Question about switching between 16:9 and 2.35:1 without constant height - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 29 Old 09-07-2012, 05:46 PM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
gnarlycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Pickering, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I am in the beginning stages of creating my first home theatre. However, I'm a bit confused when it comes to the projector and the different aspect ratios. I want to watch my movies in 2.35:1 format, but want my tv to be in 16:9 format. I don't want to do a constant height setup because then my 16:9 will be too small for my liking.

As far as I know, you can get the 2.35:1 by either buying a projector with a zoom lens (1.3x minimum I've heard) or by adding an external anamorphic lens. Will either of these solutions be able to change the height of the image being presented depending on the format of the video source without me having to manually change the settings? I was hoping to be able to do a motorized screen cover to block out the parts of the screen that aren't being used as well.

Assuming it is possible to do, do I just purchase a 16:9 format screen that is wide enough to fit my 2.35:1 and then just mask the screen vertically when I go to 2.35:1 format, and then mask it horizontally when I go to 16:9 mode? Is there such a thing as constant width? I've only heard of constant height setups, but never constant width. Perhaps I'm making this more complicated then it has to be.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Trevor
gnarlycow is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 29 Old 09-08-2012, 06:08 AM
Member
 
Krbass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Finger Lakes
Posts: 187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
How big do you want your 16:9 image to be? I have a DIY CIH screen, 16:9 is 112" and 2.35:1 is 140". I just mask the sides when not watching a movie.
Krbass is offline  
post #3 of 29 Old 09-08-2012, 06:15 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Ron Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Florida and West Virginia, USA
Posts: 5,898
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 162 Post(s)
Liked: 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnarlycow View Post

I am in the beginning stages of creating my first home theatre. However, I'm a bit confused when it comes to the projector and the different aspect ratios. I want to watch my movies in 2.35:1 format, but want my tv to be in 16:9 format. I don't want to do a constant height setup because then my 16:9 will be too small for my liking.
As far as I know, you can get the 2.35:1 by either buying a projector with a zoom lens (1.3x minimum I've heard) or by adding an external anamorphic lens. Will either of these solutions be able to change the height of the image being presented depending on the format of the video source without me having to manually change the settings? I was hoping to be able to do a motorized screen cover to block out the parts of the screen that aren't being used as well.
Assuming it is possible to do, do I just purchase a 16:9 format screen that is wide enough to fit my 2.35:1 and then just mask the screen vertically when I go to 2.35:1 format, and then mask it horizontally when I go to 16:9 mode? Is there such a thing as constant width? I've only heard of constant height setups, but never constant width. Perhaps I'm making this more complicated then it has to be.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Trevor

It really sounds that your best approach is simply to use a 16x9 screen which when used to show 2.35:1 movies will have a black bar at the top and bottom. So zooming, scaling or any other thing is required by the projector as this is how it will normally be displayed. You could go one step further and use a screen masking system that will move a black mask across the top and across the bottom to create a 2.35:1 opening in the center of the screen. There are screens available with built-in masking systems as well as add-on masking systems to use with fixed frame screens. The least expensive screen I seen with built-in masking (manual in this case) is from monoprice.com - link is HERE for their 120 inch model.

Ron Jones
Blog + Reviews + Articles: projectorreviews.com
Ron Jones is online now  
post #4 of 29 Old 09-08-2012, 11:29 AM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
gnarlycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Pickering, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
At the moment, my 2.35:1 diagonal measurement is 144". Although I'm still trying to figure out if that is going to be 'overkill' since at the moment, my wife approved home theatre room layout (not the way I want to do it), has me sitting 14' away from the screen...but I don't want to end up with a tiny screen, since at that point, I may as well just go buy a plasma smile.gif.

I would just like to be able to watch full cinescope ratio movies when possible, and then when not, watch on a large 16:9 ratio screen. I don't want to just lose the left and right of my screen if possible as I imagine that would make my screen rather small. That's why I thought if I had a massive 16:9 screen that I could then just mask off with a masking system to make it 2.35:1 when I needed it, would allow me to have both ratios on the biggest screen option. I'm still not understanding if I need a certain type of projector to achieve variable height and width, or whether I need an anamorphic lens and zoom on the projector. I'm trying to research it, but perhaps I'm not searching for the correct terminology because I'm not finding an answer that makes sense to me (although that could mean I'm a tad dim).
gnarlycow is offline  
post #5 of 29 Old 09-08-2012, 02:57 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
millerwill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 11,437
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnarlycow View Post

I am in the beginning stages of creating my first home theatre. However, I'm a bit confused when it comes to the projector and the different aspect ratios. I want to watch my movies in 2.35:1 format, but want my tv to be in 16:9 format. I don't want to do a constant height setup because then my 16:9 will be too small for my liking.
As far as I know, you can get the 2.35:1 by either buying a projector with a zoom lens (1.3x minimum I've heard) or by adding an external anamorphic lens. Will either of these solutions be able to change the height of the image being presented depending on the format of the video source without me having to manually change the settings? I was hoping to be able to do a motorized screen cover to block out the parts of the screen that aren't being used as well.
Assuming it is possible to do, do I just purchase a 16:9 format screen that is wide enough to fit my 2.35:1 and then just mask the screen vertically when I go to 2.35:1 format, and then mask it horizontally when I go to 16:9 mode? Is there such a thing as constant width? I've only heard of constant height setups, but never constant width. Perhaps I'm making this more complicated then it has to be.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Trevor


With similar desires as you--i.e., wanting a pic as wide as possible for 2.35, and high enough for 16x9--I went with a hybrid size screen, 144"W x 72"H, i.e. 2.0 aspect ratio.    For 16x9, I thus have a 128x72 size pic, with 'black bars' on the sides; for 2.35 I have a 144x61 (or whatever, depending on 2.35, 2.40, etc.), with 'black bars' above and below.

 

With 16x9 I lens shift the pic to line up with one edge of the screen and have a masking panel I slip in the other side (1.5'' think styrofoam panel, covered with ProtoStar material).    For 2.35 pics I zoom the projecctor to fill the 144" width and lens shift the pic to line up with the bottom edge of the screen, thus having a black bar at the top (which I don't bother to mask since it is quite ignorable at the top).

 

All the zooming and lens shifting is stored in 2 memory settings of the projector (Sony1000), so it is a very painless procedure shifting back and forth between these two modes.     Everything works like a charm and has been the wisest decision I've ever made for my setup!

millerwill is offline  
post #6 of 29 Old 09-08-2012, 03:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
doublewing11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Timber Country!
Posts: 3,833
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 318
Search for constant area thread which is quite extensive on how to get the best of both worlds.....ie. 2.37 and 1.78.

Use the AVS search engine...........I can't remember the AVS member's name. I believe he's from Toronto. Signature name Harkness?
doublewing11 is offline  
post #7 of 29 Old 09-08-2012, 03:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kelvin1965S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 3,255
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 48
It's 'R Harkness' you might be thinking of with the variable ratio screen with 4 way masking. He also knows how to treat a room for proper projector viewing. smile.gif

Zooming: Been there, done that, bought the lens...
Kelvin1965S is offline  
post #8 of 29 Old 09-08-2012, 04:06 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
millerwill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 11,437
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelvin1965S View Post

It's 'R Harkness' you might be thinking of with the variable ratio screen with 4 way masking. He also knows how to treat a room for proper projector viewing. smile.gif


Yes, it was from Rich's post a year or more ago that got me to thinking about an intermediate AR screen.     For my setup, 144" was the max width I could fit in and 72"H gave me a 16x9 pic as large as I wanted.    So this dictated my choice of a 144x72 screen; just an accident that it is exactly 2.0.

millerwill is offline  
post #9 of 29 Old 09-08-2012, 04:21 PM
 
BobL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,797
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 53
Trevor,

You can do masking 3 basic ways and all are feasible it just depends on your preference.

1. 16:9 screen with masking of the top/bottom for 2.35 movies, Consant image width (CIW). A good solution for:
a. mostly 16:9 viewing
b. Largest 16:9 screen
c. if NOT using an anamorphic lens or projector with lens memory for zooming

2. 2.35:1 screen with masking of the sides for 16:9, Constant Image Height (CIH). A good solution for:
a. movie buffs
b. using an anamorphic lens or projector with lens memory for zooming
c. 4:3 material can also be masked. Good for old movies and TV shows.

3. 4 way masking. Put in a screen is large as you like and set the masking for any aspect you like. It is real nice for odd aspect ratios.

4. A non-masking solution some designers are using is a 2:1 screen. 16:9 gets stretched a little and 2.35 gets squeezed a little. But your picture always fits the screen. You need a separate video processor for this as most projectors can't handle this type of scaling.

One last comment about large screens. Consider your audio! Large screens are great if the speakers are not shoved into corners and the center sits on the floor or ceiling. Acoustically transparent screens are great solutions for large screens so your speakers can be placed for good sound and you still have a large picture.
BobL is offline  
post #10 of 29 Old 09-08-2012, 05:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: good old USA
Posts: 1,490
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnarlycow View Post

I would just like to be able to watch full cinescope ratio movies when possible, and then when not, watch on a large 16:9 ratio screen. I don't want to just lose the left and right of my screen if possible as I imagine that would make my screen rather small. That's why I thought if I had a massive 16:9 screen that I could then just mask off with a masking system to make it 2.35:1 when I needed it, would allow me to have both ratios on the biggest screen option.

Here's what I did DIY for manual variable masking on a 16:9 screen.

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1169586/my-latest-masking-trial/0_50

It took a bit of experimenting before I came up with what I've been using ever since. There are a number of other threads with manual and automated DIY masking setups in the DIY Screen Section, which can be found by doing a forum search for "masking".

See ya. Dave

"High Fidelity audio has been like a dog chasing his tail. High Fidelity in my marriage has been much more rewarding cause she knows where I sleep."
Jive Turkey is online now  
post #11 of 29 Old 09-08-2012, 06:11 PM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
gnarlycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Pickering, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobL View Post

Trevor,
You can do masking 3 basic ways and all are feasible it just depends on your preference.
1. 16:9 screen with masking of the top/bottom for 2.35 movies, Consant image width (CIW). A good solution for:
a. mostly 16:9 viewing
b. Largest 16:9 screen
c. if NOT using an anamorphic lens or projector with lens memory for zooming

2. 2.35:1 screen with masking of the sides for 16:9, Constant Image Height (CIH). A good solution for:
a. movie buffs
b. using an anamorphic lens or projector with lens memory for zooming
c. 4:3 material can also be masked. Good for old movies and TV shows.
3. 4 way masking. Put in a screen is large as you like and set the masking for any aspect you like. It is real nice for odd aspect ratios.
4. A non-masking solution some designers are using is a 2:1 screen. 16:9 gets stretched a little and 2.35 gets squeezed a little. But your picture always fits the screen. You need a separate video processor for this as most projectors can't handle this type of scaling.
One last comment about large screens. Consider your audio! Large screens are great if the speakers are not shoved into corners and the center sits on the floor or ceiling. Acoustically transparent screens are great solutions for large screens so your speakers can be placed for good sound and you still have a large picture.

Thanks for the help everyone. I have yet some more research to do (does it ever stop?). My plan right now is to do an audio transparent screen with my speakers behind. I just like the clean look and the sound coming from the image...although I think this will cost me more to get a good screen that has the smallest holes possible as to minimize the effect on the image quality.

I think the 4 way masking is sounding like the thing I need to do the most. I'll look into exactly how that is done.

I thought that a projector was unable to project an image to 2.35:1 without an anamorphic lens. If that is true, then that is great because then I can save my money by not having to buy one of those lenses (some cars cost less!). If some projectors can broadcast all of the different aspect ratios, then is there a particular technology/feature name I need to make sure the projector has in order to hit every aspect ratio from 2.35:1 down?

One last question...if my diagonal width is approximately 144" in 2.35:1, is there a particular lumen value that I need to have minimum to be happy with the brightness (in a room with a little ambient light)?

Thanks again,
Trevor
gnarlycow is offline  
post #12 of 29 Old 09-08-2012, 06:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Highjinx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,770
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Here's mine, CiH/CIW---twin screen EQ brightness!.....may give you some ideas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58Ncvn_Qtdg

May the success of a Nation be judged not by its collective wealth nor by its power, but by the contentment of its people.
Hiran J Wijeyesekera - 1985.
Highjinx is offline  
post #13 of 29 Old 09-08-2012, 07:32 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
millerwill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 11,437
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnarlycow View Post


Thanks for the help everyone. I have yet some more research to do (does it ever stop?). My plan right now is to do an audio transparent screen with my speakers behind. I just like the clean look and the sound coming from the image...although I think this will cost me more to get a good screen that has the smallest holes possible as to minimize the effect on the image quality.
I think the 4 way masking is sounding like the thing I need to do the most. I'll look into exactly how that is done.
I thought that a projector was unable to project an image to 2.35:1 without an anamorphic lens. If that is true, then that is great because then I can save my money by not having to buy one of those lenses (some cars cost less!). If some projectors can broadcast all of the different aspect ratios, then is there a particular technology/feature name I need to make sure the projector has in order to hit every aspect ratio from 2.35:1 down?
One last question...if my diagonal width is approximately 144" in 2.35:1, is there a particular lumen value that I need to have minimum to be happy with the brightness (in a room with a little ambient light)?
Thanks again,
Trevor


Yes, you do need to do some more research; esp read about the 'zoom method' for doing 2.35 w/o an anamorphic lens.

millerwill is offline  
post #14 of 29 Old 09-08-2012, 07:43 PM
 
BobL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,797
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 53
An anamorphic lens isw the best way to do 2.35, unless you have a native 2.35 projector. A poor man's way of doing 2.35 is to adjust the zoom lens of the projector to make it fit the size needed. The advantage of a an anamorphic lens is you get more brightness, more resolution and no overspray. The projector (or video processor) scales the image vertically so all the pixels are used. The lens is then placed in front of the projector stretching the picture horizontally and correcting for the vertical scaling. Because all the pixels are used the image will be brighter than if you just zoom a picture with black bars to fill the 2.35 screen. When using the zoom method your black bars will be larger than many screens frame and light up the area above and below the screen. So I would use an anamorphic lens if possible and budget allows.

To do a 144" diagonal screen with no ambient light I'd recommend a projector which can do 1200 CALIBRATED lumens in BEST picture quality mode. This would give you 24 ft/l when new and still have close to 12ft/l when the bulb is near the end of its lifespan. If you don't mind using less accurate modes or changing bulbs early you can get by with less lumens. Of course you can always use a gain screen and you won't need as bright of a projector. More is always better for ambient light. Try to keep from having your ambient light from hitting the screen and you can have a fair amount without too much degrading of the picture. Screen material can help preserve contrast for ambient light viewing. You have a lot of decisions to make:D
BobL is offline  
post #15 of 29 Old 09-08-2012, 07:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Highjinx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,770
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Using an anamorphic lens does not give any additional image data thus no additional resolution. The image resolution is locked, sealed and limited by the source, in fact using an anamorphic lens may reduce the resolution due to MTF reduction. Brightness 10-15% increase yes. Stretching existing source information over blank pixels does not yeild more image resolution.

May the success of a Nation be judged not by its collective wealth nor by its power, but by the contentment of its people.
Hiran J Wijeyesekera - 1985.
Highjinx is offline  
post #16 of 29 Old 09-08-2012, 08:01 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
millerwill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 11,437
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobL View Post

An anamorphic lens isw the best way to do 2.35, unless you have a native 2.35 projector. A poor man's way of doing 2.35 is to adjust the zoom lens of the projector to make it fit the size needed. The advantage of a an anamorphic lens is you get more brightness, more resolution and no overspray. The projector (or video processor) scales the image vertically so all the pixels are used. The lens is then placed in front of the projector stretching the picture horizontally and correcting for the vertical scaling. Because all the pixels are used the image will be brighter than if you just zoom a picture with black bars to fill the 2.35 screen. When using the zoom method your black bars will be larger than many screens frame and light up the area above and below the screen. So I would use an anamorphic lens if possible and budget allows.
To do a 144" diagonal screen with no ambient light I'd recommend a projector which can do 1200 CALIBRATED lumens in BEST picture quality mode. This would give you 24 ft/l when new and still have close to 12ft/l when the bulb is near the end of its lifespan. If you don't mind using less accurate modes or changing bulbs early you can get by with less lumens. Of course you can always use a gain screen and you won't need as bright of a projector. More is always better for ambient light. Try to keep from having your ambient light from hitting the screen and you can have a fair amount without too much degrading of the picture. Screen material can help preserve contrast for ambient light viewing. You have a lot of decisions to make:D


By having absorbant black material around the screen, the 'black bars' of 'overspill' are completely unobservant when doing the zoom method.    Putting another glass element (anamorphic lens) in the light path always compromises the optics to some extinct.

millerwill is offline  
post #17 of 29 Old 09-08-2012, 08:42 PM
Advanced Member
 
erwinfrombelgium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Flanders, Belgium
Posts: 659
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Liked: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnarlycow View Post

At the moment, my 2.35:1 diagonal measurement is 144". Although I'm still trying to figure out if that is going to be 'overkill' since at the moment, my wife approved home theatre room layout (not the way I want to do it), has me sitting 14' away from the screen...but I don't want to end up with a tiny screen, since at that point, I may as well just go buy a plasma smile.gif.
I would just like to be able to watch full cinescope ratio movies when possible, and then when not, watch on a large 16:9 ratio screen. I don't want to just lose the left and right of my screen if possible as I imagine that would make my screen rather small. That's why I thought if I had a massive 16:9 screen that I could then just mask off with a masking system to make it 2.35:1 when I needed it, would allow me to have both ratios on the biggest screen option. I'm still not understanding if I need a certain type of projector to achieve variable height and width, or whether I need an anamorphic lens and zoom on the projector. I'm trying to research it, but perhaps I'm not searching for the correct terminology because I'm not finding an answer that makes sense to me (although that could mean I'm a tad dim).
I am by no means an expert, but there's another thing you need to decide and that is whether you want all three LCR behind the Acoustic Transparent screen or just the Center. The THX recommendation regarding viewing angle (screen width vs viewing distance) and LR speaker angle (45° their suggestion vs up to 60° for music stereo / surround formats) usualy means the LR are behind the AT screen for 2.35/1 but not for 16/9. It has an impact on the masking system since it has to be also Acoustic Transparent if the LR are behind the screen.

Your WAF CIW of 144" (=130" width) and 14' view distance means a viewing angle of 43°. I'd put the LR besides the screen in that case. Gives you one less masking decision factor to deal with.

Building a HT with 7.2.4 layout and ◤SEOS-24◥ LCR.
erwinfrombelgium is offline  
post #18 of 29 Old 09-09-2012, 03:24 AM
 
BobL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,797
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 53
You are correct it doesn't add any image data but you are using all the pixels and it does have a crisper picture. We have installed both methods and the A-lens is always the nicer picture. I've tested both and the benefits of the A-lens outweigh any minor negative like having en extra piece of glass. Cost is usually the issue for not doing an A-lens. Also, depending on the lens sometimes a curved screen is preferred which can add more to the cost.

Overspill can be dealt with light absorbing material. For some that is acceptable, others it is not. Depends on the room setup and decor.
BobL is offline  
post #19 of 29 Old 09-09-2012, 09:01 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
millerwill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 11,437
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobL View Post

You are correct it doesn't add any image data but you are using all the pixels and it does have a crisper picture. We have installed both methods and the A-lens is always the nicer picture. I've tested both and the benefits of the A-lens outweigh any minor negative like having en extra piece of glass. Cost is usually the issue for not doing an A-lens. Also, depending on the lens sometimes a curved screen is preferred which can add more to the cost.
Overspill can be dealt with light absorbing material. For some that is acceptable, others it is not. Depends on the room setup and decor.


I haven't tried an A-lens, so you certainly know more than I.    Another thing that steered me away from it was that I have my pj (a Sony1000) at the shortest possible throw (so that I can use my large screen in my room), and have read that this location makes for more distortion with an A-lens (unless one goes to a curved lens, as you note). Also, with the Sony1000 I have no issue with loosing a few pixels .

millerwill is offline  
post #20 of 29 Old 09-09-2012, 09:32 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
thebland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Detroit, Michigan USA
Posts: 23,978
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 291 Post(s)
Liked: 157
Use an anamorphic lens and 2.35 screen. Side masking to use when using 16:9. E.G. CIH. No black bars again.

Ideal for all occasions. From 1.78 to 2.35 ARs.

When using an anamorphic lens. You use all the pixels on your projector and get a better sharper image.

I use an ISCO lens and a Stewart vistascope masking system. If you want the best image this is the way to go. But my lens and screen system runs over $30K retail. You can spend Large percentage less for a similar result.

My Home Theater of the Month- Le Petit Trianon

There are more than a handful of [op amps] that sound so good that most designers want to be using them as opposed to discreet transistors. Dave Reich, Theta 2009
thebland is offline  
post #21 of 29 Old 09-09-2012, 09:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kelvin1965S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 3,255
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Sounds lovely The Bland. smile.gif I'm also guessing the Isco is a slightly better one than the Isco II that I had. cool.gif Do you slide the lens out of the way for 1.85:1 content or just scale the whole time? Even though it meant adjusting the zoom slightly (an Isco II isn't strictly constant height due to 5% magnification) I would still watch 16:9 films without the lens in place for two reasons: One that I would us all the pixels and two that as I'd never got round to making up side masks that it gave blacker side bars compared to just scaling with the lens in place.

Zooming: Been there, done that, bought the lens...
Kelvin1965S is offline  
post #22 of 29 Old 09-09-2012, 09:54 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
millerwill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 11,437
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

Use an anamorphic lens and 2.35 screen. Side masking to use when using 16:9. E.G. CIH. No black bars again.
Ideal for all occasions. From 1.78 to 2.35 ARs.
When using an anamorphic lens. You use all the pixels on your projector and get a better sharper image.
I use an ISCO lens and a Stewart vistascope masking system. If you want the best image this is the way to go. But my lens and screen system runs over $30K retail. You can spend Large percentage less for a similar result.

Problem for me is that a 144"W (the largest my room can take) 2.35 screen would give be only 61"H, thus restricting a 16x9 pic to only ~110x61(the size of my previous screen).      The room can easily take a 72"H screen, so with my hybrid size (144x72) I get the largest 16x9 (actually 17x9 with the Sony1000) pic my room can take (136x72) as well as the largest 2.35 (144x61).     

 

And as noted, I do slip a 8"x72" panel (it fits right inside the screen's frame) in the left size of the screen when doing 17x9, and lens shift the 2.35 pic to line up with the bottom of the screen (with all lens shifting and zooming done with 1 button push on my URC); having a black bar at the top of the screen is not noticeable.    

 

I thought long and hard about all these considerations, including an a-lens, but settled on what I described.   My experience is that it is the best, and simplest,  arrangement (for me).

millerwill is offline  
post #23 of 29 Old 09-09-2012, 10:46 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
thebland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Detroit, Michigan USA
Posts: 23,978
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 291 Post(s)
Liked: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelvin1965S View Post

Sounds lovely The Bland. smile.gif I'm also guessing the Isco is a slightly better one than the Isco II that I had. cool.gif Do you slide the lens out of the way for 1.85:1 content or just scale the whole time? Even though it meant adjusting the zoom slightly (an Isco II isn't strictly constant height due to 5% magnification) I would still watch 16:9 films without the lens in place for two reasons: One that I would us all the pixels and two that as I'd never got round to making up side masks that it gave blacker side bars compared to just scaling with the lens in place.

Yeah, I have an ISCO III.

I have a CIne-slide that automatically slides in for 2.35. I watch 16:9 / 1.85 without the A lens (full masked). I can crop off a few inches to fit the 1.85 to the 1.78 masking or stretch to fit. My 2.35 width is 14' and my 16:9 width is 10.5'.

Most of the films I watch are 2.35, so it's a great solution. When watching 2.35 films, the automation of the masks, lens slide and projector, one macro on my remote dims the lights, opens the masks, slides in the lens and sets the proper projector memory to expand the image for the lens. Slick! Thanks!

My Home Theater of the Month- Le Petit Trianon

There are more than a handful of [op amps] that sound so good that most designers want to be using them as opposed to discreet transistors. Dave Reich, Theta 2009
thebland is offline  
post #24 of 29 Old 09-09-2012, 11:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kelvin1965S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 3,255
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Mmmm an Isco III cool.gif My 2.35:1 was just under 10' wide so a good step down from yours, but it was still pretty big for a UK living room. I too found that most of my viewing was 2.35:1 which was why I went that route, shame I couldn't have a proper dedicated room though. I might get another projector one day, but I doubt it'll be quite on your scale. Kudos. smile.gif

Zooming: Been there, done that, bought the lens...
Kelvin1965S is offline  
post #25 of 29 Old 09-09-2012, 05:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RapalloAV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 1,849
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 125 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill View Post


I haven't tried an A-lens, so you certainly know more than I.    Another thing that steered me away from it was that I have my pj (a Sony1000) at the shortest possible throw (so that I can use my large screen in my room), and have read that this location makes for more distortion with an A-lens (unless one goes to a curved lens, as you note). Also, with the Sony1000 I have no issue with loosing a few pixels .

I have been told you cant use any of the current Anamorphic lenses with a 4K projector like the Sony 1000. Please tell me if anyone is?

I use the Schneider M with the JVC-65 and its fantastic, but with what Ive been told Im worried to ever move to 4K without my Schneider.

(see this)


Apparently 4K projectors have extra large beam diameters, more akin to D-Cinema projectors (Barco, Christie etc.). Large input and output apertures needed, even bigger than the Isco-III.

The reason for the large beam size is probably down to the larger chip size. Here's why:

1. Larger chip size means longer focal length projector lenses.
2. Longer focal length projector lenses mean wider lens diameters to maintain f-number of the lens.
3. Larger lenses mean bigger anamorphics to fit them.

Thinking about it: f-number is focal length divided by aperture (mostly just lens diameter). f-2 on a 100mm lens means the lens is 50mm in diamater (100/50 = 2). For a smaller chip size (and hence shorter focal length required), you might only need a 50mm focal length lens. The lens diameter would only need to be 25mm (50/25 = 2). Smaller image chip -> Smaller diameter lens -> smaller beam.

The D-Cinema lenses are HUGE, and cost triple the price of a regular Isco.
RapalloAV is online now  
post #26 of 29 Old 10-09-2012, 04:10 AM
Member
 
Projector Lad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 36
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Thanks, helped my understanding on anamorphic / 2.35 setup, thanks!
Projector Lad is offline  
post #27 of 29 Old 10-09-2012, 11:50 AM
Senior Member
 
JoeBoy73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnarlycow View Post

I am in the beginning stages of creating my first home theatre. However, I'm a bit confused when it comes to the projector and the different aspect ratios. I want to watch my movies in 2.35:1 format, but want my tv to be in 16:9 format. I don't want to do a constant height setup because then my 16:9 will be too small for my liking.
As far as I know, you can get the 2.35:1 by either buying a projector with a zoom lens (1.3x minimum I've heard) or by adding an external anamorphic lens. Will either of these solutions be able to change the height of the image being presented depending on the format of the video source without me having to manually change the settings? I was hoping to be able to do a motorized screen cover to block out the parts of the screen that aren't being used as well.
Assuming it is possible to do, do I just purchase a 16:9 format screen that is wide enough to fit my 2.35:1 and then just mask the screen vertically when I go to 2.35:1 format, and then mask it horizontally when I go to 16:9 mode? Is there such a thing as constant width? I've only heard of constant height setups, but never constant width. Perhaps I'm making this more complicated then it has to be.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Trevor
Hello GC...this video processor is also a interesting alternative, one down side however is the cost...$1500. But it allows you to get the 2.35 format with any native 16.9 projector.
Here's the thread: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1304556/official-lumagen-radiancemini-3d-thread
Here's the system in action: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwF7nYe-YzM
JoeBoy73 is offline  
post #28 of 29 Old 10-09-2012, 01:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my home theater ( when I'm not rock climbing, cycling or kayaking ) - Sacramento CA area
Posts: 5,219
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 273 Post(s)
Liked: 295
Quote:
By having absorbant black material around the screen, the 'black bars' of 'overspill' are completely unobservant when doing the zoom method. Putting another glass element (anamorphic lens) in the light path always compromises the optics to some extinct.

I'm in the zooming camp, but I prefer to use 2 electric screens. Takes care of the overspill !!!


Craig Peer, AV Science Sales. Call me on my direct line - 585-671-2972, 8:30am - 4:30pm PST, Monday - Friday
Email me at craig@avscience.com http://shop.avscience.com/
Yes, we sell Home Theater gear right here at AVS !!
JVC, Sony, Epson, DPI, SIM2, SV Sound, Martin Logan, RBH, and many more!
Craig Peer is offline  
post #29 of 29 Old 10-11-2012, 04:19 PM
Advanced Member
 
humbland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 976
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeBoy73 View Post

Hello GC...this video processor is also a interesting alternative, one down side however is the cost...$1500. But it allows you to get the 2.35 format with any native 16.9 projector.
Here's the thread: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1304556/official-lumagen-radiancemini-3d-thread
Here's the system in action: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwF7nYe-YzM

Hi Everyone,
I'm experienced in front projection, but new to processors.
I'm trying to figure out a solution to a similar problem. We watch mostly movies, but some HD sports. From my reading a good copmpromise screen ratio is 2.0:1.
We are setting up a new media theater room with cathedral ceilings. I have to put the projector on a drop tube and I can't be getting on a ladder each time I need to focus, zoom or shift the lens. I want to use a new projector like the Sony 50ES or the new Epsons. However, these do not have powered lens shift/focus/zoom
The maximum width of the screen can be is about 130 inches. I want to go to a 2.0:1 Aspect Ratio screen. Da-lite will build me a 65"x130" High Power electric screen for a reasonable cost.
Can the Lumagen scale all aspect ratios to 2.0:1? It's an odd size and I wasn't sure if it is adjustable to that extent.
My thinking is to get one of the new projectors and use the Lumagen to fit all images to the 2.0:1 screen size. If it can do it, can it be set up to do it automatically?
Thanks for your help.
humbland is online now  
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

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