What do you use for your CIH screen: an anamorphic lens or zoom method? - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!



View Poll Results: How do you display CinemaScope content on your CIH screen?
Anamorphic lens 19 40.43%
Zoom method 25 53.19%
Anamorphic lens, but will start using the zoom method 1 2.13%
Zoom method, but will start using an anamorphic lens 2 4.26%
Voters: 47. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
 1Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 32 Old 04-25-2016, 09:25 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Kain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 2,996
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 943 Post(s)
Liked: 221
What do you use for your CIH screen: an anamorphic lens or zoom method?

Just wondering what everyone uses to display CinemaScope content on their CIH screen.
Kain is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 32 Old 04-25-2016, 11:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 4,566
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
Liked: 202
I voted zoom method because there was no option for I would like to use an A-lens but I would never spend that much money on a lens. Or I really wished someone would make a reasonably priced true scope projector (yes I know there is no scope native content material) Maybe there should be? But a cropping scope projector that applies all the lumens to the scope frame would be nice. Or a projector with an A-lens built in would be nice also. Those things don’t exist and an A-lens is out of my budget so I voted #2 zoom method.


Bud

bud16415 is online now  
post #3 of 32 Old 04-25-2016, 11:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 1,583
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 383 Post(s)
Liked: 163
With the dramatic increases we're seeing with lumens and the pixel density of 4K, I really don't see any compelling reason for a lens going forward. There's no 4K anamorphically mastered content and some of newer projectors don't scale 4K content for use with a lens. About the only argument that you can still make for a lens is for HDR/Dolby Vision and the need for extreme lumens. But from what little I have read it sounds like even today's lamps would need to be throwing a very small image to hit the targets needed for it. Maybe an alternative light source would do it. Lasers do seem to be gaining traction finally.

I'm certainly with you on a 21:9 native projector. I think the projector market would have a better chance of success vs. the TV experiments they've tried. Although having used my JVC RS46 zoomed and watched a JVC RS500 zoomed with e-shift, I think the 4K class of projectors will make me happy. A native 21:9 would be so nice though.

jeahrens is offline  
post #4 of 32 Old 04-25-2016, 12:42 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 13,980
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1704 Post(s)
Liked: 1406
R Harkness is offline  
post #5 of 32 Old 04-25-2016, 04:47 PM
Senior Member
 
NxNW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 282
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 25
No option for "shrink" method?
NxNW is offline  
post #6 of 32 Old 04-26-2016, 01:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coolrda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 2,641
Mentioned: 99 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 634 Post(s)
Liked: 488
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
With the dramatic increases we're seeing with lumens and the pixel density of 4K, I really don't see any compelling reason for a lens going forward. There's no 4K anamorphically mastered content and some of newer projectors don't scale 4K content for use with a lens. About the only argument that you can still make for a lens is for HDR/Dolby Vision and the need for extreme lumens. But from what little I have read it sounds like even today's lamps would need to be throwing a very small image to hit the targets needed for it. Maybe an alternative light source would do it. Lasers do seem to be gaining traction finally.

I'm certainly with you on a 21:9 native projector. I think the projector market would have a better chance of success vs. the TV experiments they've tried. Although having used my JVC RS46 zoomed and watched a JVC RS500 zoomed with e-shift, I think the 4K class of projectors will make me happy. A native 21:9 would be so nice though.
All the advantages of a Cylindrical A lens are still in place. Pixel density(clearly discernible with true 4K projector) brightness, larger screen size per given throw, instantaneous scaling, etc. The best widescreen projected picture available today is through a Cylindrical A Lens. We have had this discussion here for fifteen years. The answer remains the same. With a Prism based lens you have an argument, with Cylindrical, no way. You can rationalize it anyway you want. The answers the same. Look I get it. $3-6k for a cylindrical is a good projector. But how long do those last. You can spin this forever and the answer's the same. If I gave anyone my Isco 3L, I know you'd prefer that picture. Until you owned and lived with a cylindrical day in and day out, the above comments are meaningless. It like me saying my Aerial 7b's are just as good as MBL 101e's. That would be ridiculous on my part. Cost is the barrier to ownership for me otherwise they'd be sitting at home. The one exception is a native widescreen panel. That's been tried and done five years back. That experiment has failed and that ship has sailed for good. 16x9 has won out. So the top shelf project/Cylindrical A lens remains the top dog solution for finest widescreen media playback.
coolrda is offline  
post #7 of 32 Old 04-26-2016, 06:55 AM
Scott Horton, techht.com
 
GetGray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mid-South USA
Posts: 5,818
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 143 Post(s)
Liked: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrda View Post
All the advantages of a Cylindrical A lens are still in place. Pixel density(clearly discernible with true 4K projector) brightness, larger screen size per given throw, instantaneous scaling, etc. The best widescreen projected picture available today is through a Cylindrical A Lens. We have had this discussion here for fifteen years. The answer remains the same. With a Prism based lens you have an argument, with Cylindrical, no way. You can rationalize it anyway you want. The answers the same. Look I get it. $3-6k for a cylindrical is a good projector. But how long do those last. You can spin this forever and the answer's the same. If I gave anyone my Isco 3L, I know you'd prefer that picture. Until you owned and lived with a cylindrical day in and day out, the above comments are meaningless. It like me saying my Aerial 7b's are just as good as MBL 101e's. That would be ridiculous on my part. Cost is the barrier to ownership for me otherwise they'd be sitting at home. The one exception is a native widescreen panel. That's been tried and done five years back. That experiment has failed and that ship has sailed for good. 16x9 has won out. So the top shelf project/Cylindrical A lens remains the top dog solution for finest widescreen media playback.
I agree. And for what it's worth, I have a handful of NOS Isco IIIL's I just acquired. This is still the best 1.33 lens there is, I'd take it over a XL due to the case design. Rare to find these new. Offering at a steal compared to New XL prices.
GetGray is offline  
post #8 of 32 Old 04-26-2016, 07:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 1,583
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 383 Post(s)
Liked: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrda View Post
All the advantages of a Cylindrical A lens are still in place. Pixel density(clearly discernible with true 4K projector) brightness, larger screen size per given throw, instantaneous scaling, etc. The best widescreen projected picture available today is through a Cylindrical A Lens. We have had this discussion here for fifteen years. The answer remains the same. With a Prism based lens you have an argument, with Cylindrical, no way. You can rationalize it anyway you want. The answers the same. Look I get it. $3-6k for a cylindrical is a good projector. But how long do those last. You can spin this forever and the answer's the same. If I gave anyone my Isco 3L, I know you'd prefer that picture. Until you owned and lived with a cylindrical day in and day out, the above comments are meaningless. It like me saying my Aerial 7b's are just as good as MBL 101e's. That would be ridiculous on my part. Cost is the barrier to ownership for me otherwise they'd be sitting at home. The one exception is a native widescreen panel. That's been tried and done five years back. That experiment has failed and that ship has sailed for good. 16x9 has won out. So the top shelf project/Cylindrical A lens remains the top dog solution for finest widescreen media playback.
The only widescreen panel projectors I know of were priced extremely high. That isn't a recipe for success. As far as the lens argument goes, I have seen a Sony 55Es with a Panamorph, Sony VW600ES 4K and a JVC RS500. Even the e-shift JVC was producing a pixel size so small it isn't discernible past a foot from the screen. I could see the benefits of the Panamorph paired with the Sony vs. zooming with my JVC (2K panel), but they were slight. So, no I don't believe that any lens is going to make the picture of a 4K panel or even an e-shift implementation noticeably better. The cost/benefit ratio certainly isn't there. Except for lumens it's pretty much non-existent at this point.

If you have a nice lens, there's certainly no reason not to use it. However I would not recommend anyone buy one in the current climate.

jeahrens is offline  
post #9 of 32 Old 04-26-2016, 07:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 4,566
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
Liked: 202
I agree the scope projector that was tried used a larger chip and disregarded the unused pixels and then added an optical element to compress the light down to scope AR on the chip. Was a great idea but not worth $20K IMO I don’t see why someone won’t do the same with a 4k chip. In fact if someone could make it so you could have the best of both worlds in the same projector. Whatever this light funnel is if it could switch in and out between scope, 16:9 and 4:3 wouldn’t that be cool. Max lumens for whatever AR you were watching.

One thing I never got on my projector being 16:10 when I’m in 16:9 mode the extra pixels are shut off. When I put a scope movie in the BD player the unused pixels are also turned off. What I can’t understand is why are the 16:10 unused pixels quite a bit darker than the unused 16:9 pixels? Seems like all off pixels should be equally as gray.


Bud

bud16415 is online now  
post #10 of 32 Old 04-26-2016, 09:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 1,583
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 383 Post(s)
Liked: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
I agree the scope projector that was tried used a larger chip and disregarded the unused pixels and then added an optical element to compress the light down to scope AR on the chip. Was a great idea but not worth $20K IMO I don’t see why someone won’t do the same with a 4k chip. In fact if someone could make it so you could have the best of both worlds in the same projector. Whatever this light funnel is if it could switch in and out between scope, 16:9 and 4:3 wouldn’t that be cool. Max lumens for whatever AR you were watching.

One thing I never got on my projector being 16:10 when I’m in 16:9 mode the extra pixels are shut off. When I put a scope movie in the BD player the unused pixels are also turned off. What I can’t understand is why are the 16:10 unused pixels quite a bit darker than the unused 16:9 pixels? Seems like all off pixels should be equally as gray.
Weird, it sounds like brightness is set to high or your input is mismatched (0-255 vs. 16-235).

jeahrens is offline  
post #11 of 32 Old 04-26-2016, 10:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 4,566
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
Liked: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
Weird, it sounds like brightness is set to high or your input is mismatched (0-255 vs. 16-235).
The 16-235 is what I’m thinking also it is if the projector blacking out is using 0-255 in turning off the unused pixels in 16:10 and the black sent from the BD player is using 16 as its level for the black bars.


Bud

bud16415 is online now  
post #12 of 32 Old 04-26-2016, 10:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coolrda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 2,641
Mentioned: 99 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 634 Post(s)
Liked: 488
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
The only widescreen panel projectors I know of were priced extremely high. That isn't a recipe for success. As far as the lens argument goes, I have seen a Sony 55Es with a Panamorph, Sony VW600ES 4K and a JVC RS500. Even the e-shift JVC was producing a pixel size so small it isn't discernible past a foot from the screen. I could see the benefits of the Panamorph paired with the Sony vs. zooming with my JVC (2K panel), but they were slight. So, no I don't believe that any lens is going to make the picture of a 4K panel or even an e-shift implementation noticeably better. The cost/benefit ratio certainly isn't there. Except for lumens it's pretty much non-existent at this point.

If you have a nice lens, there's certainly no reason not to use it. However I would not recommend anyone buy one in the current climate.
Seeing a demo does nothing. You need an A/B comparison. I've done many with my setup. Even using this argument of pixel density the Cylindrical wins. I can easily pick the A lens picture just as I can see the the difference between 4K and 8k panels. You can never have too many pixels. You need to see this with two identical projectors to see the difference. The difference is remarkable. There a reason these are used in the finest home theater and bought by DIYers. There's Been several CA lens owners here that have tried the zoom method, myself included, but they go back to using the CA lens. You have no real experience with a CA lens. I'm not sure how you can make assumptions, draw a conclusion and give advice without experience. This has been one of the best purchases I've ever made. That was the case when it fronted my Benq W5K and it's still the case three projectors later. I've seen nothing on the horizon that has leads me to believe anything will change in the coming years and projector replacements. Again this comes down to one thing only, money. If CA Lenses were a $100 you'd be lining up around the block. I get that. Even so, I'm not gonna tell you that buying a Ferrari is a waste of money, even if thats my opinion. I don't own one. I don't want one but I get that if you want that kind of performance, it's worth it. It's been mentioned that the ultimate would be a 21x9 projector and I agree a hundred percent with that. With my setup I have that with the added benefit of being able to upgrade the projector.
coolrda is offline  
post #13 of 32 Old 04-26-2016, 11:29 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 1,583
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 383 Post(s)
Liked: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrda View Post
Seeing a demo does nothing. You need an A/B comparison. I've done many with my setup. Even using this argument of pixel density the Cylindrical wins. I can easily pick the A lens picture just as I can see the the difference between 4K and 8k panels. You can never have too many pixels. You need to see this with two identical projectors to see the difference. The difference is remarkable. There a reason these are used in the finest home theater and bought by DIYers. There's Been several CA lens owners here that have tried the zoom method, myself included, but they go back to using the CA lens. You have no real experience with a CA lens. I'm not sure how you can make assumptions, draw a conclusion and give advice without experience. This has been one of the best purchases I've ever made. That was the case when it fronted my Benq W5K and it's still the case three projectors later. I've seen nothing on the horizon that has leads me to believe anything will change in the coming years and projector replacements. Again this comes down to one thing only, money. If CA Lenses were a $100 you'd be lining up around the block. I get that. Even so, I'm not gonna tell you that buying a Ferrari is a waste of money, even if thats my opinion. I don't own one. I don't want one but I get that if you want that kind of performance, it's worth it. It's been mentioned that the ultimate would be a 21x9 projector and I agree a hundred percent with that. With my setup I have that with the added benefit of being able to upgrade the projector.
I don't need to see a cylindrical lens in action to know that it won't make an invisible pixel structure (at any sane viewing distance) more invisible. So that being the case, what gain are you getting besides lumens? I'm genuinely curious.

If a CA lens was $100 I may consider it with my 2K setup (although I'm pretty happy with it). With a 4K or e-shift projector I doubt I would see a benefit, so no I wouldn't be interested.

The Ferrari analogy is an interesting one to make. They are a car I've lusted after for a very long time. But as a practical matter their performance envelope is matched by much less expensive cars. Their fit and finish is matched by other marque's, again, with less cost. Certainly there is a status and mystique to the brand as well as their beautiful design. But in absolute performance they aren't a bargain and aren't even the most capable (though I would love to have one).

For home theater, I'm not interested in status or mystique. Just the image on the screen. And I don't see how making a pixel structure I can't see less visible is something worth paying for. Let alone paying a LOT for.

http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

Looks like you need to be about a 8' from a 140" screen to see the full benefit of 4K. At what distance/screen size could you see the difference in the 4K and 8K panels?


Last edited by jeahrens; 04-26-2016 at 11:47 AM.
jeahrens is offline  
post #14 of 32 Old 04-26-2016, 11:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 4,566
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
Liked: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
I don't need to see a cylindrical lens in action to know that it won't make an invisible pixel structure (at any sane viewing distance) more invisible. So that being the case, what gain are you getting besides lumens? I'm genuinely curious.

If a CA lens was $100 I may consider it with my 2K setup (although I'm pretty happy with it). With a 4K or e-shift projector I doubt I would see a benefit, so no I wouldn't be interested.

The Ferrari analogy is an interesting one to make. They are a car I've lusted after for a very long time. But as a practical matter their performance envelope is matched by much less expensive cars. Their fit and finish is matched by other marque's, again, with less cost. Certainly there is a status and mystique to the brand as well as status. But in absolute performance they aren't a bargain and aren't even the most capable (though I would love to have one).

For home theater, I'm not interested in status or mystique. Just the image on the screen. And I don't see how making a pixel structure I can't see less visible is something worth paying for. Let alone paying a LOT for.

http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

Looks like you need to be about a 8' from a 140" screen to see the full benefit of 4K. At what distance/screen size could you see the difference in the 4K and 8K panels?
I started a thread a couple weeks ago about this topic and somewhat changed my viewpoint over the course of the thread.

You may find it an interesting read and I kind of summarized it in the first page but some of the supporting stuff is deeper in the thread.

Seating distance 720, 1080, UHD and visual acuity.


Bud

bud16415 is online now  
post #15 of 32 Old 04-26-2016, 12:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 1,583
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 383 Post(s)
Liked: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
I started a thread a couple weeks ago about this topic and somewhat changed my viewpoint over the course of the thread.

You may find it an interesting read and I kind of summarized it in the first page but some of the supporting stuff is deeper in the thread.

Seating distance 720, 1080, UHD and visual acuity.
Sorry I'll try to read through the thread as time permits, but if I am interpreting your findings correctly on a 140" image the pixels on a 4K image start to be visible between 3-4'. Correct?

jeahrens is offline  
post #16 of 32 Old 04-26-2016, 01:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coolrda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 2,641
Mentioned: 99 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 634 Post(s)
Liked: 488
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
I don't need to see a cylindrical lens in action to know that it won't make an invisible pixel structure (at any sane viewing distance) more invisible. So that being the case, what gain are you getting besides lumens? I'm genuinely curious.

If a CA lens was $100 I may consider it with my 2K setup (although I'm pretty happy with it). With a 4K or e-shift projector I doubt I would see a benefit, so no I wouldn't be interested.

The Ferrari analogy is an interesting one to make. They are a car I've lusted after for a very long time. But as a practical matter their performance envelope is matched by much less expensive cars. Their fit and finish is matched by other marque's, again, with less cost. Certainly there is a status and mystique to the brand as well as their beautiful design. But in absolute performance they aren't a bargain and aren't even the most capable (though I would love to have one).

For home theater, I'm not interested in status or mystique. Just the image on the screen. And I don't see how making a pixel structure I can't see less visible is something worth paying for. Let alone paying a LOT for.

http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

Looks like you need to be about a 8' from a 140" screen to see the full benefit of 4K. At what distance/screen size could you see the difference in the 4K and 8K panels?
Comparing an 75" 4k to an 85" 8k. Average was 8-10'. There was absolutely no pixelization on either. The 8k looked much smoother and better. It looked more real. 4K will be replaced by 8k and 16k. With each step will come increased picture quality at the same view distance. I'm gaining picture quality. Are you saying 1600 pixels are the same as 2160? The four major areas that CA lens use improves are light, scaling speed, size per throw distance and pixel density. This isn't a status symbol or gimmick. This is about putting the best widescreen pic on screen. This argument has been going on here for 15 years. If it didn't make an overwhelming improvement I would have sold it a long time ago. What your describing is sharpness and lack of pixel structure. What I'm describing is picture quality and all the elements that make that up.

Again you have no experience with a CA Lens. If you had spent a couple months with one, then came and posted you hated it or saw no improvement and it's a complete waste of money, at least that would be a valid opinion or viewpoint. But you don't even have that which makes your opinion meaningless. You may want to look over some of these discussion here in the past. There's more to it than lack of pixel structure. i wish all the projectors that came and went gave me the value this lens has.
coolrda is offline  
post #17 of 32 Old 04-26-2016, 02:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 1,583
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 383 Post(s)
Liked: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrda View Post
Comparing an 75" 4k to an 85" 8k. Average was 8-10'. There was absolutely no pixelization on either. The 8k looked much smoother and better. It looked more real. 4K will be replaced by 8k and 16k. With each step will come increased picture quality at the same view distance. I'm gaining picture quality. Are you saying 1600 pixels are the same as 2160? The four major areas that CA lens use improves are light, scaling speed, size per throw distance and pixel density. This isn't a status symbol or gimmick. This is about putting the best widescreen pic on screen. This argument has been going on here for 15 years. If it didn't make an overwhelming improvement I would have sold it a long time ago. What your describing is sharpness and lack of pixel structure. What I'm describing is picture quality and all the elements that make that up.

Again you have no experience with a CA Lens. If you had spent a couple months with one, then came and posted you hated it or saw no improvement and it's a complete waste of money, at least that would be a valid opinion or viewpoint. But you don't even have that which makes your opinion meaningless. You may want to look over some of these discussion here in the past. There's more to it than lack of pixel structure. i wish all the projectors that came and went gave me the value this lens has.
I'm not saying that 1600p is the same as 2160p. What I'm saying is that at a normal viewing distance (9+') from an average screen (100-150") 4k already has an invisible pixel structure. Even when zoomed for scope. So increasing the pixel density considering normal visual acuity doesn't seem to be necessary or beneficial. I've not seen any hard science that contradicts this either. I can back away from the UHD vs. HD display at Best Buy and the sharpness advantage of 4K disappears. I don't see how the picture looks more real when your eye ceases to be able see the extra information.

I've already given you that there will be a lumen advantage. Scaling speed? If you foregoing the lens you aren't scaling anything. Yes a lens can help with help with a short throw. Pixel density I covered above. Past a certain point what is the benefit? Is the lens helping with contrast? No, in fact some hurt it slightly(yours may not). Is it helping with color? No. Contrast? No. So I come back to the lumens being the tangible benefit (or if you have a very short throw).

If you have a quality 2k setup a lens is the best picture you're going to get. I've never argued that. I didn't mean to imply that it is a status symbol without tangible gains in that application. However I don't see the benefit with today's 4K projectors (other than lumens). I don't need to directly observe a CA lens to look at the data and what I have observed and draw a conclusion. Would I love to see one? Sure. Call my opinion meaningless if you want. But until I see some hard data to contradict it, I'm not change it or quit offering it. And I suspect you will continue to enjoy your lens. Which is great for you.

jeahrens is offline  
post #18 of 32 Old 04-27-2016, 12:43 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coolrda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 2,641
Mentioned: 99 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 634 Post(s)
Liked: 488
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
I'm not saying that 1600p is the same as 2160p. What I'm saying is that at a normal viewing distance (9+') from an average screen (100-150") 4k already has an invisible pixel structure. Even when zoomed for scope. So increasing the pixel density considering normal visual acuity doesn't seem to be necessary or beneficial. I've not seen any hard science that contradicts this either. I can back away from the UHD vs. HD display at Best Buy and the sharpness advantage of 4K disappears. I don't see how the picture looks more real when your eye ceases to be able see the extra information.

I've already given you that there will be a lumen advantage. Scaling speed? If you foregoing the lens you aren't scaling anything. Yes a lens can help with help with a short throw. Pixel density I covered above. Past a certain point what is the benefit? Is the lens helping with contrast? No, in fact some hurt it slightly(yours may not). Is it helping with color? No. Contrast? No. So I come back to the lumens being the tangible benefit (or if you have a very short throw).

If you have a quality 2k setup a lens is the best picture you're going to get. I've never argued that. I didn't mean to imply that it is a status symbol without tangible gains in that application. However I don't see the benefit with today's 4K projectors (other than lumens). I don't need to directly observe a CA lens to look at the data and what I have observed and draw a conclusion. Would I love to see one? Sure. Call my opinion meaningless if you want. But until I see some hard data to contradict it, I'm not change it or quit offering it. And I suspect you will continue to enjoy your lens. Which is great for you.
AR changes are instantaneous with lenses, zooming makes for slow AR changes. As far as hard data there's plenty of that, if you want to research it. NHK has done extensive testing and has chosen 8k for its future broadcast standard. Nvidia and AMD tested and found visual reality with 20/20 visual acuity is achieved with 48,000,000 pixels on screen or 6k X 8k. 16k is perfection but most say there's little to no discernable difference compared to 8k. However everyone clearly can see a difference between 4K and 8k. Looking at a 4K vs 8k display of an oil painting and live action of Manhattan really showed the superiority of 8k and why I believe 4K will have a short shelf life. Back to the 4K vs 8k. Looking at the 4K v the oil painting, the 4K looked perfect. I could pick out the oil painting easily but it was very very close. With the 8k it was freaky freaky. It wasn't a panel. It became which one is a forgery, not which was real vs a panel. It had me looking behind the panel, truly jaw dropping. From 10ft to one inch away there's no artifacts. I will say this though, without seeing the 8k I would have never imagined that 4K could be bested. There's tons of white papers about all of this. Fill rate or pixels per inch makes a big difference in perceived picture quality even when there's no screen door effect. The image is more organic. I could clearly see the superiority of 8k over 4K ever from 10ft back which is optimal view distance if these panels were 1080p. 2160 beats 1600 and 4320 beats 2160 easily even though there's no pixel structure with either. Pixel fill does indeed makes a difference up to 8k and beyond.
coolrda is offline  
post #19 of 32 Old 04-27-2016, 06:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 4,566
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
Liked: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
Sorry I'll try to read through the thread as time permits, but if I am interpreting your findings correctly on a 140" image the pixels on a 4K image start to be visible between 3-4'. Correct?
Correct in terms of pixel size.

The chart that’s widely used is the Carlton Bale chart that I never truly understood. It is based loosely around the Snellen eye chart that says the smallest E you can see what direction the E is pointing determines your visual acuity and 20/20 was thought of as ideal vision. The chart was to be placed 20’ from the viewer and the line width of the E was to take up 1/60 of one degree of our vision and the height and width of the E is 5/60 of one degree. It is fine for testing eyes as a standard (black on white, brightly lit etc.) but kind of a leap relating that to any kind of a pixel size. The Carlton Bale chart wasn’t then to “address” pixel size but rather “Viewing distance where resolution becomes noticeable”.

I asked the questions in that thread and some of the members here answered my questions based on their understandings and testing done by others.

Come to find out when a resolution becomes noticeable compared to a viewing reality is quite a bit more distance than based on the Snellen measurements. In fact, about 5 times greater distance. The distances actually become great enough that it doesn’t matter at all up to and including 4k all better resolutions will look closer to reality in any room / seating distance. I kind of confirmed this for myself although not real scientific comparing 1080 and 4k flat panels from across the store at great distances. It was hard to factor out the different content they play and also the greater range of brightness etc. but it’s kind of clear there is improvement way past the distance I can see any pixels in any of the displays. So with that chart somewhat meaningless to me as it is the threshold of improvements more or less and I’m sure more is always going to be better for some folks I still pondered then how come I can derive so much pleasure out of a WXGA image still when the world is telling me how awful it has to be. I might add I have 20/20 vision without correction.

I started looking at what would condemn a resolution for me or a better point being the first beginnings of condemning a resolution and that would be based around pixel size and the ability of our vision with blended color pixels we might find in a real movie not a test chart. That is the chart I then came up with, again based around information other members offered and I tried to best judge the validity by my own eyes. That chart came out to be roughly 10X closer than when resolution becomes noticeable distance.

I am also convinced different people watch in different modes of vision and most of us that think about this stuff start using a more critical type of vision where we don’t become all immersed in the content instead we tend to study the PQ. On my WXGA setup at home if I put up a test image like a ANSI checkerboard I can see pixels or just begin to see pixels at my seating distance. They are not disturbing to me because I know in the content of a movie I never see them nor do my guests. We are seeing past pixels and viewing the combined image as a whole.

That’s a brief explanation of the two charts I made and made for my reference only. If someone else wants to use them as a point of reference to decide what resolution will best suit their screen size, seating distance and budget that’s fine with me.


Bud

bud16415 is online now  
post #20 of 32 Old 04-27-2016, 09:28 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coolrda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 2,641
Mentioned: 99 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 634 Post(s)
Liked: 488
Good post Bud. Our eyes are truly remarkable and it's amazing how the adapt even with less than perfect vision. The key word is reality. From what I've read the consensus is 16k sourced 8k projected@120fps is reality on a 150" at 12ft.

Here's a paragraph that described it well from NHK's experiments.

NHK’s research presents a very different picture of the value of high resolution. Viewers of Super Hi-Vision system frequently report strong sensations of depth. An analysis of brain activity measured by fMRI (Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging) showed significant activity in the area responsible for monocular depth perception. More relevant to the UHD naysayers, tests showed that higher-resolution images facilitate a sensation of depth even when the resolution difference is not detectable
by the viewer.

This accurately describes what I've seen.
coolrda is offline  
post #21 of 32 Old 04-27-2016, 09:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 1,583
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 383 Post(s)
Liked: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrda View Post
AR changes are instantaneous with lenses, zooming makes for slow AR changes. As far as hard data there's plenty of that, if you want to research it. NHK has done extensive testing and has chosen 8k for its future broadcast standard. Nvidia and AMD tested and found visual reality with 20/20 visual acuity is achieved with 48,000,000 pixels on screen or 6k X 8k. 16k is perfection but most say there's little to no discernable difference compared to 8k. However everyone clearly can see a difference between 4K and 8k. Looking at a 4K vs 8k display of an oil painting and live action of Manhattan really showed the superiority of 8k and why I believe 4K will have a short shelf life. Back to the 4K vs 8k. Looking at the 4K v the oil painting, the 4K looked perfect. I could pick out the oil painting easily but it was very very close. With the 8k it was freaky freaky. It wasn't a panel. It became which one is a forgery, not which was real vs a panel. It had me looking behind the panel, truly jaw dropping. From 10ft to one inch away there's no artifacts. I will say this though, without seeing the 8k I would have never imagined that 4K could be bested. There's tons of white papers about all of this. Fill rate or pixels per inch makes a big difference in perceived picture quality even when there's no screen door effect. The image is more organic. I could clearly see the superiority of 8k over 4K ever from 10ft back which is optimal view distance if these panels were 1080p. 2160 beats 1600 and 4320 beats 2160 easily even though there's no pixel structure with either. Pixel fill does indeed makes a difference up to 8k and beyond.
Good information and observations. Me personally the difference between 2K and 4K disappears on the demos I've seen after I get so far back (probably ~6'). Granted I don't think the panels they're doing it on are bigger than 50". The VW600ES demo had 4K samples from the supplied Sony drive and they looked great. But the differences between that and upscaled 2K wasn't enormous (resolution wise). I'm not knocking 4K, I will be moving there, but I'm just saying that from what I've seen it already seems to be sliding towards the end of diminishing returns with regards to resolution (the expanded color gamut and other additions are at least as exciting for me as the resolution bump).

As far as the lens goes I guess it would depend on how much you perceive resolution differences at your screen size and seating distance. Both the Sony VW600ES and the JVC RS500 employing e-shift made an image smooth enough that I doubt I personally would see the difference the extra fill the lens would give me. It's just not the leap that 1080p was for me, it's much more subtle. Just take my own screen. It's 120x51" (130" 2.35:1 screen). That's roughly 6000 sq inches. A resolution of 3840x1600 gives me 32 pixels per inch (my current 1920x800 gives me 16 ppi). From my 9-10' viewing distance 32 ppi is going to be tough for me to discern the individual pixels or honestly see any additional pixels (then add picture motion on top of it).

However if a person can see the extra ~34% fill in their setup and wants to spend the money on the lens that's certainly up to them. My own observations are that 4K is has a high enough density that I wouldn't recommend a lens (except for extreme lumens or throw cases). However, you certainly give anyone reading this food for thought to explore the option. It's another case where your own perception, setup and preference will ultimately be the guide. It's definitely a good conversation to have and gives anyone pondering how to go forward with CIH things to consider.

jeahrens is offline  
post #22 of 32 Old 04-27-2016, 10:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 4,566
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
Liked: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrda View Post
Good post Bud. Our eyes are truly remarkable and it's amazing how the adapt even with less than perfect vision. The key word is reality. From what I've read the consensus is 16k sourced 8k projected@120fps is reality on a 150" at 12ft.

Here's a paragraph that described it well from NHK's experiments.

NHK’s research presents a very different picture of the value of high resolution. Viewers of Super Hi-Vision system frequently report strong sensations of depth. An analysis of brain activity measured by fMRI (Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging) showed significant activity in the area responsible for monocular depth perception. More relevant to the UHD naysayers, tests showed that higher-resolution images facilitate a sensation of depth even when the resolution difference is not detectable
by the viewer.

This accurately describes what I've seen.
Thanks.

I will read more about that study when I can. I actually fall on both sides of this argument or I can see both sides. I am old enough that most of my love for cinema came from the time of film and projectors and although the images of today are so much closer to reality than ever before and I do adore the realism in many sources I also find a film like image much to my liking. I guess I’m very obsessed with some aspects of home theaters and on the other hand not that obsessed with the quest for realism in my images. I look at my own rather humble home theater and the overall results it obtains for me and of course any guests I have over. I wouldn’t mind having a higher level of technology and I’m sure I will as things march on as I understand the differences now. I also agree jeaherns idea of diminishing returns only in my case it is the returns on the whole movie going experience in my theater. When people remark the experience was excellent I wonder how many times more excellent can something be and what words do we have to explain that. Much in the way I drive a Kia Soul as my daily driver and feel the overall driving experience is excellent.

We all know some people in all hobbies this one included become driven to the highest levels the hobby will support. Then there are the masses in the hobby and lastly there are people like me that take pleasure in doing more with less. My goal has always been to be able to totally forget about the image and the equipment for the two hours or so a movie is playing.


Bud

bud16415 is online now  
post #23 of 32 Old 04-27-2016, 06:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coolrda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 2,641
Mentioned: 99 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 634 Post(s)
Liked: 488
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
Good information and observations. Me personally the difference between 2K and 4K disappears on the demos I've seen after I get so far back (probably ~6'). Granted I don't think the panels they're doing it on are bigger than 50". The VW600ES demo had 4K samples from the supplied Sony drive and they looked great. But the differences between that and upscaled 2K wasn't enormous (resolution wise). I'm not knocking 4K, I will be moving there, but I'm just saying that from what I've seen it already seems to be sliding towards the end of diminishing returns with regards to resolution (the expanded color gamut and other additions are at least as exciting for me as the resolution bump).

As far as the lens goes I guess it would depend on how much you perceive resolution differences at your screen size and seating distance. Both the Sony VW600ES and the JVC RS500 employing e-shift made an image smooth enough that I doubt I personally would see the difference the extra fill the lens would give me. It's just not the leap that 1080p was for me, it's much more subtle. Just take my own screen. It's 120x51" (130" 2.35:1 screen). That's roughly 6000 sq inches. A resolution of 3840x1600 gives me 32 pixels per inch (my current 1920x800 gives me 16 ppi). From my 9-10' viewing distance 32 ppi is going to be tough for me to discern the individual pixels or honestly see any additional pixels (then add picture motion on top of it).

However if a person can see the extra ~34% fill in their setup and wants to spend the money on the lens that's certainly up to them. My own observations are that 4K is has a high enough density that I wouldn't recommend a lens (except for extreme lumens or throw cases). However, you certainly give anyone reading this food for thought to explore the option. It's another case where your own perception, setup and preference will ultimately be the guide. It's definitely a good conversation to have and gives anyone pondering how to go forward with CIH things to consider.
Thanks. It's because of the cost that I spent so much time weighing it all, the better part of a year. A couple of Iscos did show up in the classifieds here and in Videogon but we're gone quickly and I was indecisive on a "s" lens which was a good thing looking back as it would be unusable with my current throw. Even after I purchased the lens I went back and forth questioning if the purchase was the right move, especially with native 2.35 projectors on the horizon. Looking back I'm so glad I bought the lens. It's on its fourth projector with all previous proj's failing. I can't say if I would have gone this route just for increased light or pixel density or aspect changes. Currently the most important feature is max screen size which is a necessity now that I have a short throw distance. But when all of those advantages are group together, and I switch between the two, zoom and lens, the lens is much better, picture wise and in function. Is it worth the cost? For me yes. My equipment comes and goes and my Lens is the oldest piece in the room now. It could very well be in use for years or another decade to come. When you average cost over that period of time it makes it one of the best purchases I've made. Unfortunately this is one of those esoteric items you can't test drive, you just gotta jump in and that sucks. At least those just getting into this today have the zoom memory option.
coolrda is offline  
post #24 of 32 Old 05-01-2016, 06:44 PM
Member
 
Spygg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 43
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I'm using the zoom method with my Epson EH-LS10000 laser projector on my 114" 2.35:1 screen, and have no wishes to do anything else. The main reason is that I always want the picture as wide as possible, and fact is - there is more aspect ratios than 1.78:1 and 2.35:1. For example Netflix's tv series "House of Cards" and "Marco Polo* which both have a 2.00:1 aspect ratio. And then you have all the 1.85:1 movies, plus the 2.20:1, 2.24:1, 2.76:1 etc.
I can store ten lens memories in my projector, so I have all those covered. Plus - is there really an anamorphic lens that's so good it doesn't ruin the 4K (or in my case Faux K) resolution? Also - with the zoom method I don't have to scale the picture in any way.

For me - the only advantage an anamophic lens would have is the extra brightness, but in my setup - my LS10K gives me all the light I need.

(sorry if my grammar's not perfect - I'm Swedish)

/Spygg
Spygg is offline  
post #25 of 32 Old 05-02-2016, 08:06 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 12,907
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1377 Post(s)
Liked: 1076
I use the zoom method with my JVC RS4810. Very pleased.


DavidHir is offline  
post #26 of 32 Old 05-09-2016, 12:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coolrda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 2,641
Mentioned: 99 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 634 Post(s)
Liked: 488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spygg View Post
The main reason is that I always want the picture as wide as possible, and fact is - there is more aspect ratios than 1.78:1 and 2.35:1. For example Netflix's tv series "House of Cards" and "Marco Polo* which both have a 2.00:1 aspect ratio. And then you have all the 1.85:1 movies, plus the 2.20:1, 2.24:1, 2.76:1 etc.
I can store ten lens memories in my projector, so I have all those covered. Plus - is there really an anamorphic lens that's so good it doesn't ruin the 4K (or in my case Faux K) resolution? Also - with the zoom method I don't have to scale the picture in any way.
Isco 3L is transparent perfection. That's why they cost what they do. Saw a jaw dropping demo with a $165,000 Barco 4K with the lens in and out. No difference other than with the lens in was a brighter and smoother pic. The long throw makes a huge difference on flat screens and A lens. At that point I had to have it. I still have every zoom ratio available with or without lens in.
coolrda is offline  
post #27 of 32 Old 05-09-2016, 06:45 PM
Member
 
Spygg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 43
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrda View Post
Isco 3L is transparent perfection. That's why they cost what they do. Saw a jaw dropping demo with a $165,000 Barco 4K with the lens in and out. No difference other than with the lens in was a brighter and smoother pic. The long throw makes a huge difference on flat screens and A lens. At that point I had to have it. I still have every zoom ratio available with or without lens in.
Well - since a Isco 3L costs MORE than my $7,999 projector (Epson EH-LS10000) - this isn't really an option for me. But if I was rich as hell - sure - I'd try that. But did you test it with movies or test discs? It's hard to compare for example sharpness with just movie scenes.

/Spygg
Spygg is offline  
post #28 of 32 Old 05-09-2016, 07:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coolrda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 2,641
Mentioned: 99 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 634 Post(s)
Liked: 488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spygg View Post
Well - since a Isco 3L costs MORE than my $7,999 projector (Epson EH-LS10000) - this isn't really an option for me. But if I was rich as hell - sure - I'd try that. But did you test it with movies or test discs? It's hard to compare for example sharpness with just movie scenes.
Yes Hundreds of hours on four different projectors including DLP, DILA and LCD. It doesn't cost that much. Over here I've seen them go for as low as $3000 though its rare. You can find one in the $4K to $4.5K range pretty easy. Heres a system for you.
Top of the 2.35 Food Chain
coolrda is offline  
post #29 of 32 Old 05-10-2016, 08:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 1,583
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 383 Post(s)
Liked: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrda View Post
Isco 3L is transparent perfection. That's why they cost what they do. Saw a jaw dropping demo with a $165,000 Barco 4K with the lens in and out. No difference other than with the lens in was a brighter and smoother pic. The long throw makes a huge difference on flat screens and A lens. At that point I had to have it. I still have every zoom ratio available with or without lens in.
One thing to point out, unless you are going to crop the other AR's to scope, you'll only be using the lens for scope. I know that's inferred, just wanted to make sure folks reading this understood that.

jeahrens is offline  
post #30 of 32 Old 05-10-2016, 08:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 1,583
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 383 Post(s)
Liked: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spygg View Post
Well - since a Isco 3L costs MORE than my $7,999 projector (Epson EH-LS10000) - this isn't really an option for me. But if I was rich as hell - sure - I'd try that. But did you test it with movies or test discs? It's hard to compare for example sharpness with just movie scenes.
Well unless you need the lumens (and you likely don't) or will notice the extra resolution I can't imagine it being worth it for you. From everything I have read that projector is outstanding. If it's anywhere near the image quality of the JVC e-shift models (which it's supposed to be) I can't image you find it lacking when zoomed for scope.

jeahrens is offline  
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