Why not a native 2.35 projector? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 127 Old 11-18-2005, 09:25 AM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
Dan Rankin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: northern michigan
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
After trying to sort through all the gyrations required to make a 16.9 projector into a 2.35 projector (scalers, anamorphic lens, etc), does no one make a native 2.35 projector?

I am probably missing something obvious and apologize in advance.

Seems like it would be cheaper to own both rather than all of the effort and cost associated with making a 16.9 projector adjust to a 2.35 projector.
Dan Rankin is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 127 Old 11-18-2005, 02:29 PM
Senior Member
 
hemster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 241
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
After trying to sort through all the gyrations required to make a 16.9 projector into a 2.35 projector (scalers, anamorphic lens, etc), does no one make a native 2.35 projector?

I am probably missing something obvious and apologize in advance.

Seems like it would be cheaper to own both rather than all of the effort and cost associated with making a 16.9 projector adjust to a 2.35 projector.

Yeah. that was my initial reaction too. However there are no native 2.35 chips on the market AFAIK. So for now we must go through the gyrations of scaling and lenses...

Relentless pursuit of perfection... within budget!
hemster is offline  
post #3 of 127 Old 11-18-2005, 09:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,354
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Even this monster (native 1.85:1 not 1.78:1) is not a native 2.35:1.

The 4K beast

Quote:
4096 pixels horizontal x 2160 pixels vertical. This is slightly more than four times the number of pixels of high definition video (1920 x 1080).

It could be configured to run 4096 x 1742 to deliver 2.35:1 without a lens, but would be better as a 4096 x 2160 + anamorphic lens. Besides, at that price point, where's the conern with the cost of an anamorphic lens anyway?

Mark

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is online now  
post #4 of 127 Old 11-28-2005, 12:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
akm3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Spokane WA USA
Posts: 1,049
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 11
In my opinion, you will see the CE market move this way eventually.

Just like "Widescreen" used to be an out of the ordinary niche market for whacko enthusiasts, at high prices.

Once "Widescreen" becomes "normal" then "Really Widescreen" will again become an out of the ordinary niche market for whacko entrhusiasts.

I expect when you can buy 1920x1080 projects in the Infocus 4805 price range, someone will come out with 2554x1080 projector or something.

Remember the Sony W400q (I think that was the model name??) Way ahead of its time, niche product.

SOONER OR LATER someone will recognize the market and exploit it

-Allen

It's hard to love Martin Logans and 2.35:1 CIH at the same time...
akm3 is offline  
post #5 of 127 Old 11-28-2005, 04:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,354
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by akm3 View Post

Once "Widescreen" becomes "normal" then "Really Widescreen" will again become an out of the ordinary niche market for whacko entrhusiasts.

I would say that is where we are now, though I would NOT call myself (or anyone else on this 2.35:1 forum a "whacko enthusiast". We're just a few steps ahead of everyone else...

Mark

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is online now  
post #6 of 127 Old 11-29-2005, 12:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
akm3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Spokane WA USA
Posts: 1,049
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

I would say that is where we are now, though I would call myself (or anyone else on this 2.35:1 forum a "whacko enthusiast". We're just a few steps ahead of everyone else...

Mark

Yes, but the major CE manufacturers haven't yet caught up to serving us. We have a few of the very high end with very expensive solutions (Runco. Can we say Runco on this forum yet? I haven't mentioned it for several years don't know if Runco is still off limits).

And, small business like Panamorph providing interim solutions. I won't consider us TRULY served until one can go to a Best Buy or something and buy a 2.35:1 ratio Plasma or something.

We'll know things are REALLY good when the Sales Drone says "You don't want to buy that, you'll have GIANT black bars on both sides when watching Survivor: California; we only have a few wild eyed scraggly types (who resemble fat economics professors) who purchase THOSE weird things."
-Allen

It's hard to love Martin Logans and 2.35:1 CIH at the same time...
akm3 is offline  
post #7 of 127 Old 12-01-2005, 11:01 PM
Member
 
avast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 81
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I am just curious: who made the decision having 16:9, a completely new format, instead of using 2.35:1, an existing format, when HDTV was first designed? Why reinvent the wheel or introducing additional format to make everybody, the movie studios and consumers more headaches??????
avast is offline  
post #8 of 127 Old 12-02-2005, 09:33 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 19,909
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked: 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by avast View Post

I am just curious: who made the decision having 16:9, a completely new format, instead of using 2.35:1, an existing format, when HDTV was first designed? Why reinvent the wheel or introducing additional format to make everybody, the movie studios and consumers more headaches??????

16:9 was a mid-point compromise between 4:3 and 2.35:1. At either of those two extremes you get approximately the same amount of black bars on screen. A native 2.35:1 screen has huge black bars on the sides of 4:3 content. The reason 16:9 was chosen rather than 1.85:1 had to do with various engineering concerns in regard to CRT tube displays (16:9 is 4:3 squared).

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

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

Josh Z is offline  
post #9 of 127 Old 12-02-2005, 08:36 PM
 
egcarter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Keaau, Hawaii, USA
Posts: 3,570
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
And there are no "native" 2.35 motion picture projectors either, no? They require an anamorphic lens as we do at home.

Eric
egcarter is offline  
post #10 of 127 Old 12-03-2005, 02:04 PM
Member
 
avast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 81
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by egcarter View Post

And there are no "native" 2.35 motion picture projectors either, no? They require an anamorphic lens as we do at home.

Eric



So the native format of movie films is like 16:9 ?
avast is offline  
post #11 of 127 Old 12-03-2005, 05:33 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 19,909
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked: 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by avast View Post

So the native format of movie films is like 16:9 ?

35mm film has a negative aspect ratio of 1.37:1. Movies are projected theatrically at either 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. 16:9 is a TV standard, not a theatrical projection standard.

1.85:1 movies are photographed "full frame" on 35mm with the intention of matting the top and bottom of the picture to achieve the desired widescreen composition.

2.35:1 movies can be photographed one of two ways: either using Super35 which uses matting much like 1.85:1 movies do, or using an anamorphic lens on the camera which squishes a wider picture onto the 1.37:1 negative. In either case, the theatrical release prints are printed in squeezed format and must be unsqueezed by another anamorphic lens on the projector.

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

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

Josh Z is offline  
post #12 of 127 Old 12-05-2005, 03:09 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Frank J Manrique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Redlands, Ca. USA
Posts: 5,133
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by egcarter View Post

And there are no "native" 2.35 motion picture projectors either, no? They require an anamorphic lens as we do at home.

Eric

There is no such a thing as "native" film projectors. Whether film projection is 35mm or 70mm (and 16mm and Super-8mm for that matter), lenses are what makes the difference.

Put this way...if "flat" movies (1:85:1) are projected a given size spherical lens is used.
If the movies is scope (2:40:1 now days and since the late 70s), then an scope lens attachment is put ahead of the primary spherical lens to do the "unsqueezing" in order to return the image to its normal geometric form.

By the way...please note that there was only one 70mm anamorphic film format ever devised: Ultra-Panavision. All other 70mm processes were done with spherical lenses...

-THTS
Frank J Manrique is offline  
post #13 of 127 Old 12-19-2005, 08:51 AM
Member
 
audiomaniac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Brussels
Posts: 92
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I just read (and saw a picture) of this in German magazine AudioVision where they announce that Canon will be bringing out an LCOS projector with 2600 x 1000 in the future. No further information reagarding time-frame or price was included.

Greetings from Brussels

Robert
audiomaniac is offline  
post #14 of 127 Old 12-23-2005, 05:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,354
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Do you have a link? 2.6:1???

Now why would they make it 1000 and not go with the HD standard of 1080?

Mark

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is online now  
post #15 of 127 Old 01-10-2006, 02:53 PM
Member
 
mushusker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Olney, MD, USA
Posts: 41
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by avast View Post

I am just curious: who made the decision having 16:9, a completely new format, instead of using 2.35:1, an existing format, when HDTV was first designed? Why reinvent the wheel or introducing additional format to make everybody, the movie studios and consumers more headaches??????

See http://www.tvtechnology.com/features...engineer.shtml

Interestingly, the article quotes Dr. Powers as saying "Had the SMPTE working group been aware in 1984 of the full-frame (soft mat) protection scheme, it is by no means obvious that 16x9 would have amassed the advantages over 4x3 that persuaded the working group to make that choice."
mushusker is offline  
post #16 of 127 Old 01-14-2006, 02:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Spizz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 3,270
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Runco VX-2i atleast is supporting the new format, though not native-

Spizz is offline  
post #17 of 127 Old 01-14-2006, 07:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,354
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 31
At 1920 x 1080 + lens they've covered their bases. Even D-Cinema projector use a lens for 2.35:1...

Mark

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is online now  
post #18 of 127 Old 01-24-2006, 02:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
akm3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Spokane WA USA
Posts: 1,049
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Lens IS the way the big boys do it.

It is probably cheaper to have a lens +processing build into a PJ then to just build a 2.35:1 chip.

-Allen

It's hard to love Martin Logans and 2.35:1 CIH at the same time...
akm3 is offline  
post #19 of 127 Old 01-24-2006, 11:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,354
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:


It is probably cheaper to have a lens +processing build into a PJ then to just build a 2.35:1 chip.

This also allows for full panel use for all screenings and not just the 2.35:1 stuff...

Mark

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is online now  
post #20 of 127 Old 01-25-2006, 01:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,787
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 101
What is easiest?
Fit projectors with anamorphic lenses people can fiddle with?
Or build a wider DMD. Change some inboard optics and processing power. And the projector would do 2:35:1 CH with a push of a button, or even automatic, responding to a flag in the source material.
I believe the first projector that comes with an 2:35:1 DMD for a reasonable prize would be wildly popular and set standard for the whole FP industry.


Edit: Cut and corrected my wrong numbers as Mr.Poindexter pointed out below.
coolscan is offline  
post #21 of 127 Old 01-25-2006, 04:27 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Mr.Poindexter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Clovis, California
Posts: 7,381
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
coolscan, you lost me. A 2:1 DMD would still either need an anamophic lens or will not use the full resolution when showing 2.35:1 material. I would be able to project in 2.66:1 with it and that is about the extent of the benefit I can see.
Mr.Poindexter is offline  
post #22 of 127 Old 01-25-2006, 08:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,354
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Also anamorphic lenses are standard in the film industry (and D-Cinema is to be treated the same) and using the lens means full panel for both ARs not just the larger one. And the same rule should apply for the home. Full panel = brighter images and why I have started to use the pass through mode for 1.78:1 instead of stretching 4 x 3...

Mark

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is online now  
post #23 of 127 Old 01-25-2006, 12:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,787
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 101
I have edited my previous post, but want to add this:

A 2:35:1 DMD would do the same job as a 16:9 DMD with anamorphic lens, using the same vertical resolution for both AR.

The need for anamorphic attachment lenses would disappear.

Anamorphic lenses have been used in cinema projection for nearly 50 years.
They are not without problems in the professional environment of film projection.
Now they must use anamorphic lens in D-Cinema also because of the lack of 2:35:1 DMD.

The more optics you put in a picture path the more possibility there are for optical distortion.

The average HT projection owner would not need to handle and adjust an anamorphic lens attachment.

Every time you start a film, as a response to a flag on the disk, the correct AR will be displayed on the screen in its full vertical resolution without involvment of an anamorphic lens.
coolscan is offline  
post #24 of 127 Old 01-25-2006, 01:21 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Mr.Poindexter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Clovis, California
Posts: 7,381
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Coolscan, if you have a 2.35:1 projector, you will still need an anamorphic lens if you want to run 16x9 material full panel. Digital cinema will have one of two things happen:

1. A different projector for each aspect ratio film - not very likely!

2. The same projector with different lens attachments for each aspect ratio - been doing it for 50 years!

As it stands right now, you can have exactly what you describe - the correct AR displayed on the screen without any user interaction. You just have a lens there.

The need for anamorphic lenses will never disappear - trust me on this. Even if you had a native 2.35:1 projector, you are going to need an anamorphic lens on the widescreen HD cameras unless you think they are going to make 2.35:1 HD video cameras as well.
Mr.Poindexter is offline  
post #25 of 127 Old 01-25-2006, 05:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,354
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Its to do with brightness or light out put. We all know that max out put is obtained by using the full panel. So as has been said, the full panel is used for both ARs. The lens is simply there to correct geometry...

Mark

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is online now  
post #26 of 127 Old 01-26-2006, 07:53 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Mr.Poindexter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Clovis, California
Posts: 7,381
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Maximize light output or resolution or both. For those with a projector that is easily bright enough it becomes about maxing the resolution.
Mr.Poindexter is offline  
post #27 of 127 Old 11-16-2006, 09:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
akm3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Spokane WA USA
Posts: 1,049
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 11
This is ressurecting an old thread, but I'm curious if any mfg has come around to the idea of building a 2.35:1 native project with a "zoom" for 16x9 and a "big zoom" for 4:3?

-Allen

It's hard to love Martin Logans and 2.35:1 CIH at the same time...
akm3 is offline  
post #28 of 127 Old 11-17-2006, 05:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,354
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 31
No but I can reverse my lens for 4 x 3. If I take a 4 x 3 program and electronically stretch it using the 16:9 mode for a full panel brightness, and I can then optically compress it with the lens reversed (now acting as a Horizontal Compression lens) to restore the geometry. It is a bit of messing around, but works...

Mark

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is online now  
post #29 of 127 Old 11-17-2006, 05:40 AM
Member
 
artbypaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 40
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Switching aspect ratios may be a sticking point for many, but there are a few freaks like me who intentionally made my theater a 2.40:1 ONLY space. As large as flat panel and table-top DLP televisions are today, I have no problem watching other aspect ratio material that way.

So, I guess I'd fit nicely into the "niche market".
artbypaul is offline  
post #30 of 127 Old 11-20-2006, 04:54 PM
Advanced Member
 
Angeli662's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New York - NY
Posts: 843
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I found this interesting article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_widescreen
Angeli662 is offline  
Reply 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off