Is anamorphic lens needed with new 4k JVC - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 65 Old 11-18-2013, 06:36 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
joeycalda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,121
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Try to figure out what happens when a 2.35 movie is viewed through the newer JVC' s that up covert to 4k.

I know my single chip DLP loses a bunch of resolution ( top and bottom) hence the anamorphic lens and compatible projector.


But since the JVC upscales the image to 4k, wouldn't the usable pixels in 2.35 mode be even higher than 1080p?


Thanks Joey
joeycalda is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 65 Old 11-19-2013, 09:33 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,291
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 112
I guess it depends on what you mean.

You don't "lose" any resolution playing scope Blu-rays on 16:9 projectors since Blu-ray is not anamorphic, a scope movie is about 1920x810 pixels, the bars are hard coded, "burned in" to the movie.

What you "lose" with zooming/overscanning is about 1/3 of your light, and pixel density.

New JVCs would deal with the later (pixel density), but not the former.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is online now  
post #3 of 65 Old 12-08-2013, 04:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Citivas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,136
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

I guess it depends on what you mean.

You don't "lose" any resolution playing scope Blu-rays on 16:9 projectors since Blu-ray is not anamorphic, a scope movie is about 1920x810 pixels, the bars are hard coded, "burned in" to the movie.

What you "lose" with zooming/overscanning is about 1/3 of your light, and pixel density.

New JVCs would deal with the later (pixel density), but not the former.

I have read several real-world tests of the light loss using the 2013 JVC projectors from a focal distance alternately using zoom or an anamorphic lenses and both had the actual light loss from zooming in the single digits, nowhere near one-third. One of the articles said that the higher light loss claim comes anamorphic lens companies achieving the constant height without the lenses comparison by physically repositioning the entire projector further back at the same focus lenses position until they fill the scope screen, so that much of the light is lost due to the throw distance, whereas the actual loss from zooming from the same fixed position is much less.

Not an expert, but that's what I've read. Are there any contradictory real world tests that validate a 33% light loss using the zoom feature rather than putting the projector further back?

Thanks.
Citivas is offline  
post #4 of 65 Old 12-08-2013, 08:06 PM
Member
 
russelliht's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 55
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Hi Joey,

You bring up a very good question. Anamorphic lenses allow you to use all the pixels in your projector. That's a 1080 chip inside your JVC projector. When you turn on the Mode A feature, the JVC projector lights up all of those 1080 vertical pixels instead of wasting about 500,000 of them on the black bars. The JVC does a spectacular job in using it's E-shift technology to enhance the image but you will still gain more vertical pixels in the chip using an anamorphic lens with Mode A engaged compared to the zoom using the E-Shift technology. Stranger89 is right on with the 1920x810 resolution too. biggrin.gif

Are you using the JVC projector now? I would encourage you to see if you can demo the JVC with a lens and compare yourself if you are able to.

The memory zoom is a very good solution when viewing UltraWide movies but an anamorphic lens will allow for use of your full 1080 chip and higher brightness compared to the zoom method.

Also, don't hesitate to call our technical support department for questions regarding UltraWide. We are here to help in and can assist you with any projection question; zooming, lenses, etc.

Thanks!

www.panamorph.com

Ultra-Wide Home Cinema
russelliht is offline  
post #5 of 65 Old 12-09-2013, 04:12 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,291
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Citivas View Post

Not an expert, but that's what I've read. Are there any contradictory real world tests that validate a 33% light loss using the zoom feature rather than putting the projector further back?

You're not going to see the full 33% when you compare zooming to a lens since very few projectors have a constant aperture lens (in other words they get brighter as you zoom).

Of course it all gets complicated fast, for example the JVCs gain quite a bit of light as you zoom, but their contrast drops off at the same time.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is online now  
post #6 of 65 Old 12-09-2013, 02:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Brian B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,290
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
I'm currently zooming with an older JVC and I see next to no difference from 1.78 to 2.35.

B.
Brian B is offline  
post #7 of 65 Old 12-09-2013, 08:39 PM
Member
 
russelliht's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 55
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Hey Brian - What size screen are you using and what's your seating distance?

From experience and from the calls/emails we receive, most people don't like having to wait for the zoom and don't like the black bars projecting onto their wall. Also, they don't like the fact they can't fill entire screen at all times with the zoom. That is something you can only do with a lens. Not saying this is the way we recommend watching all content but it gives those an option who want the full real estate of their screen for Game of Thrones, video games, etc. smile.gif

www.panamorph.com

Ultra-Wide Home Cinema
russelliht is offline  
post #8 of 65 Old 12-12-2013, 06:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Brian B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,290
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by russelliht View Post

Hey Brian - What size screen are you using and what's your seating distance?

From experience and from the calls/emails we receive, most people don't like having to wait for the zoom and don't like the black bars projecting onto their wall. Also, they don't like the fact they can't fill entire screen at all times with the zoom. That is something you can only do with a lens. Not saying this is the way we recommend watching all content but it gives those an option who want the full real estate of their screen for Game of Thrones, video games, etc. smile.gif

123" wide (2.35). Seating distance is about 16'.

"most people don't like having to wait for the zoom" - I guess that's their prerogative. I'd rather save the $3k+ and wait 15 seconds for the projector to zoom--the same amount of time it takes to raise the masking bars on the side of my screen.

"don't like the black bars projecting onto their wall" - If this is a dedicated theater then I assume a dark/felt front wall and this isn't a problem. As for my room, I don't have a white wall, it is moderately dark (though I wouldn't consider it dark) and I don't notice the bars below the screen when watching a flick.

"they don't like the fact they can't fill entire screen at all times with the zoom" - It sounds like you are advocated an incorrect aspect ratio or losing part of the image? What do they do with 1.33 films? Stretching and manipulating the image in a way that alters the aspect ratio or removes part of the image is not something I would want for myself. Besides, if they are that unconcerned, why not just sell them a larger 1.78:1 screen--it would make more sense for them.

Or two screens...

That's my feeling on it.

B.
Brian B is offline  
post #9 of 65 Old 12-13-2013, 09:56 AM
Member
 
russelliht's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 55
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian B View Post

123" wide (2.35). Seating distance is about 16'.

"most people don't like having to wait for the zoom" - I guess that's their prerogative. I'd rather save the $3k+ and wait 15 seconds for the projector to zoom--the same amount of time it takes to raise the masking bars on the side of my screen.

"don't like the black bars projecting onto their wall" - If this is a dedicated theater then I assume a dark/felt front wall and this isn't a problem. As for my room, I don't have a white wall, it is moderately dark (though I wouldn't consider it dark) and I don't notice the bars below the screen when watching a flick.

"they don't like the fact they can't fill entire screen at all times with the zoom" - It sounds like you are advocated an incorrect aspect ratio or losing part of the image? What do they do with 1.33 films? Stretching and manipulating the image in a way that alters the aspect ratio or removes part of the image is not something I would want for myself. Besides, if they are that unconcerned, why not just sell them a larger 1.78:1 screen--it would make more sense for them.

Or two screens...

That's my feeling on it.

B.

Thanks for the information on your set up, that's about the same screen size I use in my theater.
Quote:
I guess that's their prerogative. I'd rather save the $3k+ and wait 15 seconds for the projector to zoom--the same amount of time it takes to raise the masking bars on the side of my screen."

I don't think people are spending the extra $3k+ on saving 15 seconds, I would think they see the value in the extra brightness and using the full 1080 chip inside their projector when using a lens. That 15 seconds does bother some people and is definitely a contributing factor to their decision making. Using a lens only takes about 1 second so you aren't taken out of the movie watching experience.
Quote:
If this is a dedicated theater then I assume a dark/felt front wall and this isn't a problem. As for my room, I don't have a white wall, it is moderately dark (though I wouldn't consider it dark) and I don't notice the bars below the screen when watching a flick.

Having the darker colors is going to help with all theaters whether you are zooming or not. This will help your perceived contrast and make the image pop a bit more without all that light scatter which can affect your contrast in a negative way whether you are zooming or using a lens. Unfortunately not everyone has a perfect environment and we see all kinds of theaters from living rooms, open spaces to the dedicated bat cave. Not calling you out at all here Brian, we are trying to give information to those who are interested in UltraWide. Some people might be considering zoom and can't paint their walls. It is great information for them to know that the light from the projector is now on the walls above and below their screen area. With a lens it won't be.
Quote:
It sounds like you are advocated an incorrect aspect ratio or losing part of the image? What do they do with 1.33 films? Stretching and manipulating the image in a way that alters the aspect ratio or removes part of the image is not something I would want for myself. Besides, if they are that unconcerned, why not just sell them a larger 1.78:1 screen--it would make more sense for them.

We are not advocating incorrect aspect ratios at all. The whole reason Panamorph exists is because we want to preserve the film the way the director intended. 2.35:1 movies are supposed to be one of the largest formats available but because we live in a 16:9 world they have to shrink it down to maintain the original aspect ratio -- it was even worse when content was letterbox formatted for 4:3. That said, most people watch movies they way the want, some of those people like the biggest possible image all the time. I prefer to watch movies and TV content in the correct format as well -- but you and I don't speak for everyone. 1.33:1 would be stretched out to 16x9 if they choose to do so just like people do with their flat panel TVs. If they bought a larger 1.78:1 screen then they still wouldn't be using all those pixels they paid for and 2.35:1 content would still be the smallest format on their screen -- the opposite of what it is supposed to be.

Compromises are going to have to be made somewhere in every home theater situation and it's just a question where the individual wants to draw the line. We aren't trying to say you are wrong by using the zoom method if you feel that is the best option for your theater. Naturally we feel that using an anamorphic lens is the best option but if zoom helps get the word out about UltraWide then it helps everyone. We do want to keep the record straight and give as much accurate information as possible in hopes that it will help others make the best decision for their movie watching experience.

www.panamorph.com

Ultra-Wide Home Cinema
russelliht is offline  
post #10 of 65 Old 12-13-2013, 11:24 AM
Advanced Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 861
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 50
I don't have a model with Eshift, but I did just switch from an Infocus X10 with a manually operated 2 prism CAVX lens to a JVC RS46 using lens memory. I am using a 130" 1.0 gain scope screen and we are seated about 12' back. In the scope setting I am using the RS46 in low lamp mode with the iris at -10. The 16:9 setting is running -14. The lens memory in our case is more convenient than the manual lens. The light drop when using the scope setting is much less than what I feared it would be as well. Granted this is a new bulb, but with the iris stopped down as much as it is I feel pretty confident that bulb aging can be compensated for by opening the iris up as needed. Our walls are dark red in a matte finish. The ceiling is a very dark blue also in a matte finish. I do not see the letterbox bars at all.

Using a lens would allow for more light output although I did still lose a little with the lens. Whether it is worth cost is up to you. In our case the lens memory performs excellent and is easier to use. I don't feel that I have lost any image quality using this method over the previous lens setup. A scope setup is amazing. I would never steer anyone away from one. A lens vs. lens memory is a tougher call and comes down to budget really. Like Brian above I can't see an real downsides to a well implemented lens memory setup and if the projector has this capability I would recommend using the funds that you would spend on a lens elsewhere. If your projector lacks this or you have the funds to play with, then it's certainly worth it.

jeahrens is offline  
post #11 of 65 Old 12-13-2013, 05:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Brian B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,290
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by russelliht View Post

Thanks for the information on your set up, that's about the same screen size I use in my theater.
I don't think people are spending the extra $3k+ on saving 15 seconds, I would think they see the value in the extra brightness and using the full 1080 chip inside their projector when using a lens. That 15 seconds does bother some people and is definitely a contributing factor to their decision making. Using a lens only takes about 1 second so you aren't taken out of the movie watching experience.
Having the darker colors is going to help with all theaters whether you are zooming or not. This will help your perceived contrast and make the image pop a bit more without all that light scatter which can affect your contrast in a negative way whether you are zooming or using a lens. Unfortunately not everyone has a perfect environment and we see all kinds of theaters from living rooms, open spaces to the dedicated bat cave. Not calling you out at all here Brian, we are trying to give information to those who are interested in UltraWide. Some people might be considering zoom and can't paint their walls. It is great information for them to know that the light from the projector is now on the walls above and below their screen area. With a lens it won't be.
We are not advocating incorrect aspect ratios at all. The whole reason Panamorph exists is because we want to preserve the film the way the director intended. 2.35:1 movies are supposed to be one of the largest formats available but because we live in a 16:9 world they have to shrink it down to maintain the original aspect ratio -- it was even worse when content was letterbox formatted for 4:3. That said, most people watch movies they way the want, some of those people like the biggest possible image all the time. I prefer to watch movies and TV content in the correct format as well -- but you and I don't speak for everyone. 1.33:1 would be stretched out to 16x9 if they choose to do so just like people do with their flat panel TVs. If they bought a larger 1.78:1 screen then they still wouldn't be using all those pixels they paid for and 2.35:1 content would still be the smallest format on their screen -- the opposite of what it is supposed to be.

Compromises are going to have to be made somewhere in every home theater situation and it's just a question where the individual wants to draw the line. We aren't trying to say you are wrong by using the zoom method if you feel that is the best option for your theater. Naturally we feel that using an anamorphic lens is the best option but if zoom helps get the word out about UltraWide then it helps everyone. We do want to keep the record straight and give as much accurate information as possible in hopes that it will help others make the best decision for their movie watching experience.

I'm all for dissemination of factual information to help people make their decision. People who read on this forum are a different group then most of those being served by custom installers and integrators who will recommend going with a lens for a variety of reasons.

I was giving my personal opinion above related to the question of whether there was a significant drop (always quoted as 33%) in light output when zooming w/ a JVC projector. As it applied to my personal setup loss of light was not really a factor.

Each method has pros and cons. You seem to be pointing out most of the pros and none of the cons of the anamorphic setup. This has been mentioned back and forth lots, so there is no need to mention it again.

Anyway, I got my point across about the loss of light (due to zooming) is not necessarily a good reason to focus on an anamorphic setup [as it might not be an issue in a particular setup].

B.
Brian B is offline  
post #12 of 65 Old 12-13-2013, 07:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Deane Johnson's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Omaha, NE USA
Posts: 1,172
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
I recently watched an interesting demonstration at my local dealer's showroom theater. He had a $12,000 Wolf Cinema D-ILA set up beside a $12,000 JVC D-ILA. He had it arranged so he could switch the source material back and forth between the two projectors. For those who don't know, the Wolf Cinema is a souped up JVC. The Wolf Cinema blew the JVC away in every respect as it should have.

He then set them up so that the Wolf Cinema filled the 125" 2.35:1 Stewart screen by zooming. The JVC was set up with a $10,000 Panamorph lens to fill the same screen. Once again, the source material was switched between the two projectors. Once again, the Wolf Cinema projector out performed the JVC with the Panamorph. lens. The dealer then pointed out that we were comparing $12,000 worth of equipment with $22,000 worth of equipment. The $12,000 won hands down. It wasn't even close

I'm not putting down the Panamorph, I'm only relating what I saw with my own eyes in very controlled conditions. The dealer should have been unbiased. He stocked and sold all of the equipment used in the comparison.

I bought the Wolf Cinema projector on the spot and I'm now using it with a 115" screen, the largest I could accommodate.. The memory zoom seems to work very accurately.
Deane Johnson is offline  
post #13 of 65 Old 12-18-2013, 02:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,436
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian B View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by russelliht View Post

Hey Brian - What size screen are you using and what's your seating distance?

123" wide (2.35). Seating distance is about 16'.

That's quite a long way back - effectively the back row in a THX certified theater (36 degrees horizontal viewing angle, or 3.68 x image height). If you tend to sit closer, like around 2.4 to 2 x image height, then you're more likely to notice the pixels getting larger. You would also notice the difference between zooming and when using an A lens. The extra 500,000 pixels you're now using make quite a difference. With a DLP display, as you approach the 2 x IH distance, pixels do start to become visible. For those people, a lens is necessary. With DiLA, probably less so, but closer seating distances mean it's easier to see things.

Seating distance is often one of the more important and overlooked details of a home theater set up.

Gary

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

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #14 of 65 Old 12-18-2013, 08:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Brian B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,290
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post

That's quite a long way back - effectively the back row in a THX certified theater (36 degrees horizontal viewing angle, or 3.68 x image height). If you tend to sit closer, like around 2.4 to 2 x image height, then you're more likely to notice the pixels getting larger. You would also notice the difference between zooming and when using an A lens. The extra 500,000 pixels you're now using make quite a difference. With a DLP display, as you approach the 2 x IH distance, pixels do start to become visible. For those people, a lens is necessary. With DiLA, probably less so, but closer seating distances mean it's easier to see things.

Seating distance is often one of the more important and overlooked details of a home theater set up.

Gary

I get motion sick--can't sit that close and room layout wouldn't allow anyway. Good thing if what you say is true, I can save the money and zoom! smile.gif Also, upgrading to a 4k model so less noticeable pixels anyhow.

Every setup is different, so lots of things to consider. What are the same ratios taking into account 4k?

B.
Brian B is offline  
post #15 of 65 Old 12-19-2013, 03:43 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,436
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Hi Brian,

You're the second person I know now that gets motion sickness when sat up close to a screen - sorry to hear that, but as you say, has saved you some dough smile.gif

4K -IIRC, judging by the data for average visual acuity, and where people start to see pixels with 1080, I think you need to be sat a bit closer than 2.4 x the screen height before 4K is a benefit for just pixel and 2K source resolution visibility (especially with DLP. DiLA will be different but the source itself can present a limitation). 2 x screen height is where SMPTE suggest is the closest seating distance and where people here with anamorphic lenses start to notice pixels. Those people would definitely benefit from it.

Image manipulation such as Sony's Reality Creation and the Derby Darblet (sp?) can manipulate the image and produce what people feel is a better picture, and 4K with scaling may also have a benefit, so until true 4K source material comes along, there may still be a benefit from a 4K display. When 720 and 1080 first arrived, most of us were scaling up standard def material like DVD and no one was complaining about the lack of pixel to pixel replication, so unless you're anal about 1:1 pixel mapping, I think most people will be happy with scaling.

I think that regardless of the resolution, some people will always want to use all the pixels their projector has to offer. Using 1080 for scope without a lens wastes around half a million pixels, and 4k will waste around 2 million pixels - a complete Blu Rays worth, but whether or not we could see the difference with 4K I couldn't say - in theory probably not, but without trying it I wouldn't say either way, Theory and practice can often have different results.

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 #16 of 65 Old 12-20-2013, 09:39 AM
Advanced Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 861
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 50
We sit about 12ft from our 130" scope screen. Neither I nor the wife can see any pixel structure. I have to be about 6' away before I can start to make them out. While technically you can say you are not using or "wasting" pixels you loose no information zooming a Blu Ray as opposed to using a lens. Yes filling the panel will provide more light output, but like Brian I don't see a huge drop zooming. Certainly less than I thought I would. A good lens with a good scaler can produce an image that appears sharper. Again whether the cost justifies that improvement is up to the individual.

jeahrens is offline  
post #17 of 65 Old 12-20-2013, 09:48 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,436
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post

you loose no information zooming a Blu Ray as opposed to using a lens.

You don't lose any information when using a lens either. You just add a little interpolation and keep the pixels 33% smaller in both axis.

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 #18 of 65 Old 12-20-2013, 10:06 AM
Advanced Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 861
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post

You don't lose any information when using a lens either. You just add a little interpolation and keep the pixels 33% smaller in both axis.

Gary

Yup. Sorry the phrasing on that could have been better. I didn't mean to imply the lens was throwing anything away. I should have said zooming is not losing any information and using a lens is not using more. Both are using the same area of the picture. With a lens setup the scaler is creating information to fill the panel, but as long as it is good, the image won't suffer for it. Even my former DLP projector which was mid-low range did a fine job scaling the panel to use with the lens. Your post about wasting pixels could have been taken that somehow zooming loses information, which is what I was trying to clarify (I don't think that was your intent).

jeahrens is offline  
post #19 of 65 Old 12-20-2013, 10:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,436
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post

You don't lose any information when using a lens either. You just add a little interpolation and keep the pixels 33% smaller in both axis.

Gary

Yup. Sorry the phrasing on that could have been better. I didn't mean to imply the lens was throwing anything away. I should have said zooming is not losing any information and using a lens is not using more. Both are using the same area of the picture. With a lens setup the scaler is creating information to fill the panel, but as long as it is good, the image won't suffer for it. Even my former DLP projector which was mid-low range did a fine job scaling the panel to use with the lens. Your post about wasting pixels could have been taken that somehow zooming loses information, which is what I was trying to clarify (I don't think that was your intent).

No problem, I think we're all guilty of that at times, and you're right, that was not my intention. I should have clarified it was the pixels that make up the black bars that are not being used. The image info is always there regardless of what method is used.

I think what can happen is that we know what we mean when we're writing, but what we write can sometimes be misunderstood because we assume the people reading it know what we mean too, without realizing that the info can be misconstrued. I think another problem is that when you write the same stuff year in year out, it's easy to forget to clarify certain things to ensure it's not misunderstood because it's second nature.

The joys of internet posting. 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 offline  
post #20 of 65 Old 12-21-2013, 03:27 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
My problem is that I don't even know what I'm writing sometimes. biggrin.gif It seems perfectly clear in my head, but comes out quite differently when I read it back later. Sometimes you can't beat just talking face to face as the subtleties of speech and facial expressions get lost on the web sometimes.

Having seen the Sony VW500ES and VW1000ES a few times lately, I suspect that even I might concede to not using a lens when the time comes that I can buy one of the above (or their future versons). In the meantime though I'll carry on with the Isco.

PS. Chance to wish you a Happy Christmas Gary. smile.gif

Zooming: Been there, done that, bought the lens...
Kelvin1965S is offline  
post #21 of 65 Old 12-21-2013, 03:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,436
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 35
I don't know what you're talking about biggrin.gif

Ricky said something about getting us along to his place when a customer was going over for a demo, but I can't remember who or when it was meant to be. However, if it does happen, it'll be good to catch up - it's been a while since the last time.

Merry Christmas to you too kelvin smile.gif

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 #22 of 65 Old 12-21-2013, 06:45 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
Yes, I emailed Ricky yesterday to remind him about some ReAct screen and other screen samples he was going to send. I also want to come across after Christmas to see the ReAct in person so that would be a chance to meet up. I'm thinking of going for a slightly wider 2.40:1 aspect as I'm currently cropping about 3" each side due to my overly long throw being too big for my present screen. Now I've got rid of my PMC speakers and put MK MP150 under my screen I've got space for extra width. cool.gif

If we don't get chance to meet at Ricky's place, then you'll have to come over and see my set up, especially once I finish building my pair of sealed 15" subs. smile.gif

Not sure what the above has to do with 4K JVCs though (it seemed to make sense in my head though wink.gif ).
Gary Lightfoot likes this.

Zooming: Been there, done that, bought the lens...
Kelvin1965S is offline  
post #23 of 65 Old 12-21-2013, 06:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,436
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Sounds like a plan - and we can discuss 4K stuff while we're at it (see, back on topic) smile.gif

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 #24 of 65 Old 01-22-2014, 12:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,249
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deane Johnson View Post

I recently watched an interesting demonstration at my local dealer's showroom theater. He had a $12,000 Wolf Cinema D-ILA set up beside a $12,000 JVC D-ILA. He had it arranged so he could switch the source material back and forth between the two projectors. For those who don't know, the Wolf Cinema is a souped up JVC. The Wolf Cinema blew the JVC away in every respect as it should have.

He then set them up so that the Wolf Cinema filled the 125" 2.35:1 Stewart screen by zooming. The JVC was set up with a $10,000 Panamorph lens to fill the same screen. Once again, the source material was switched between the two projectors. Once again, the Wolf Cinema projector out performed the JVC with the Panamorph. lens. The dealer then pointed out that we were comparing $12,000 worth of equipment with $22,000 worth of equipment. The $12,000 won hands down. It wasn't even close

I'm not putting down the Panamorph, I'm only relating what I saw with my own eyes in very controlled conditions. The dealer should have been unbiased. He stocked and sold all of the equipment used in the comparison.

I bought the Wolf Cinema projector on the spot and I'm now using it with a 115" screen, the largest I could accommodate.. The memory zoom seems to work very accurately.

I would be extremely interested in seeing this demo. There are so many factors that could have influenced the differences you saw that are not addressed:

How many hours on the bulb of the Wolf projector vs. the JVC?

Where was the iris set on the JVC vs. the Wolf?

Were both projectors calibrated and using identical picture settings (contrast, brightness, color, gamma, etc)?

Were both projectors set to the exact same bulb settings (high vs. low)?

How exactly did the Wolf outperform the JVC?

Please know that I am not doubting what you saw, I am doubting the dealer. A simple matter of the bulb on the JVC having 600 hours vs 200 hours on the Wolf could have explained everything you saw. Or the JVC iris being closed down vs. the Wolf, or a different contrast setting - you name it.

Reason why the dealer would push the Wolf over the JVC? There is much more competition on the JVC, since it is sold everywhere (including the internet) while Wolf is a protected line (no price competition). Or the dealer could have been sincere, and never thought to check all of the parameters I mentioned.

Yes, I work sometimes as a consultant for Panamorph, but notice I am not making any claims about the Panamorph lens, just questioning the validity of the comparison. Besides, if the Wolf is that much better than the JVC, the ultimate solution would be to pair the Panamorph with it smile.gif
John Schuermann is offline  
post #25 of 65 Old 01-22-2014, 01:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Deane Johnson's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Omaha, NE USA
Posts: 1,172
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
John, all I can tell you is that the dealer has years of experience, is a real home theater fan, loves getting good results for people, and is known for being very straight with people. I can promise you there are no ulterior motives in the demo and recommendations.

The dealer has a JVC in his home and is getting ready to change it to a Wolf.

Both units were pretty new. Since I took the Wolf home with me, I can tell you it had 79 hours on the bulb.

The Wolf was (and is) running at factory default except for doing a pluge pattern adjustment of the brightness and contrast. The Wold is individually hand calibrated at the factory and requires no other adjustments.

I don't know what an anamorphic lens would look like on the Wolf. Might be stunning. Since such a lens is not in my budget, I had little interest in knowing.

In answer to your last question, my perception is that the fine detail was noticeably better on the Wolf. Skin tones were perfect. It wasn't even a close call.

I'm not posting to knock anamorphic lenses, or JVC. After all, the Wolf is a JVC that's been modified and hand calibrated. I'm only relating what I saw in a lengthy demo in a controlled environment. If I hadn't bought the Wolf, I would have bought a JVC.
Deane Johnson is offline  
post #26 of 65 Old 01-22-2014, 02:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,249
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 53
Understood. It was probably a poor word choice in stating "I am doubting the dealer," as I did not want to insinuate that the dealer had deliberately rigged the demo, or that they were incompetent. I should have said "I am doubting the projector setup."

I just have been involved in so many projector shootouts and comparisons (and blind audio tests) that I am acutely aware how even slight differences in brightness or contrast (or volume or eq, when comparing audio products) can wildly affect comparisons. Without knowing that all possible differences had been accounted for, I would have a hard time accepting the comparison as valid.

Both Wolf and JVC are Panamorph partners, and I have good relationships with both manufacturers and their reps, so no diss on either brand is insinuated either. It's comparison methodology that is my soapbox.

Bulb brightness drops dramatically on most projectors after the first 200 - 300 hours, levels off, then drops dramatically again when you get to 1000 + hours. As SMPTE's tests have demonstrated. brightness (and contrast) differences have huge impacts on our perceptions of sharpness and color.

FWIW...

Sorry if I came off too strong.
John Schuermann is offline  
post #27 of 65 Old 01-22-2014, 02:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,436
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 35
I'm with you John - all else being equal, a good lens should alway produce a better image when compared to zooming.

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 #28 of 65 Old 01-23-2014, 11:16 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 19,879
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 112 Post(s)
Liked: 291
Also, if the Wolf projector was calibrated in the factory for certain defaults, but the JVC used in this demo was uncalibrated, that would account for visible differences as well. In order to properly compare the two projectors, all factors would have to be equalized, including calibration and lamp age.

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

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

Josh Z is offline  
post #29 of 65 Old 01-23-2014, 11:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Deane Johnson's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Omaha, NE USA
Posts: 1,172
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Since I don't maintain "laboratory standards" in my home theater over the months and years, my preference would be a projector that looks great right out of the box.

I realize there is always a group of individuals who enjoy tweaking anything to the Nth degree, whether it be electronics or automotive, but fact of the matter is that most people watch under average conditions. I am satisfied the Wolf projector looked much better than the JVC with and without the Panamorph. It's ironical that the Wolf starts out as a JVC. Interestingly, the JVC weighs about 33 lbs, the Wolf weighs about 75 lbs.

Since the dealer is selling JVC as one of his main offerings, I should think he might have sense enough to calibrate the projector correctly.
Deane Johnson is offline  
post #30 of 65 Old 01-23-2014, 12:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,436
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 35
I don't maintain lab standards either (who does?), but when doing comparisons, I like to equalise things to make sure I'm evaluating the same thing. It's not unusual for a brighter projector to look better than a dimmer one as we're naturally drawn to brighter images. That's why all TVs in shops are set to demo mode with higher than normal settings - so they stand out from the competition and people will buy them.

It's quite likely that was what made the JVC clone with a new lamp look so much better than an older lamped one.

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  
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