Why not a native 2.35 projector? - Page 4 - AVS | 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!


Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-20-2009, 08:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Health Nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: U.S.A
Posts: 5,432
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I know, but anything other than a serious attitude towards obtaining a 2540 x 1080 projector will be beaten...
Health Nut is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 08-20-2009, 08:47 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 18,059
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 511 Post(s)
Liked: 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Health Nut View Post

I think there would be a big enough demand for a 2540 x 1080 chip. You are talking about outperforming a $5,000 Isco 3 lens, or even a $15,000 anamorphic lens... since you eliminate the need for it (and its degrading properties).

But how many of those get sold? Hundreds? 1000? A couple thousand?

Big companies spend Billions on integrated circuit fabs. Even if it's not that much (which it certainly wouldn't be that much) it's still definitely in the millions, maybe ten's of millions to retool a fab for 2.35:1 panels.

If it costs $10,000,000 to retool a fab for such panels and they only sell a couple thousand, they'd have to sell just the panels for close to $10,000/projector to recoup their costs.

Quote:


Yes, I agree, it would make for instant demand... There is a large enough niche already. Even better, a projector like that would make 2.35 CIH method GROW in demand due to EASE OF USE and much lower overall expense!! Everyone in front projection would switch to 2.35 screens if the projector supported 2.35 at the flick of a switch... no brainer...

But large enough for what?

This is probably a worthwhile read to put things in perspective:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

According to that, the entire projector market is only around 100,000 units, with only about 10,000 of those being <1500 lumens which is where most all HT projectors fall.

And of that 10,000, how many are installed in CIH/2.35:1 setups? One in ten? That's only about 1000 units/year.....

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
Old 08-21-2009, 07:24 AM
Advanced Member
 
xenon2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 953
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Health Nut View Post

I think there would be a big enough demand for a 2540 x 1080 chip. You are talking about outperforming a $5,000 Isco 3 lens, or even a $15,000 anamorphic lens... since you eliminate the need for it (and its degrading properties). Not only that you get improved lumens for 2.35. You just use 1920 x 1080 pixels for HDTV and 1.78/1.85 movies....

Yes, I agree, it would make for instant demand... There is a large enough niche already. Even better, a projector like that would make 2.35 CIH method GROW in demand due to EASE OF USE and much lower overall expense!! Everyone in front projection would switch to 2.35 screens if the projector supported 2.35 at the flick of a switch... no brainer...

Thanks, you said what I was trying to say.. better. There clearly is a market for CIH systems. Otherwise who is buying the HE Lenses, etc? Maybe makers are fearing that if CIH was a native projector for cheap that they may lose market share in the high end $10k+ projectors and $1k+ lenses. Though I don't think that is an issue. They would just make the full range of CIH native chip projectors for large venue and home use.

I still think it's only a matter of time. Already people like Panasonic with the AE3000 have CIH non-lens setups in mind with their easy lens memory function. Sure it's not the ideal solution like a native chip. But I am seriously considering switching from DLP to LCD because of that feature since I am thinking of going from 720p to 1080p soon. And I really want CIH, but will not deal with DIY lenses for pay tons for an HE lens. So the AE3000 looks like my only option.
xenon2000 is offline  
Old 08-21-2009, 07:44 AM
Advanced Member
 
xenon2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 953
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

But how many of those get sold? Hundreds? 1000? A couple thousand?....

But large enough for what?

This is probably a worthwhile read to put things in perspective:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

According to that, the entire projector market is only around 100,000 units, with only about 10,000 of those being <1500 lumens which is where most all HT projectors fall.

And of that 10,000, how many are installed in CIH/2.35:1 setups? One in ten? That's only about 1000 units/year.....

That link proves nothing to me. Maybe you can post a link to something specific.

http://www.i-newswire.com/pr316265.html

Check out this quote about the global projector market sales:
"Global sales of projectors witnessed a quiet first half this year, with Q2 volumes reaching nearly 1.3 million units, representing a 16% year-on-year drop from Q2 2008. However, the second half of 2009 is expected to witness a growth spurt"

And that is a DROP in sales. Which with the economy, sure... But it will get better. But 1.3 million units on the "low" end. That is a lot. I couldn't find specifics on the numbers per the 3 main categories such as Large Venue, Cinema, Presentation. But many of the same chips are used in all 3 of those types. And with 1.3 million being the starting point and it will increase... they have room to try new markets.

I think it is silly at this stage in the projector market to claim that the numbers for demand are too low to warrant manufacturing. Especially when a CIH chip could easily replace the current 16:9 1080p chips if they really wanted. Like when Intel just cripples a fast cpu to sell the same die to several markets.

Again, this brings the point home about my comments about Nikon. Just 3 years ago they said there was no market and no NEED for a full frame dSLR. They even tried to claim that DX lenses and DX sensors where actually better. Yet sure enough... Nikon came out with a full frame dSLR.

So I still think a CIH native chip WILL come out. And honestly, who here wouldn't want and support such an idea? Trying to
xenon2000 is offline  
Old 08-21-2009, 02:52 PM
Advanced Member
 
adude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 774
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 17
I agree, just 10000 units as HT projector market does not seem right. If we take LCD and DLP share half each, then 5000 DLP HT projectors. TI would have left this market long time back.

The number has to be bigger, else we would not have seen so many manufacturers in PJ market.

Manoj
adude is offline  
Old 08-21-2009, 03:08 PM
Advanced Member
 
xenon2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 953
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by adude View Post

I agree, just 10000 units as HT projector market does not seem right. If we take LCD and DLP share half each, then 5000 DLP HT projectors. TI would have left this market long time back.

The number has to be bigger, else we would not have seen so many manufacturers in PJ market.

Yup. There are 430 current model LCD and 704 DLP models. - http://www.projectorcentral.com/lcd_dlp_comparison.htm - So over 1,000 current model projectors. Sure they are not all HT models, but they are not just making 1,000 of each model even in the HT market.

If you look at the link I posted. 1.3 million total projectors for just a 3 month period in 2008. So even if HT projectors where only 10% of the market, that is well over 500,000 HT projectors sold in 2008. Or about 250,000 DLP for 2008. That is just based on a 3 month period in 2008. And that is actually a decreased number. Anyway, tons of projectors and plenty of market. And with 1080p soon under $1000 in DLP, seems like they NEED a native CIH projector for more market growth.

I still don't buy that it's a demand issue. Sure, someone at TI might THINK it's a demand issue. But they are wrong. The demand is there. And with the HUGE numbers of models of LCD and DLP projectors there are, there is obviously room for a CIH native projector that can easily compete against a $2k+ HE lens (only) solution.

Besides. Doesn't anyone here want to actually talk about how we can push the market to see the need to fill this part of the market? Or at least talk about dreaming of the day we can buy a CIH PJ for way less than an HE Lens setup?
xenon2000 is offline  
Old 08-21-2009, 04:27 PM
 
Aussie Bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 799
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:


I think it is silly at this stage in the projector market to claim that the numbers for demand are too low to warrant manufacturing. Especially when a CIH chip could easily replace the current 16:9 1080p chips if they really wanted. Like when Intel just cripples a fast cpu to sell the same die to several markets.

If Intel cripples chips this means that the more advanced design has been developed, just not used. In the case of 64:27 chips, the technology is not developed. So your analogy is not accurate.

Anyway, it's not just a matter of the chips. You need complete a new optical system as well. This means new light optics, condensor, prisms and projection lens... a complete redesign. This optical system will be larger than a standard 16:9 system with chips of the same height.

The size of the optical system is based on the ratio of the diagonals of the chips involved, as this is taken as the largest field of view that the lens needs to cover. A 64:27 system will therefore need focal lengths 26% longer than a 16:9 system. However the diameter of the larger CIH lenses means greater area which is larger by the square of the ratio, and therefore weight which is larger by the cube of this ratio.

This means a larger projector case, larger lenses, larger prisms, larger everything. I doubt very much that a projector manufacturer would take the risk, no matter how many emails from the handful of CIH purists they receive.

Professional, commercial cinemas stick to 2k (2048 x 1080), with very few exceptions. These projectors cost hundreds of thousands, yet this "no expense spared" situation still does not warrant the development of 64:27 chip technologies despite the claim that "most" movies made today are 'scope aspect. If commercial cinemas with digital projection want a 'scope aspect they either use a lens or the zoom method.

Then there is the added problem of source material. I know lens users around here scale-up their images digitally before projection, but I doubt whether a projector manufacturer is going to go to all the trouble and expense of developing 'scope technology and optics just so that it's customers can artifically zoom their images to fit. To really justify such expense you'd need genuine, native 1-for-1 pixel mapping, which does not fit in at all with the current HD standard. So new standards would most likely be required to take advantage of the extra huge expense of the larger technology. These would include new methods of storing the data - an extra 33% - which may find itself up against, or close to hard capacity limits of current disk technology. As most masters are 2k, and even much origination (not 4k as is generally believed), new mastering technologies would need to be developed to cope with the increased pixel count. Think that is going to happen?

Dare to dream all you like, but 'scope chips are not just around the corner, most likely not even on anyone's event horizon. It's not a matter of sending in cards and letters, badgering the manufacturers, whining that lenses cost too much (new projectors would cost a lot more than an add-on lens anyway), or any other "people power" activity. It's a matter of hard cash, technical complexity and ultimately market demand, the latter of which there is demonstrably not enough. Buy a lens instead, or keep zooming. Construct a masking system and a house to go around your HT setup. You'll still probably be paying less and waiting a shorter time than you would be hanging out for the new technology.
Aussie Bob is offline  
Old 08-21-2009, 05:26 PM
Advanced Member
 
xenon2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 953
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie Bob View Post

If Intel cripples chips this means that the more advanced design has been developed, just not used. In the case of 64:27 chips, the technology is not developed. So your analogy is not accurate.

Anyway, it's not just a matter of the chips. You need complete a new optical system as well. This means new light optics, condensor, prisms and projection lens... a complete redesign. This optical system will be larger than a standard 16:9 system with chips of the same height.

The size of the optical system is based on the ratio of the diagonals of the chips involved, as this is taken as the largest field of view that the lens needs to cover. A 64:27 system will therefore need focal lengths 26% longer than a 16:9 system. However the diameter of the larger CIH lenses means greater area which is larger by the square of the ratio, and therefore weight which is larger by the cube of this ratio.

This means a larger projector case, larger lenses, larger prisms, larger everything. I doubt very much that a projector manufacturer would take the risk, no matter how many emails from the handful of CIH purists they receive.

Professional, commercial cinemas stick to 2k (2048 x 1080), with very few exceptions. These projectors cost hundreds of thousands, yet this "no expense spared" situation still does not warrant the development of 64:27 chip technologies despite the claim that "most" movies made today are 'scope aspect. If commercial cinemas with digital projection want a 'scope aspect they either use a lens or the zoom method.

Then there is the added problem of source material. I know lens users around here scale-up their images digitally before projection, but I doubt whether a projector manufacturer is going to go to all the trouble and expense of developing 'scope technology and optics just so that it's customers can artifically zoom their images to fit. To really justify such expense you'd need genuine, native 1-for-1 pixel mapping, which does not fit in at all with the current HD standard. So new standards would most likely be required to take advantage of the extra huge expense of the larger technology. These would include new methods of storing the data - an extra 33% - which may find itself up against, or close to hard capacity limits of current disk technology. As most masters are 2k, and even much origination (not 4k as is generally believed), new mastering technologies would need to be developed to cope with the increased pixel count. Think that is going to happen?

Dare to dream all you like, but 'scope chips are not just around the corner, most likely not even on anyone's event horizon. It's not a matter of sending in cards and letters, badgering the manufacturers, whining that lenses cost too much (new projectors would cost a lot more than an add-on lens anyway), or any other "people power" activity. It's a matter of hard cash, technical complexity and ultimately market demand, the latter of which there is demonstrably not enough. Buy a lens instead, or keep zooming. Construct a masking system and a house to go around your HT setup. You'll still probably be paying less and waiting a shorter time than you would be hanging out for the new technology.

You missed the point of the intel chip reference. I am saying that if the DID make a CIH native chip, they could just "mask" off the extra pixels if it where that simple and if it made manufacturing sense in order to make 1 chip for both 16:9 and 26:11 projectors. Just pointing out how other companies artificially create price point markets out of the same product. That was the only point.

As for event horizons, etc. Sure, it's not coming out next year. But just like my Nikon reference when Nikon claimed 3 years ago that they would never make a full frame dSLR... and then they did. The same could easily happen with a CIH chip. Companies may say it's not even a glimmer in their eye now. And then all of a sudden they decide to do it. And when they do, it's not like it's special technology, so "when" then do decide to do it; it will happen very fast at that point.

And I completely disagree that a new CIH projector would cost more than an HE lens setup. When the lens alone can be $2k to $6k, then the motorized sled. And then the projector... very spendy. I am not spending that much money on sled and lens on top of my sub $3k projector.

Other than the electronic scaler for the extra resolution of 2540x1080, the projector would be practically the same. So I don't see how there is much extra cost to releasing a CIH native chip projector in this market of so many new models each year. I bet if Optoma and TI wanted, they could release a CIH projector within 1 year for under $3k. If they wanted to. And still make money.

Argue all you want. But why argue? Just 5 years ago I would never have thought a 1080p DLP projector would be less than $1000. And yet it is.
xenon2000 is offline  
Old 08-21-2009, 06:43 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 18,059
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 511 Post(s)
Liked: 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by xenon2000 View Post

That link proves nothing to me. Maybe you can post a link to something specific.

I quoted/paraphrased the relevant parts.

The numbers there jive relatively closely with a report posted a few weeks/months ago that stated Epson said the market was 60,000. Perhaps that's just from the Taiwanese MFGs.

Quote:


But many of the same chips are used in all 3 of those types.

That's exactly the problem. HT piggybacks on the heels of the corporate projection and large venue markets, the the high volume markets.

Quote:


I think it is silly at this stage in the projector market to claim that the numbers for demand are too low to warrant manufacturing. Especially when a CIH chip could easily replace the current 16:9 1080p chips if they really wanted. Like when Intel just cripples a fast cpu to sell the same die to several markets.

As Bob points out, it's nothing like what Intel does.

Quote:


So I still think a CIH native chip WILL come out. And honestly, who here wouldn't want and support such an idea? Trying to

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see 2.35:1 native projectors, especially 2560x1080 ones. Further, I do believe people would buy them, potentially a large portion of the HT market.

But I just don't think that's enough for TI, Epson, Sony, or JVC to retool a fab for such a limited-market product. I think our best hope is maybe 4k native panel machines that are masked to 2.35:1.

Quote:
Originally Posted by adude View Post

I agree, just 10000 units as HT projector market does not seem right. If we take LCD and DLP share half each, then 5000 DLP HT projectors. TI would have left this market long time back.

That's why a lot of members here have been very pessimistic about the the future of DLP in the HT market. HT projectors lived on the development of chips for the rear projection, corporate, and large venue market.

With the erosion of the high volume rear projection market, things have been very quiet from TI. No new chips since the DC4 DMD, and still very few machines using it.

The only noise from TI has been in the D Cinema market.

Quote:


The number has to be bigger, else we would not have seen so many manufacturers in PJ market.

You notice most HT projectors are still little more than slight tweaks on business/corporate/large venue models. Or to put it another way. The panels/chips used inside are the same ones that go into the high-volume products.

Quote:
Originally Posted by xenon2000 View Post

And I completely disagree that a new CIH projector would cost more than an HE lens setup. When the lens alone can be $2k to $6k, then the motorized sled. And then the projector... very spendy. I am not spending that much money on sled and lens on top of my sub $3k projector.

It's not that they'd "cost" more, it's that they'd have to charge more to recoup the massive investment in fabrication facilities, and the HT market is a very small market to spread that cost over.

Just look at LED machines. LEDs are relatively cheap, and they can fit into relatively standard machines. Yet the R&D and fabrication changes have resulted in them only appearing in ~$15k+ machines (save the BenQ).

I see no reason to expect any different with a 2.35:1 native paneled projector.

Quote:


Other than the electronic scaler for the extra resolution of 2540x1080, the projector would be practically the same. So I don't see how there is much extra cost to releasing a CIH native chip projector in this market of so many new models each year. I bet if Optoma and TI wanted, they could release a CIH projector within 1 year for under $3k. If they wanted to. And still make money.

No way TI would be able to retool for a 2.35:1 DMD and be able to make money in just the HT market at the <$3k price point.

Quote:


Argue all you want. But why argue? Just 5 years ago I would never have thought a 1080p DLP projector would be less than $1000. And yet it is.

They'll probably come, but I'd be surprised if we see one in the next two years, and I'd be utterly shocked if it's <$10k.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
Old 08-21-2009, 07:40 PM
Advanced Member
 
xenon2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 953
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Amazing that people will pick out and quote tons of my comments. Yet ignore the main point that I think I have made 3 times now using the Nikon full frame example. And that is that larger chips WILL come. I would NOT be shocked to see a CIH native 2540x1080 projector released or worked on within 3-4 years.

Maybe my guess on the time frame is off. But it WILL happen.

Also, using the large venue projectors as an example that HT piggy backs on, well... large venue would be a perfect place to start with a CIH 2.35 chip. But at that high level it would need to be a 4K CIH chip. And maybe there already is. I don't know much about large venue projectors.

Again, Nikon example. Nikon said there was no need for full frame and now they have it and well in average person's reach. And that was in just 3 years. With more obstacles than increase the H res of a DMD or LCD chip with matching optics.

Anyway. It would appear the more verbal people here would rather argue all day as to why it won't happen or why it is 10+ years away and not this or that... blah blah blah. So I guess there is nothing more to say. Will be interesting to see this thread resurrected in the not so distant future when the CIH projectors in reviewed.

I will focus on my non-HE lens CIH setup for the near near future while I wait.

And I look forward to seeing what comments are picked out of this post with negative outlook on why it won't happen, cost, etc.
xenon2000 is offline  
Old 08-21-2009, 08:03 PM
Advanced Member
 
xenon2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 953
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 20
http://news.ecoustics.com/bbs/messag...81/513613.html

Ok, I have to stop posting. But I thought this was interesting. Even though this is way expensive, large venue, and not exactly the direction I would want. It is technically a native CIH DMD chip projector released in 2008!

It almost sounds like my Intel example. LOL.

I don't know how the DMD was made. But instead of adding H res to the DMD so you still have the full 1080p V res. They decided to crop the V res down to 817px and leave the 1920 H res. So you then end up with a 2.35:1 native DMD.

So I guess it's already here. Just not in the way I would want. Or in the HT market. But it's here and that is a start. Maybe 1080p 2.35 Blu-ray movies only contain 817 V res and so they thought there was no biggy in messing with the V scaling AND the H scaling, since that is what would have to happen with a 2540x1080p display. I just liked the H res increase method since then you don't lose pixels for 1080p 16:9 content.

Anyway.... so there we have it. CIH native DMD already exist. Just not in the HT market.

Now rip me a new one. But I thought finding this link was a funny addition to all this.
xenon2000 is offline  
Old 08-21-2009, 08:57 PM
 
Aussie Bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 799
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:


RUNCO PR BLURB: "The native 1920 x 817 (1080p) CW-95HD features Runco’s SuperOnyx™ DMD™ chipset with ConstantContrast™ frame-by-frame contrast correction to provide stellar black levels etc. etc."

It doesn't say the chipset is native 1920x817. It says the unit itself is 1920x817. It's just a cropped version of of a standard 16x9 HD chipset. You dont see the black bars because there is literally no screen at all for them to be (rear) projected on.

There would be some digital re-sizing to get standard 16:9 presentations down to 1452x817, with pillar boxes at the sides. So even your standard AR movies are presented in less than perfect 1:1 pixel orientation.

And with nothing particularly spectacular this device costs US$49k-odd?

I repeat: there is no such thing in commercial existence as a native 64:27 chipset. It may exist at NASA or CIA headquarters, but not in the commercial world.

In the end all you're doing is buying an incredibly expensive screen, cut to shape, using standard 16:9 imaging chips, and rear projected.

Re. Nikon's resizing to full-frame: Because Nikon backflipped, the logical extension of what you are arguing is that whenever anymanufacturer says they won't do something this is tantamount to proof that they will. Sorry mate, but that's what is called a "weak inductive argument": "Nikon backflipped. Therefore all companies will backflip"

The market for Nikon full-frame cameras would be in the millions. There is already competition from the very successful Canon range of full-frame SLRs in this market. Furthermore, the Nikon optics are already standard, in that they already exist, and have existed for a couple of decades (hence the demand from legacy Nikon lens owners for digital SLRs that fit their expensive lenses). Hence, no new optics needed, and there is a large demand. Once again, not an analogy to the potential 64:27 projector concept, which has neither intense competition, high demand, or a customer base of existing interchangeable lens owners. Projector lenses are not interchangeable, like Nikon's camera lenses are, so there is not the pressure from owners to make the body fit the lens.

I truly cannot see the point of going to all the trouble of bringing such a device to market without going the "whole hog", image quality-wize: that is, upgrading the native resolution of the program material to 2560x1080 so that the investment - by both manufacturer and consumer - would be justified.

I could just picture the brochure: "You pay thousands of extra dollars for a custom projector just to save yourself the bother of masking the screen. And... psssst!... you still have to digitally scale the image!" Yeah right, I'd sell my house to get one of those.
Aussie Bob is offline  
Old 08-22-2009, 03:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,668
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 130 Post(s)
Liked: 83
As I understand it, it won't be too difficult to make an anamorphic BD disk since the people who work on the master in the digital domain often work on anamorphic movies in that format, so it's relatively simple to use that as a master rather than converting it to a letterbox format before transferring it to BD.

That of course doesn't mean that it will ever happen, especially if it's not supported in the BD standard, but it would be easy to make a disk as an added extra along with the digital copy (optional 2nd disk version). That will only happen if there was enough demand for it though, and somehow I can't see that being the case unfortunately.

D-Box is probably a smaller market than front projection, but the D-Box codes are embedded in some BD disks already (pretty easy to do as the codes don't take up a lot of room and are supplied to them so no real extra work), so it shows that there is support for a minority market already. Somehow the manufacturers/studios/whoever need to be made aware of another (our) minority market so they may consider adding an anamorphic version to a second disk as an option (or 3 disk option - the new Star Trek movie has a 3 disk option for no extra cost).

All pie in the sky but not impossible.

Gary

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

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is online now  
Old 08-22-2009, 07:41 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 18,059
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 511 Post(s)
Liked: 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by xenon2000 View Post

Amazing that people will pick out and quote tons of my comments. Yet ignore the main point that I think I have made 3 times now using the Nikon full frame example. And that is that larger chips WILL come. I would NOT be shocked to see a CIH native 2540x1080 projector released or worked on within 3-4 years.

3-4 years with no price specified, maybe

Quote:


Maybe my guess on the time frame is off. But it WILL happen.

I agree it probably will, but it seems many in this thread think TI et all could have one out next CEDIA in a "cheap" machine. Not going to happen.

Quote:


Also, using the large venue projectors as an example that HT piggy backs on, well... large venue would be a perfect place to start with a CIH 2.35 chip.

Not really. Large venue either most likely isn't doing scope (ie we're talking business/lecture hall applications), or is like DCI where they use anamorphic lenses and 2k/4k anamorphic transfers.

The whole DCI system is built around a 1.25x anamorphic lens and ~1.85:1 native projection devices, and the business/lecture hall area is only just now slowly embracing 16:9.

Quote:


But at that high level it would need to be a 4K CIH chip. And maybe there already is. I don't know much about large venue projectors.

Quote:


Again, Nikon example. Nikon said there was no need for full frame and now they have it and well in average person's reach. And that was in just 3 years. With more obstacles than increase the H res of a DMD or LCD chip with matching optics.

Like bob points out, there are actually less obstacles there. All they needed was a new chip, and that chip would sell in huge quantities compared to the CIH HT market.

Quote:


Anyway. It would appear the more verbal people here would rather argue all day as to why it won't happen or why it is 10+ years away and not this or that... blah blah blah. So I guess there is nothing more to say. Will be interesting to see this thread resurrected in the not so distant future when the CIH projectors in reviewed.

Well what's the point of this thread then? The OP wanted to know why we haven't seen native scope-chip machines. We've provided answers:

The fabrication investment is way too high for the minuscule CIH HT market.

Quote:


I will focus on my non-HE lens CIH setup for the near near future while I wait.

And I look forward to seeing what comments are picked out of this post with negative outlook on why it won't happen, cost, etc.

So what, you want us to just

Quote:
Originally Posted by xenon2000 View Post

http://news.ecoustics.com/bbs/messag...81/513613.html

Ok, I have to stop posting. But I thought this was interesting. Even though this is way expensive, large venue, and not exactly the direction I would want. It is technically a native CIH DMD chip projector released in 2008!

That's not a native 2.35:1 DMD.

It almost sounds like my Intel example. LOL.

I don't know how the DMD was made. But instead of adding H res to the DMD so you still have the full 1080p V res. They decided to crop the V res down to 817px and leave the 1920 H res. So you then end up with a 2.35:1 native DMD.

Bob already covered that this isn't a 2.35:1 native DMD. And if you read my previous posts, I said this was the most likely way we'd see native 2.35:1 machines, though I suggested it would be using 4k native chips masked down to ~4096x1750.

Quote:


So I guess it's already here. Just not in the way I would want. Or in the HT market. But it's here and that is a start. Maybe 1080p 2.35 Blu-ray movies only contain 817 V res and so they thought there was no biggy in messing with the V scaling AND the H scaling, since that is what would have to happen with a 2540x1080p display. I just liked the H res increase method since then you don't lose pixels for 1080p 16:9 content.

Yes, BD only has ~800 lines of vertical resolution on a scope movie.

Quote:


Anyway.... so there we have it. CIH native DMD already exist. Just not in the HT market.

Mitsubishi has been doing something similar, they offer a 16:9 shrink scaling mode on some of their HT projectors, only difference is they don't permanently mask off the outside scope area of the panel.


"All I want to do is wish you happiness and good living, old buddy, but unfortunately, that's not gonna happen."
-Hauser

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
Old 08-22-2009, 09:48 AM
Advanced Member
 
xenon2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 953
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote from the link "native 1920 x 817 (1080p) CW-95HD features Runco's SuperOnyx DMD"

That is all I was basing my comments on. Whether it is really a normal 1080p DMD with the top V res masked off internally, I don't know. That really is not the point. The point is the a big brand like Runco said "native" 2.35 and so they understand that it is an option. To me, this is a perfect example. And that the chance of an HT version for much much cheaper is definitely a strong possibility.

Not saying that I will hold up my future plans for it though.

And yes, I agree that while they might be able to show 1:1 pixels for a 2.35 1080p blu-ray and not for a 16:9 or 4:3 title, this is still a step in the right direction. Taking a 2K DMD chip and masking the V res would have been even better.
xenon2000 is offline  
Old 08-22-2009, 10:43 AM
Newbie
 
Marc M. Johnson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
that Meridian was going to jump into a native 2:35....would be a heavily modified LCOS design (JVC makes the LCOS chips for Meridian) involving and 2 pairs of LCos for each color, which would then be combined in some complicated optics into a 2:35 aspect. They had to abandon due to cost and frankly the guy who told me may have been yanking my chain.

I work in the industry and have talked to engineers....believe or not it is not terribly expensive to re-tool lines for LCD chips (this was confirmed to me by a rep from Epson). Proof of that is 16:9 LCD chips reworked to do the new 16:10 aspect which is used by new computers and graphic cards now.

"Faith can move mountains, Milt, but it can't beat a faster draw." Nels McCloud, in 'El Dorado'.
Marc M. Johnson is offline  
Old 08-22-2009, 11:03 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 18,059
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 511 Post(s)
Liked: 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc M. Johnson View Post

Proof of that is 16:9 LCD chips reworked to do the new 16:10 aspect which is used by new computers and graphic cards now.

I don't consider that proof, 16x10 PC FP is a much larger market than 16x9 HT.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
Old 08-22-2009, 11:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coolrda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 1,278
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Liked: 82
I had an Optoma HD72 that used a hybrid 16:10/16:9 chip. It was 1280x768 in 16:10 and 1280x720 in 16:9 mode which is what I used. It would shut off 48 pixels when in HT mode(16:9). The purpose was cost cutting as one chip could be used to handle both Home Theater and Computer Graphics users. CIH users are trying to emulate CinemaScope theatrical presentation to its fullest degree. The only way as mentioned above to get the full benefit is to use all 1080 lines. Use of a lens allows this. If you compare the the zoom method (1:1 scaling, no lens cost or potential picture degradation) to the Ana/Lens method (33% more picture fill vertically, no zooming) there subtle differences for sure, but the point of them is the same, 2.40 playback with full screen use (no bars).

You can do the same as the Runco your referring to. Just zoom and masked the overzoom on a 2.35 screen. Then scale all other AR images to the 817 pixel height, or 800 for 2.40 screen. Done.

You mention taking a 2K chip would be better. Essentially we are using 2k resolution now. The term 2K/4K is referring to the horizontal res of digital cinema chips. As Stranger89 and AussieBob covered above, DCI projector use 1080x2048 and 2160x4096 chipsets. If you take 1920/1080x1.33333(our ana/lens) and DCI's 2048/1080x1.25(their an/lens) you get the same and true AR 2.37.

If you attend trade shows you can get a peek at the future. I have seen the future and the future is 4K in a big way. I remember the first time I seen a 60" 1080P vs a 60" 2160P from a hundred plus feet. it really caught my attention. The difference was comparing SD to HD. And the 4k panels 2160x3840 and 2160x4096 were much like a very fine pair of highend speaker. For lack of a better word they disappeared. No window effect, you were outside. These of course will have tons of scaling AR's and 3D. That is the future. In big business, its millions of units shipped that equals demand, not thousands. There's no demand for native 2.35 chips. Dave.
coolrda is offline  
Old 08-22-2009, 12:27 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 18,059
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 511 Post(s)
Liked: 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrda View Post

There's no demand for native 2.35 chips.

I think that's the best way to put it. No doubt there's demand for cheap 2.35:1 projectors. No doubt a 2.35:1 native projector, especially if it were in the price ranges mentioned above, would sell quite well in the HT market.

However when it comes to the chips themselves it's just the opposite that's true. 2.3x native chips would basically only be sellable in the HT market, which is a very small portion of the comparatively small projector market (compared to flat panel TVs).

And further consider this. This is very much a trickle down industry. The new, cool stuff first appears in the high end, and trickles down from there. Given this, the high end has much less incentive to make native projectors because good lenses aren't near as hard to justify.

Which do you think would sell better, a 4k-masked to 2.3x:1 system, or a full 4k system with lens?

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
Old 08-22-2009, 12:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ca1ore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Stamford, CT
Posts: 1,798
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by xenon2000 View Post

I still don't buy that it's a demand issue. Sure, someone at TI might THINK it's a demand issue. But they are wrong. The demand is there. And with the HUGE numbers of models of LCD and DLP projectors there are, there is obviously room for a CIH native projector that can easily compete against a $2k+ HE lens (only) solution.

How do you know the demand is there? Some kind of anecdotal assumption based off this forum? CE manufacturers are not stupid, and I guarantee they have better market sizing numbers that any of us do, so the mere fact that native 2.35:1 projectors have not materialized speaks volumes.

I know a dozen or so people who have projector-based home theaters, and I am the only one to have bothered with a 2.35 setup. I also know a couple of dealers well who both confirm that 2.35 setups are the exception rather than the rule.

The only commercial native 2.35:1 display I can think of is the Phillips 56" LCD panel - which is not even being released in the US. If the demand were presumed to be there, where are all the other brands?

We would also need some kind of enhanced source material and scaler capability to stretch source material for a native 2.35 display. Just don't see it happening!

The other point to consider is there is already a great deal of consumer confusion out there on 4:3 versus 16:9 - I cannot imagine the CE industry would want to further confuse things.

Certainty and conviction are a sure sign you don't know what you're talking about! The world is not black and white, rather shades of grey!
ca1ore is offline  
Old 08-22-2009, 02:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Health Nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: U.S.A
Posts: 5,432
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Look, its simple... If you build it, they will come... A lot of the reason people DON'T buy a 2.35 screen is BECAUSE you have to use an anamorphic lens and the accessories associated with it...

It is a self-fullfilling prophecy, building a 2.35/1.78 native projector would create demand... sheeze...
Health Nut is offline  
Old 08-22-2009, 02:37 PM
Newbie
 
Marc M. Johnson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
At the end of the day, who really knows? Built it they will come. Ignore it and others find a way. Still, 2:35 when done right is killer.

"Faith can move mountains, Milt, but it can't beat a faster draw." Nels McCloud, in 'El Dorado'.
Marc M. Johnson is offline  
Old 08-22-2009, 03:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Health Nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: U.S.A
Posts: 5,432
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
When it is as easy as adding some horizontal pixels and getting a solution that outperforms a $15,000 anamorphic lens, you'd think so....
Health Nut is offline  
Old 08-22-2009, 04:53 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 18,059
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 511 Post(s)
Liked: 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Health Nut View Post

Look, its simple... If you build it, they will come... A lot of the reason people DON'T buy a 2.35 screen is BECAUSE you have to use an anamorphic lens and the accessories associated with it...

It is a self-fullfilling prophecy, building a 2.35/1.78 native projector would create demand... sheeze...

Nobody doubts it people would buy it (if it were priced right). That's not the issue.

The issue is nobody makes panels that can only be used in HT applications, the HT market is too small. It's as simple as that.

Hopefully we'll get such a machine one of these days. But it's not like InFocus, or Planar, or or the HT divisions of JVC/Sony/Epson can go out and just make a machine, because the panels don't exist.

You've got to convince TI or Sony/Epson/JVC corporate that there's a big enough market to justify that.

Ah, I finally found the article I was looking for:
From HDTVexpert's visit to Epson

"We wrapped things up with a few presentations on the overall projector business and market share numbers. According to Rajeev Mishra, Epson’s director of new ventures, projector sales are forecast to hit 5.8 million units worldwide in 2008. Of that number, 5.2 million will be business projectors, and the remainder (about 600,000) will be home theater designs."

So we've got an HT projector market of say approximately one million units, total. With TI/Sony/JVC (non LCD mfgs) sharing about 40% of that, and Epson holding 20% of that being the leader by about 2:1 over anyone else. So Sony/JVC are looking at no more than about 100,000 units/year in sales, since Epson's closest rival is about 10% market share. DLP is harder to nail down from the numbers available because they don't make projectors directly, and we're only give, LCDs portion.

TI and Epson are probably easily though the two biggest players in the HT imaging chip fabrication game. And where's TI been in that game for the past year?

I'd love nothing more than a 2560x1080 native (DLP personally ) machine. But retooling a fab to do a couple hundred thousand chips is a tough sell.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
Old 08-22-2009, 06:16 PM
 
Aussie Bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 799
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
"Build it and they will come" was in a movie, not real life.

The whole history of 'scope projection has been to take a standard aspect ratio - 1.37, then 1.17, now 1.78 with HT projectors - and get an audience. Then to enhance it we add anamorphic lenses to increase on-screen width.

Film formats that were native (or near native) 'scope fell by the wayside - Ultra Panavision, Super Panavision, Cinema 65, Super Technirama and so on - in favour of 35mm standard 1.17 AR prints, because "standard" projectors were what was out there, and the punters couldn't tell the difference in enough numbers to get the native 'scope formats out of the roadshow tents in the big cities and into the small town cinemas.

Even HT 4k to me is problematical, simply because there isn't any 4k source material out there. None commercially available, and with the mopping up after the format wars, finally resulting in some stability, I think it's unlikely that the studios are going to invest in anything bigger, newer and much more expensive. Sure, the 4k pixels are half the size of 2k, but really who can tell past three feet from the screen? Four feet? A shortish distance anyway. Most non-aficianados I know can't tell the difference between DVD and HD resolutions because their flat screens are too small and their viewing distances too large. You need projection to really bring out the "Wow" factor, and that's 2k. 4k? If you build them, some will come, but not enough.

The key is the availability of source material that would make 4k full-frame or cropped 2.37 4k worth the investment. There is none outside the servers in the big post-production houses and a what amounts to a handful of high end cinemas scattered throughout the world. A mass consumer 4k medium - requiring four times the storage capacity of a 2k system - after all the trouble BluRay has had (and is still having)... is vapourware.

So, even if the 4k display gear came about, we'd be digitally upscaling 2k to fit. The benefit? Finer pixels. Big deal... especially when your Average Joe (and some savvy reviewers too) are still talking marginal improvements of BluRay versions over DVD versions. Absent a whole new medium, with all its attendant opportunity costs - a new disk format right down to extra shelves in retail outlets - I think it will be a long time until any 4k projector - 1.78 or 2.37 - had anything like a viable source material base to hype off of. Art might buy one and show it off (bless his heart), but he'd be short on mates at the likely prices. That cropped Runco 1450x817 toy is US$49,000. I'd like a doctor in attendance as I found out what a 4k projector would cost. And after all that, I wouldn't have anything to show it off, bar maybe a couple of clips downloaded from a web site. Certainly no full length features, and certainly not a library's worth of them.

If I was going to make a prediction, I'd say 3D will be the next big thing, with hi-fi stores selling special viewing glasses and an interface box to drive the LCD blanking switcher built into them, probably running off a sync track sourced from (multiplexed into) the optical audio feed. Of course, with a new frame every frame, your key-fame-based compression algorithms would need a lot of room on the disk, but maybe not 4 times the storage. Most projectors can do 60hz, so a 30hz interleaved 3D movie (L-R-L-R-L-R etc.) could work without any change in disk standards and without jerky motion.

But 4k projectors with source material to go with them? Field Of Dreams stuff. It was only a movie, after all.
Aussie Bob is offline  
Old 08-22-2009, 06:50 PM
Senior Member
 
Ken Tripp's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 285
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie Bob View Post

So, even if the 4k display gear came about, we'd be digitally upscaling 2k to fit. The benefit? Finer pixels. Big deal... especially when your Average Joe (and some savvy reviewers too) are still talking marginal improvements of BluRay versions over DVD versions.

Even when displaying both formats on a display to match their native resolutions, because having long ago used a XGA projector in 16x9 mode (1024x576) to watch PAL DVD, and seeing 852x480 pixel displays trying to display PAL (and even NTSC DVD that they were designed for) I can surely see the benefit of scaling DVD to 1920x1080 and displaying them on a 1080p projector. 4k projectors would just do a better job, even for Blu-ray, with less jaggies and scaling errors, smaller pixels and less SDE, so you could sit closer or use a bigger screen, etc.
Ken Tripp is offline  
Old 08-23-2009, 01:05 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,668
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 130 Post(s)
Liked: 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Tripp View Post

4k projectors would just do a better job, even for Blu-ray, with less jaggies and scaling errors, smaller pixels and less SDE, so you could sit closer or use a bigger screen, etc.

I think that's about the only advantage 4K has over 2K - a SMPTE document showing seating distances for various resolutions had 4K at 0.8 x screen width (for scope) before the resolution advantage became clearly visible (assuming a 4K source). That's around 1.9 picture heights and most people sit at 2.4 (1 x sw) or further back.

Movie resolution isn't all that either TBH. Once we get to see it at theaters, the resolution isn't any better than 2K and if you look closely at film there, it sometimes doesn't look a great deal better than upscaled DVD. Most films come via a 2K DI anyway, so at best that's all we get, sans SDE

Gary

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

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is online now  
Old 08-23-2009, 09:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ca1ore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Stamford, CT
Posts: 1,798
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Health Nut View Post

Look, its simple... If you build it, they will come... A lot of the reason people DON'T buy a 2.35 screen is BECAUSE you have to use an anamorphic lens and the accessories associated with it...

It is a self-fullfilling prophecy, building a 2.35/1.78 native projector would create demand... sheeze...

Sure, and 'they' are probably a few hundred dyed-in-the-wool videophiles. It is certainly NOT simple. I work in the technology field and a 'build it and they will come' approach to technology innovation is the surest path to bankruptcy. It might work in the fancifull world of baseball movies, but it doesn't work for technology. Identify a 'problem' and provide the best technological solution - that works! I'm just not convinced that enough HT owners view not getting full cinescope a particularly big problem, therefore, I cannot imagine a native 2.35:1 PJ would garner adequate sales. Presumably the CE companies agree of we would have seen one already. It's business basics, sheeze .....

Certainty and conviction are a sure sign you don't know what you're talking about! The world is not black and white, rather shades of grey!
ca1ore is offline  
Old 08-23-2009, 09:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ca1ore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Stamford, CT
Posts: 1,798
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie Bob View Post

The key is the availability of source material that would make 4k full-frame or cropped 2.37 4k worth the investment. There is none outside the servers in the big post-production houses and a what amounts to a handful of high end cinemas scattered throughout the world. A mass consumer 4k medium - requiring four times the storage capacity of a 2k system - after all the trouble BluRay has had (and is still having)... is vapourware.

Fully agree. Without some kind of native source beyond 1920x810 this is largely pointless. Shoot, the most sensible thing would be 'anamorphic' encoding of 2.35:1 films on Bluray - THAT would give us full 1080 top-to-bottom resolution and the market doesn't even thisnk that is worth doing (apparently). Native 2.35:1 projectors are a frakking pipedream.

Certainty and conviction are a sure sign you don't know what you're talking about! The world is not black and white, rather shades of grey!
ca1ore is offline  
Old 08-23-2009, 07:14 PM
 
Aussie Bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 799
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Providing a 4k projector and then telling the mugs who bought one that there was no 4k material available, except maybe some demo downloads, and that they'd have to upscale their 2k BluRays to double size to take advantage of the extra resolution would not be a marketing mission I would voluntarily undertake, less jaggies or not. I can put up with jaggies. They're mostly only on the credits anyway.

There are limits to my devotion to HT, and I think shelling out tens of thousands for something that had little or no backup source material would be way beyond it. Being able to sit 8 feet from a 10 foot screen just so I could watch I Pronounce You Chuck And Larry in 4k (assuming it ever became available) has little allure for me.

BluRay is still on training wheels, with many average movie rental types literally not able to detect the advantage of greater resolution. With what's been invested in BluRay, I think they're going to want to get their money back before any new adventures in storage, retail and resolution are undertaken.
Aussie Bob is offline  
 
Thread Tools


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