing on using a lens when that time comes. It was already well in to the 'good enough' range for me and that was with upscaled 1080p of course. Isco III lenses are incredibly expensive over here on the rare occasions they do turn up, so putting the budget to actually getting the projector makes more sense to me.

I don't gain any brightness using a lens in my set up as I'm at minimum zoom when using my lens, so zooming gains back some brightness and I actually measure the same fL either way. So apart from over spilt black bars (I have a very dark screen wall) then it's all down to how I perceive the image quality between the two methods...only seeing it for myself (like when I first got my lens) will tell me which I prefer. I'm hoping (perhaps a little optimistically) that the X500 will give me some of what I liked about the zoomed VW1000ES.

Zooming: Been there, done that, bought the lens...

Last edited by Kelvin1965S; 01-27-2015 at 01:18 AM.
Kelvin1965S is offline  
post #105 of 126 Old 01-27-2015, 10:28 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rboster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 17,972
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 191 Post(s)
Liked: 145
As I did, I would suggest trying zooming for a while and compare in your own set up. I found the un-zoomed image (w/lens) to be brighter and sharper image. It was noticeable in my set up.

Also, the added benefit was watching movies that have multiple aspect ratios (like Dark Knight etc) in scope (Constant Height) without worrying about aspect ratio changes. Though I hate to admit it....but I will on occasion watch an animated title that is 1:85 etc using Non-linear stretch feature too. But, keep that one to yourself. 99.9% OAR (but Love the scope images)
Kelvin1965S likes this.

"Retired" AVS Moderator
Feeler: I'm thinking of selling my JTR Triple 8HT's Let me know if you are interested?
For Sale: ACS PlanarTrap (freestanding acoustic panel) ($300/pair)[/B]:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/209-au...tic-panel.html
rboster is offline  
post #106 of 126 Old 01-27-2015, 11:48 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,686
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 300 Post(s)
Liked: 499
I use the zoom method on my RS4810 and have been very happy with it. My projector is calibrated so that both scope and 16:9 content is calibrated to the same light output/ftL. I see perhaps just a hint better contrast with the smaller 16:9 image (as the iris is at -8 here vs -3 on scope) but it's negligible really. My screen is 2:35:1 at 108" wide.

I guess I come from the school of thought you don't want to lose your 1:1 pixel mapping by scaling which is what happens using an anamorphic lens - yet some people say it's sharper as this is what I find interesting. If anything, I would think zooming would give a tad more sharper image especially when factoring in another piece of glass with the anamorphic lense. I should note I have zero experience with an anamophic lense, but that is why I am asking.
Kelvin1965S likes this.


Last edited by DavidHir; 01-27-2015 at 11:52 AM.
DavidHir is online now  
post #107 of 126 Old 01-27-2015, 12:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kelvin1965S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 3,288
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by rboster View Post
As I did, I would suggest trying zooming for a while and compare in your own set up. I found the un-zoomed image (w/lens) to be brighter and sharper image. It was noticeable in my set up.

Also, the added benefit was watching movies that have multiple aspect ratios (like Dark Knight etc) in scope (Constant Height) without worrying about aspect ratio changes. Though I hate to admit it....but I will on occasion watch an animated title that is 1:85 etc using Non-linear stretch feature too. But, keep that one to yourself. 99.9% OAR (but Love the scope images)
Yes, I will try it for a while. No big rush to sell the lens as I've had a lot of interest already, I'm sure someone will want it even if I wait a month or two before advertising it.

As I said previously, in my set up zooming and lens gives the same brightness. I adjust the aperture to maintain my target 100 lux for all combinations/aspect ratios. Zoomed 2.35:1 uses the same aperture setting as when I use the lens for the same 100 Lux reading.

I have a Lumagen, so I can set my 2.35:1 memory to have a crop to ensure that any multiple aspect nonsense is kept on the screen at 2.35:1. However, I'm not a big Batman fan so it's not really a concern, but I'll set the crop/masking anyway.

I don't use the NL stretch function, though I have occasionally watched 16:9 content after a film (when I've set my Isco up on it's stand) and I have used vertical stretch so it fills the screen and just crops the image. It's not usually too bad on concert discs, though once I did accidently watch a whole 1.85:1 film with it set to 2.35:1. I didn't notice until afterwards when I checked something back on my TV.

Zooming: Been there, done that, bought the lens...
Kelvin1965S is offline  
post #108 of 126 Old 01-27-2015, 05:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,576
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Liked: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post
I use the zoom method on my RS4810 and have been very happy with it. My projector is calibrated so that both scope and 16:9 content is calibrated to the same light output/ftL. I see perhaps just a hint better contrast with the smaller 16:9 image (as the iris is at -8 here vs -3 on scope) but it's negligible really. My screen is 2:35:1 at 108" wide.

I guess I come from the school of thought you don't want to lose your 1:1 pixel mapping by scaling which is what happens using an anamorphic lens - yet some people say it's sharper as this is what I find interesting. If anything, I would think zooming would give a tad more sharper image especially when factoring in another piece of glass with the anamorphic lense. I should note I have zero experience with an anamophic lense, but that is why I am asking.
Pixel to pixel is usually the best way to view things but how the image looks in comparison can depend on your eyesight and how close you sit.

When you zoom the image, it's like moving your seating closer by 33%, and that will make the image coarser because you're using less pixels to fill the screen area.

If you use a lens, you're using half a million more pixels to make up the image, and the smaller pixels allow smoother transitions between themselves when rendering things like diagonal lines and curves. It's not so obvious unless you do the comparison and sit close enough for it to be noticeable. It will play havoc with test patterns of course, but the image doesn't look any less detailed if scaled well, and most projectors have decent scalers these days (though external ones can improve things).

Best way is not to do the comparison. Both Kelvin and myself bought a lens (at different times) with the intention of selling them on if we didn't think they were worth the cost (I could actually return mine for a full refund within 14 days), but we kept them.

Like Kelvin, I too thought that with 4k pixels zoomed for scope being smaller than 1080 pixels with a lens, it would be a good time to sell my lens as well. However, being a mercenary git, I'm letting Kelvin find out for me by waiting until he's done the back to back testing and then try to gazump him with a hastily placed ad in the classifieds

Gary.
Kelvin1965S likes this.

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 #109 of 126 Old 01-28-2015, 09:00 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kelvin1965S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 3,288
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 53
I didn't realise I was your Guinea pig Gary.

Actually I've had quite a bit of interest already about my lens, so I don't think either of us would have problems selling them on if that's how it works out.

Not sure how busy you are at the moment Gary, but I'll PM you about coming over while I still have the X35/Isco/X500 together if you're interested.
Gary Lightfoot likes this.

Zooming: Been there, done that, bought the lens...
Kelvin1965S is offline  
post #110 of 126 Old 01-28-2015, 05:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RLBURNSIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,126
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 233 Post(s)
Liked: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post
I use the zoom method on my RS4810 and have been very happy with it. My projector is calibrated so that both scope and 16:9 content is calibrated to the same light output/ftL. I see perhaps just a hint better contrast with the smaller 16:9 image (as the iris is at -8 here vs -3 on scope) but it's negligible really. My screen is 2:35:1 at 108" wide.

I guess I come from the school of thought you don't want to lose your 1:1 pixel mapping by scaling which is what happens using an anamorphic lens - yet some people say it's sharper as this is what I find interesting. If anything, I would think zooming would give a tad more sharper image especially when factoring in another piece of glass with the anamorphic lense. I should note I have zero experience with an anamophic lense, but that is why I am asking.
I saw an immediate sharpness improvement when I held the VC lens I bought in front of my cheap BenQ projector. I think 33% greater vertical resolution and 15% or so brighter image is a pretty big deal (especially in 3d).

You've lost your 1:1 pixel scaling the second you decided to use a projector in the first place. Trust me, pixel mapping purists use razor-sharp LCDs and never projectors, despite projectors giving a far better experience. The only way 1:1 matters is if you're getting CA with your lens, have a poor focus, and if you're seeing the pixel structure you're sitting too close. /IMHO
RLBURNSIDE is online now  
post #111 of 126 Old 01-29-2015, 02:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,359
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked: 78
Quick point:

The idea of 1:1 pixel mapping is *kind of* a myth. Most modern Scope films come to Blu-ray from DCP masters, which have a resolution of 2048 x 858. This is reduced to 1920 x 810 (approx.) for Blu-ray. There is no clean math to get you from one resolution to the other, so you lost 1:1 pixel mapping the moment the Blu-ray was mastered.

Here's another way it gets lost: as CamMan pointed out in another post, footage acquired at 4K resolution is used so that zooms can be done in post without noticeable degradation. It's true that the 4K medium is mostly utilized so that filmmakers can re-compose their shots in post by re-cropping the 4K image. I'm doing it myself with my feature film - changing composition of shots as I edit them, knowing I have resolution to spare. This even happens in the 2K world, where filmmakers will alter the composition of images during editing or mastering.

So again, the "ideal" of 1:1 pixel mapping gets thrown right out the window.
Gary Lightfoot and RLBURNSIDE like this.

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 online now  
post #112 of 126 Old 01-29-2015, 03:55 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,686
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 300 Post(s)
Liked: 499
John,

I wasn't referring to the mastering process. I was referring to the Blu-ray player to the display where there is a pixel mapping; I don't see how scaling would be just as effective as not scaling *in and of itself* at home. The mastering process and the signal from the player to the display are two different matters.

I can see someone's argument that the lens gives an added benefit in some areas (as Gary pointed out) which overcome any negative of scaling, but then again it offers negatives too which Rich touched upon. It seems to come down to preference from what I can tell as I see so many mixed opinions of anamorphic lenses and issues (chromatic aberrations, pin-cushioning, etc). Perhaps it depends on the projector too where some benefit more than others.

I have an Oppo 103D which is said to do a very good job of scaling, and I can tell you the image is not quite as detailed as not scaling based on some A/B tests I've done with discs by sheer viewing.


Last edited by DavidHir; 01-29-2015 at 04:03 PM.
DavidHir is online now  
post #113 of 126 Old 01-29-2015, 07:18 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,693
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 201
The bigger issue is that of scaling being a "negative". All the "evidence" I've seen to supposedly prove that scaling is bad, is based on the flawed test of using artificially generated test patterns. They're always based on showing artifacts on patterns with alternating white/black pixels. Well scaling algorithms don't, and can't work on that type of content, but that's OK, because that type of content does not exist and is impossible out side of those very same test patterns (and computer desktop type stuff).

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post
I have an Oppo 103D which is said to do a very good job of scaling, and I can tell you the image is not quite as detailed as not scaling based on some A/B tests I've done with discs by sheer viewing.
Did you test that with the same screen size? Because the larger image (all else equal) the less sharp it will look, simply due to all the fine detail being larger.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is online now  
post #114 of 126 Old 01-30-2015, 04:00 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,576
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Liked: 61
when 720 and 1080 projectors came out, I don't think anyone kept SD material like DVD pixel to pixel in a window with black borders all round, and/or zoomed the image larger to fill the screen. Everyone scaled the image to use the full res of the pj and filled the screen that way.

Until I saw how good a lens with scaling looked compared to zooming (the downsides are far more noticeable with DVD on a 720 display which is where I first started using a lens), I also swore by pixel to pixel mapping. Since then I think scaling adds more than it takes away. You just have to see what the new 4k projectors from Sony can do with 1080 for example.

When

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 #115 of 126 Old 01-30-2015, 07:07 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,686
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 300 Post(s)
Liked: 499
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
Did you test that with the same screen size? Because the larger image (all else equal) the less sharp it will look, simply due to all the fine detail being larger.
Same size, yes.

DavidHir is online now  
post #116 of 126 Old 01-30-2015, 07:13 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,686
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 300 Post(s)
Liked: 499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post
when 720 and 1080 projectors came out, I don't think anyone kept SD material like DVD pixel to pixel in a window with black borders all round, and/or zoomed the image larger to fill the screen. Everyone scaled the image to use the full res of the pj and filled the screen that way.

Until I saw how good a lens with scaling looked compared to zooming (the downsides are far more noticeable with DVD on a 720 display which is where I first started using a lens), I also swore by pixel to pixel mapping. Since then I think scaling adds more than it takes away. You just have to see what the new 4k projectors from Sony can do with 1080 for example.

When
Yes, I can really imagine the downside with DVD and 720p.

With the new Sony 4K projectors though, I have to wonder if that has more to do with the projector itself vs any scaling or resolution in that regards. It's got a very, very good lens from what I hear.

When I upgrade to a 4K projector in a year (or more likely two), I will be doing plenty of scaling as many movies I watch will still only be on Blu-ray.

DavidHir is online now  
post #117 of 126 Old 01-30-2015, 07:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,576
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Liked: 61
I think most of us will be scaling BD - there aren't many true 4K movies in the back catalogue, so we'll be relying mostly on new movies in the most part (though many of those are still only 2K). from what I've read, scanning film at 4k doesn't seem to gain you very much (I think grain can be an issue if I understand it correctly) and if 4k BD is to take off, they may need to do that if they want to truthfully give us something that is genuinely 4k, though I think digitally captured (at 4k or above) movies are going to be the best source material.

But having seen 1080 BD scaled on the new 4k Sony 300, I'll be more than happy with that.

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 #118 of 126 Old 01-30-2015, 08:37 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,693
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post
Same size, yes.
Same brightness too?

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is online now  
post #119 of 126 Old 01-30-2015, 09:34 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,686
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 300 Post(s)
Liked: 499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post
I think most of us will be scaling BD - there aren't many true 4K movies in the back catalogue, so we'll be relying mostly on new movies in the most part (though many of those are still only 2K). from what I've read, scanning film at 4k doesn't seem to gain you very much (I think grain can be an issue if I understand it correctly) and if 4k BD is to take off, they may need to do that if they want to truthfully give us something that is genuinely 4k, though I think digitally captured (at 4k or above) movies are going to be the best source material.

But having seen 1080 BD scaled on the new 4k Sony 300, I'll be more than happy with that.

Gary
I'm sure I will be too depending on which projector I end up getting which will probably be LCoS based and maybe JVC again, but we'll see what is available and spec'd within the price ranges.


Last edited by DavidHir; 01-30-2015 at 09:42 AM.
DavidHir is online now  
post #120 of 126 Old 01-30-2015, 09:35 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,686
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 300 Post(s)
Liked: 499
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
Same brightness too?
Yep, everything the same.

DavidHir is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat

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