Native Scope projectors finally here ! - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 132 Old 04-02-2011, 10:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
I don't know that people "do this" is a reason to continue doing it . Look at a consumer camcorder. They have lenses you screw in front of their non-removable zooms to get wide or more reach. Do you see us doing that with our interchangeable DSLR lenses? No (other than special-purpose close-up lenses which are poor man's macro). There is no case that can be made that putting two lenses with an air gap in between then is a "good thing."

And then there is the cost of course of the secondary lens and labor to put it in and adjust it all.

Your second point can be valid on paper. But we have a 17 foot screen right now at something like 10-12 foot viewing distance, going way past SMPTE guidelines for viewing angle. There is not one person who has complained about us zooming too much or seeing pixel structure. On the contrary, they rave about how great it is to have their field of view filled. This is not to say that you definitely want to sit this close but we are showing that the above notion in practice is not a consideration. After all, horizontally you are still zooming even with anamorphic lens. So it is only in the vertical dimension that your effective pixel structure is finer.
It's after having seen the practical application that most people 'do this' rather than from 'on paper' research. That's my point.

Although zooming can look 'OK', it's not until you do the comparison with a lens and scaling that you realise it can be done better. That's the main reason why most people who 'do this' decided to spend the money on a lens rather than zoom - they've done the comparison. A forum member here with a 3 chip DLP has said it's possible to occasionally see pixel structure from 2 x screen height with a lens (approx SMPTEs closest recommended), but has to sit much further back when zooming.

As for the air gap, in theory there are potential issues, but they're not visible and when measured they're very small (loss of lumens or ANSI contrast).

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
And on the latter point, that is what this new PJ does. It also uses all the vertical pixels so I am not seeing the advantage of the lens there anymore.
When we first discussed this pj a while back, it was cheaper to use a lens and a 16:9 pj to get the same result. With a 1080 pj and a lens you still use all the vertical pixels. The difference is that the image is being horizontally stretched rather than scaled.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
Again, we have direct demonstration to the contrary. And we have now done it with two different projector brands and both perform superbly in creating a cinematic experience at even exaggerated screen sizes and unusually short viewing distance.
You have anecdotal evidence from people who've probably not done the comparison. I know people who have done the comparison just out of interest, and then bought a lens on the back of it. I was one but there are plenty of others. I always felt that 1 to 1 pixel mapping and zooming had to be superior until I tried a lens. One of those cases where theory and practice have different results.

What were the pjs you mention and were the lenses defocused (It was how DLP Cinema used to reduce pixel visibility in the past)? Do you know what the reflectance levels were?

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
I am a serious photographer and I have yet to run into anyone shooting with an "anamorphic" lens. We have tilt and shift lenses but they don't work the same way as they replace the primary lens, they are not dangled in font of it in mid-air. And there, they are medium format lenses being used on smaller sensors so it is an entirely different animal.

As I noted above, there are screw on close-up lenses but a dedicated macro is always preferred other than size and weight considerations.
There are plenty on ebay - if I search for anamorphic lens I end up with quite a few in the results.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
Again, think of all the money you save on the anamorphic lens and putting that toward the projector. You may be able to get much brighter projector and that allows you to do this you cannot do with your dimmer projector and anamorphic lens dangled in front of it.

Let me finish by saying that I am not defending the new platform per-se. I would need to see it in person to make sure it performs. But as a direction, I firmly believe in the simpler, more cost effective and purer execution of 2.35:1 presentation.
Currently it's cheaper to stick with a good lens and 16:9 pj, but when a native 2.37 pj becomes readily available and is within my pocket, I'll probably get one, but I'll have to see it in action first (I think we both agree on that). Better still would be anamorphic BD content or 2560 x 1080 pj and source material that wouldn't need a lens.

Gary

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

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 132 Old 04-02-2011, 10:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 39
[quote=Digital2004;20246183
there's something amazing with film when you see Unstoppable for instance incredible detals, huge dynamics (whites), depth that the a digital can't still match.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately my experience at my local cineplex is the opposite. Most films come via 2K Digital Intermediate and then after bulk release printing means were seeing even less resolution. Put it through the projector a few times and the quality goes down further still. Compared to digital presentations film doesn't look so good to me anymore.

Gary

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

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #93 of 132 Old 04-02-2011, 10:25 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,013
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 688 Post(s)
Liked: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post
Just because no one you know complains doesn't make it a superior technique.

Art
Well, I know a lot of people .

The Projection design article gives the objective reasons for why it might be better: http://www.avielo.com/news-2011-03-04-2.35.html. And I did in my post too. Ultimately that is what is up to be challenged.

I provided my personal experience for our customers and technology people I know to counter Gary's statement of "cinematic experience." That is a subjective statement and I countered with the survey of the people who see ours. My position is that a zoomed solution is just as cinematic as anything else. I accept your statement that you don't know who saw it and therefore it may not weigh in on the issue but hopefully you see that it does have a place in the argument.

Reading between the lines, I have to say that using anamorphic lens has become such a fixture in high-end installations that it is hard for people to let go of the concept on principal. At least that is my experience in discussing it here. To be fair, I come from the other negative bias as a photographer, disgusted with the whole idea optically .

I encourage people to go and see a native implementation when it comes out, and for now, servo zoom based solutions like we are using. If it doesn't suit your need, you can always use an anamorphic lens in addition. You have a choice with these platforms. Not so with the others.

Amir
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is online now  
post #94 of 132 Old 04-02-2011, 10:46 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,013
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 688 Post(s)
Liked: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post
Although zooming can look 'OK', it's not until you do the comparison with a lens and scaling that you realise it can be done better. That's the main reason why most people who 'do this' decided to spend the money on a lens rather than zoom - they've done the comparison. A forum member here with a 3 chip DLP has said it's possible to occasionally see pixel structure from 2 x screen height with a lens (approx SMPTEs closest recommended), but has to sit much further back when zooming.
As Art, I am going to dismiss evaluation of people who I don't know, and have tested with other gear and configuration .

Quote:
As for the air gap, in theory there are potential issues, but they're not visible and when measured they're very small (loss of lumens or ANSI contrast).
I have heard the argument. And provided data to the contrary, directly from the manufacturer's post on this very forum. As I think I noted, we have had this argument before, with that thread going dozens of pages with me providing Photoshop simulations and such. For now, look at the back of your anamorphic lens. Do you see a picture of what you are watching? I bet you do. All of that light is now reflecting back into the primary lens. And until someone shows how you can build an ideal lens, you have to accept its MTF further low pass filtering the primary image.

Quote:
When we first discussed this pj a while back, it was cheaper to use a lens and a 16:9 pj to get the same result. With a 1080 pj and a lens you still use all the vertical pixels. The difference is that the image is being horizontally stretched rather than scaled.
I am not discussing this PJ. I am discussing the topic in general. Our current projector can be used either with servo zoom that is built into it, or slap an anamorphic lens in front of it. There is no question in that configuration, which is cheaper.

Quote:
You have anecdotal evidence from people who've probably not done the comparison. I know people who have done the comparison just out of interest, and then bought a lens on the back of it.
And I am not disputing people who do that. I ask how they thought they were doing away with the horizontal pixel structure if the lens is not softening it. You can't have it both ways. You can't say the lens is transparent in one breath, and say that it gets rid of pixel structure when the same number of pixels is used either way. If it is softening the pixels that way, then the whole image is softer.

Quote:
I always felt that 1 to 1 pixel mapping and zooming had to be superior until I tried a lens. One of those cases where theory and practice have different results.
They do sometimes. And I also provided an example of the opposite. We are at 0.7X screen width. You would think if your observation was remotely universal, we would have people running away from our theater but precisely the opposite is true. It is not fruitful to get into betterness of one person's experience vs another other than if you think I don't know video in which case let's take this fight outside .

Quote:
What were the pjs you mention and were the lenses defocused (It was how DLP Cinema used to reduce pixel visibility in the past)? Do you know what the reflectance levels were?
No we don't defocus the projectors. I have tried that in the past and the type of defocus we get out of PJ lenses in my opinion is not good for that purpose. For one, there is not usually enough accuracy and for two, the geometry doesn't work well there.

Quote:
There are plenty on ebay - if I search for anamorphic lens I end up with quite a few in the results.
I just did a search and can't find one with a sled. Do you have a link?

Amir
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is online now  
post #95 of 132 Old 04-02-2011, 12:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Digital2004's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Gotham City
Posts: 2,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post
Unfortunately my experience at my local cineplex is the opposite. Most films come via 2K Digital Intermediate and then after bulk release printing means were seeing even less resolution. Put it through the projector a few times and the quality goes down further still. Compared to digital presentations film doesn't look so good to me anymore.

Gary
Gary
no i meant: use film camera to make a movie then process to a qbit server JPEG2000 and project it with a 3DLP 2K ( or 4K soon).
and i was refering to UNSTOPPABLE blu ray

film-camera have still better imho abilities of widest dynamic range, best night capture and motion clarity/maintained resolution etc
but there's improvement needed as for instance frames per second, use 65mm when possible ($$) and digital cams still need improvement too( motion blur, dark scenes, increase dynamic range)

we have already great projectors available. we need to see improvement in the sources on blu ray but also film makers not going the easy way route of digital cameras and completely abandoning film cameras.
see my point ?

my conclusion is thus that the debate of native 2.35:1 pj or 16/9 + lens is bit acadamic vs the importance of improvements of the way films are shot and what is encoded on blu ray.
Digital2004 is offline  
post #96 of 132 Old 04-02-2011, 02:26 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Alan Gouger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Florida
Posts: 18,726
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
We have had this argument in the past many times. People who use a lens do so to eliminate black bars visible pixel structure as well as diagonal stair stepping.
Those who oppose say the vertical stretch will cause artifacts and the lens will cost a lose in ANSI contrast. We have later found out that lose is minimal.
A native 235:1 projector still has to scale and you still have black bars but in a different direction so not sure what we are gaining other then maintaining ANSI contrast. It does have a cool factor.
Alan Gouger is offline  
post #97 of 132 Old 04-03-2011, 03:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

As Art, I am going to dismiss evaluation of people who I don't know, and have tested with other gear and configuration .

Then please allow me to do the same. The difference being of course, is the people I'm referring to did a comparison, saw an improvement and made a decision which ended up with them spending their own money to buy a lens. Your people just saw a zoomed image with no reference or need to upgrade a projector which they didn't own.

I'm still curious why they didn't see pixel structure which others can see at further seating distances than given in your example. I've seen it said before with reference to a Titan and still can't understand why its pixels would be less visible when zoomed compared to any other DLP or even JVC projector - there are people here who have tried a lens with JVC projectors, found an improvement so kept the lens, yet they have smaller pixel gaps than DLP. They noted the difference in pixel structure visibility though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

I have heard the argument. And provided data to the contrary, directly from the manufacturer's post on this very forum. As I think I noted, we have had this argument before, with that thread going dozens of pages with me providing Photoshop simulations and such. For now, look at the back of your anamorphic lens. Do you see a picture of what you are watching? I bet you do. All of that light is now reflecting back into the primary lens. And until someone shows how you can build an ideal lens, you have to accept its MTF further low pass filtering the primary image.

This is the thing - the pros and cons of both methods. Those who did the comparison have seen a better image with a lens than with zooming. The pros of the lens outweigh the pros of zooming. technically zooming may be better, but visual acuity also comes into play, and it's what we see in the comparison that ultimately counts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

I am not discussing this PJ. I am discussing the topic in general. Our current projector can be used either with servo zoom that is built into it, or slap an anamorphic lens in front of it. There is no question in that configuration, which is cheaper.

If you haven't done the comparison, then ignorance is bliss and by all means carry on zooming. Those that may do the comparison and see an improvement may want to buy the additional lens if they can afford it (many here have of course).

I know I'm repeating myself, but there are people here who were happy with zooming and tried a lens 'just to see', and found they preferred the image with the lens. They ended up buying the lens because of it. If the image was worse, why would they spend the money to degrade what they see?

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

And I am not disputing people who do that. I ask how they thought they were doing away with the horizontal pixel structure if the lens is not softening it. You can't have it both ways. You can't say the lens is transparent in one breath, and say that it gets rid of pixel structure when the same number of pixels is used either way. If it is softening the pixels that way, then the whole image is softer.

I'm not saying those things - I'm agreeing the lens has it's cons, it's their visibility that matters. Again, when doing a comparison, the image with the lens was better than without - pixel structure being less obvious and an image that may be softer but with less visible structure. It's pros and cons again. Your photograph of the lady in the other thread we mentioned was a good example, albeit an exaggerated one. I'm not saying that a lens is transparent in operation technically, but neither is zooming - it's down to what we actually see when doing the comparison that counts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

They do sometimes. And I also provided an example of the opposite. We are at 0.7X screen width. You would think if your observation was remotely universal, we would have people running away from our theater but precisely the opposite is true. It is not fruitful to get into betterness of one person's experience vs another other than if you think I don't know video in which case let's take this fight outside .

I'm still curious why they didn't see what most of us here see at less close seating distance when zooming, hence my questions about reflectance levels or defocussing. It sounds more like a case of not having a reference to compare with and that's why they didn't run away.

Being unaware of 'betterness' doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

You say you were at 0.7 x sw (assuming a 2.37 ratio screen) and didn't see structure without a lens (zooming), yet some people here can see structure from 0.85 x sw while using a lens. Something doesn't seem right to me.

Of course you know video - I'm not saying you don't, I'm saying you seem to be dismissing something you've never tried or seen on the back of theory rather than practice (until I did the comparison I would have agreed with you), whereas those here who you suggest know nothing have done the necessary testing and come to a different conclusion - perhaps your 'universal' comment would be better suited had your people done a similar comparison. As for going outside, should I win, would that prove I had better knowledge of video or just the use of anamorphic lenses in question?

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

No we don't defocus the projectors. I have tried that in the past and the type of defocus we get out of PJ lenses in my opinion is not good for that purpose. For one, there is not usually enough accuracy and for two, the geometry doesn't work well there.

As I keep saying - I'm still curious why they couldn't see pixel structure and why some people here can at those viewing distances. It would also be interesting to see what they thought if they were allowed a comparison test. Perhaps in a comparison they would see the difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

I just did a search and can't find one with a sled. Do you have a link?

Can't say that I've seen any with a sled as I wasn't looking for one to fit a camera. I just pointed out you can get anamorphic lenses for cameras. Perhaps I'd misunderstood what you were asking.

Gary

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

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #98 of 132 Old 04-03-2011, 03:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digital2004 View Post

Gary
no i meant: use film camera to make a movie then process to a qbit server JPEG2000 and project it with a 3DLP 2K ( or 4K soon).
and i was refering to UNSTOPPABLE blu ray

Sorry, I misunderstood your comment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Digital2004 View Post

we have already great projectors available. we need to see improvement in the sources on blu ray but also film makers not going the easy way route of digital cameras and completely abandoning film cameras.
see my point ?

my conclusion is thus that the debate of native 2.35:1 pj or 16/9 + lens is bit acadamic vs the importance of improvements of the way films are shot and what is encoded on blu ray.

Sounds good to me

Gary

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

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #99 of 132 Old 04-03-2011, 04:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Digital2004's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Gotham City
Posts: 2,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
a few recent (or not) reference transfers sources to me, all scope:
UNSTOPPABLE
THERE WILL BE BLOOD
EDGE OF DARKNESS
3 10 TO YUMA
THE INCREDIBLE HULK
IRON MAN 1
UNFORGIVEN (not the best in black level though)
PIRATES OF CARRIBEAN 1 (daylight scenes)
KING OF KINGS ( 70mm)


THE CHANGELING
GRAND TORINO
THE DARK KNIGHT (especially the 65mm moments)
all with stunning black level,details, depth of field, sharpness, colorimetry

all shot with film cameras... ( note: still means you need skilled cameraman and photographer and people afterwards in the transfer process)

too much is spent on actors salaries, CGI vs using best material and taking time to shoot best a motion picture

RED ONE Movies with stunning daylight scenes:
DISTRICT 9 (1.77)
ELLE S APPELAIT SARAH

Speaking of ANSI contrast, a fabric AT screen will affect (worsening) much more ansi contrast than a lens ( not even talking of lumens loss...)
stick with microperforated pvc

for japan cinema lovers this upcoming scope movie looks thrilling:
13 ASSASSINS
http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi3739983129/
Digital2004 is offline  
post #100 of 132 Old 04-03-2011, 05:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digital2004 View Post

Speaking of ANSI contrast, a fabric AT screen will affect (worsening) much more ansi contrast than a lens ( not even talking of lumens loss...)
stick with microperforated pvc

I think the microperf PVC screens have visible perfs at closer viewing distances than the weaved ones, and some weaves definitely have worse ANSI, though not all are the same.

I think if you want an AT screen and need to sit around 8 or 9 feet away from it, you're stuck with the newer weaves such as the Enlightnor 4K or Seymore equivalent.

Do you have any data on viewing distances for the perf PVCs? Have they improved?

Gary

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

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #101 of 132 Old 04-03-2011, 06:51 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Digital2004's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Gotham City
Posts: 2,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post

I think the microperf PVC screens have visible perfs at closer viewing distances than the weaved ones, and some weaves definitely have worse ANSI, though not all are the same.

I think if you want an AT screen and need to sit around 8 or 9 feet away from it, you're stuck with the newer weaves such as the Enlightnor 4K or Seymore equivalent.

Do you have any data on viewing distances for the perf PVCs? Have they improved?

Gary

i say 10feet from a pvc microperf
i use 13° angled holes like Stewart no moiré no matter the type of pj (lcos dlp ) or lens or no lens
woven fabric: i can see even at 5meters on white peaks or light blue skies the wovening...
the white punch and ansi of pvc is unrivaled imho
1.0 gain, ie, not painted (any coating affects image, it raises of course the issue on how to do large screens 3D... without pocketting for a TITAN or double stack of LUMIS...Stewart is now proposing a double screen system)
Digital2004 is offline  
post #102 of 132 Old 04-03-2011, 08:04 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Alan Gouger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Florida
Posts: 18,726
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digital2004 View Post

i use 13° angled holes like Stewart no moiré no matter the type of pj (lcos dlp ) or lens or no lens

Whose material are you using is it DIY. What gain and do you notice any sheen or texture. I am thinking of going AT. Thx.
Alan Gouger is offline  
post #103 of 132 Old 04-03-2011, 08:31 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Digital2004's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Gotham City
Posts: 2,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gouger View Post

Whose material are you using is it DIY. What gain and do you notice any sheen or texture. I am thinking of going AT. Thx.

from www.oray.fr
imho it's the same as stewart latest white microperforated material
you didn't have an AT already?
no sheen no texture as long as you sit at 280cm or more
i sit at 5meters from the 4Meters screen or at 6.5m
depends on quality of transfer.
1.0 so "no gain" (no painting): natural white pvc.
i always found any gain to give a compression texture,a veil
as Joe Kane said: a screen must be invisible...
say that to woven screens mfturers...
Digital2004 is offline  
post #104 of 132 Old 04-03-2011, 08:48 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Alan Gouger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Florida
Posts: 18,726
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digital2004 View Post

a screen must be invisible...

Agreed, thanks for the info.

Edit: Forgot to ask what is the size of the holes with this material does it compare to Stewarts perforation/Hole Size: .020th of an Inch in Diameter.
Alan Gouger is offline  
post #105 of 132 Old 04-03-2011, 10:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Digital2004's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Gotham City
Posts: 2,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
0.5mm diam so 1/50th of an inch

(0.5mm x 50= 25.4mm =1 inch)
Digital2004 is offline  
post #106 of 132 Old 04-03-2011, 10:36 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,013
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 688 Post(s)
Liked: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post
Then please allow me to do the same. The difference being of course, is the people I'm referring to did a comparison, saw an improvement and made a decision which ended up with them spending their own money to buy a lens.
While I have been in one of these food fights, looks like as Alan said, this argument has been going on forever here. Here is a thread someone who agrees with me but doesn't want to get in the middle of the firestorm sent me : http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1017493

From Peter:

"Visually there is no comparison anamorphic looks soft and flat by comparison , the SK looks almost like large format70 mm. There is a huge ansi contrast loss involved with anamorphic. This shows. Despite the horizontal pixel dismissal, this method maximises MTF."

"I had a chance to see the latest Lighting Reference at CEDIA, the best Image, which a top executive credited my suggestion to do the Odyssey Mods. When they slid the lens in I nearly fainted, I guesstimated the loss as 1/3, previously everyone around here thought it a 15% loss only, it was WMeyer that confided THAT HE HAD INDEED MEASURED THE 33% DROP."


And from Meyer:

"i think this is not true [that the loss is only 7 to 10%].

i wish i can found such a glas that can do only 7-10% ansi drop.

they may installed 150 cinema pr. but this not say that there statements
are right. the mostly repeat what they hear from someone as many people here
in the forum also do.

aks them if the measure it and than you will get the trues or better
measure it yourself with and without the glass.
its not so much time and you know it.

i have long time ago give it up to measure a new material and different
thickness.

but if you have a small pice of material that really have below 10%
ansi cr. drop i pay you US$ 2000 for a very small pice like 8" by 5" only."


Quote:
I'm still curious why they didn't see pixel structure which others can see at further seating distances than given in your example.
Well, those people have a single data point: their own. My data point is now 100+ people, some of which includes anal video projector people like myself. And again, all at exaggerated viewing distance.

Maybe some of this is psychological. We show people a beautiful image and their "pixel peeping" brain takes a vacation . Maybe others put the anamorphic lens on, stand 2 inch from their screen and see the softening effect of the pixel edges and like it. Who knows. They don't have the 100+ witnesses I have .

Let's cut this back and forth because the objective facts here are quite strong and solid:

1. There are only 1920 pixels horizontally with or without anamorphic lens. Period. You are not getting any more pixels or processing with anamorphic.

2. Any lens will soften the image and reduce its contrast. All lenses are low pass filters. You can argue about the amount but not the fact that it exists.

3. If there is an observation of reduced pixel structure, #2 must be kicking in strongly. People play the marketing game of counting all the pixels being higher with anamorphic but that is not how the game works. Put up a horizontal line and tell me if you see identical pixel structure with or without.

If you see the same pixel structure, then you have done nothing in the horizontal dimension. Tell me why I should only care about vertical dimension.

If you do see less pixel structure, then for sure your lens is softening your image as it must due to laws of physics. If that is the real reason the pixel structure goes away for you, why not get a screw on softening filter? Has anyone tested that? Remember, the vertical stretch is just an interpolator/filter. Nothing more. You can do the same optically. No new resolution is created due to that interpolation.

Quote:
If you haven't done the comparison, then ignorance is bliss and by all means carry on zooming.
Say what? What ignorance? It is not like anamorphic lens makes colors pop, increase resolution, etc. It is claimed to remove artifacts. If I don't see artifacts, why am I ignorant? If my tires are fully balanced and I feel zero vibration in the steering wheel, should I go and get them balanced again to see what I am missing? This is supposed to be a cure for something. If I don't have the disease, I shouldn't have to take the medicine! .

Amir
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is online now  
post #107 of 132 Old 04-03-2011, 10:46 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
Reading between the lines, I have to say that using anamorphic lens has become such a fixture in high-end installations that it is hard for people to let go of the concept on principal. At least that is my experience in discussing it here. To be fair, I come from the other negative bias as a photographer, disgusted with the whole idea optically .
I've seen both zooming and high quality A lens projection in my theater using the HT 5000. I can say without question that I could not use zooming here seeing what I did.

Personally, I use my ISCO III instead of zooming because it provides the best image on screen at the seating distances I use.

I'm one who couldn't care less what is in the projection room as long as what's on screen is the best I can get.

Art

My HT


iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
post #108 of 132 Old 04-03-2011, 11:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Digital2004's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Gotham City
Posts: 2,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I second Art

some points:
1. human eye is very sensitive first to VERTICAL resolution
a lens will reduce the structure on screen (not the content i agree, evidently)
33% more pixels (mirrors in case of dlp) verticaly by displaying 1080 vs 816.
and the benefit of vertical reduction of gap (humans are less sensitive about horizontal increased gap)

2. the lens will add in theory 25% more lumens also (the lumens lost in black bars otherwise) - the loss from the extra glass, about 5% so we end up with for instance 1000lumens start, +250 - 5% of 1250= 1187,5lumens
vs 750 if the zoom solution is applied ( 1000-25% because of black bars)
there are people who are happy with 8FTL , i don't. wished we could have 30FTL on many more pj with great contrast ( low black level).

3. the ANSI contrast: if you play with DLP which has natively a lot more ANSI contrast (checkboard) than LCOS/LCD, you won't notice a difference.
losing 10% ansi from 700:1 or from 300:1 gives 630 vs 270:1

4. cinematic effect: call it what you want, i just like the combo great PJ + big quality lens and the sliding system by remote

5. sharpness: with superior optics from the pj (and again DLP has the edge) and sharpness adjustment on the lens too, you can have very very sharp scope images, combined with PVC screen (....)
but i have nothing against native scope pj.

6. the debate should be about getting scope movies better treatment on blu ray ! encoded with 1080 vertical info.
Digital2004 is offline  
post #109 of 132 Old 04-03-2011, 02:06 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Alan Gouger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Florida
Posts: 18,726
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digital2004 View Post
0.5mm diam so 1/50th of an inch

(0.5mm x 50= 25.4mm =1 inch)
.5mm = .019" thats about the same as Stewarts. Good info.
Alan Gouger is offline  
post #110 of 132 Old 04-03-2011, 02:23 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,013
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 688 Post(s)
Liked: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digital2004 View Post

I second Art

some points:
1. human eye is very sensitive first to VERTICAL resolution
a lens will reduce the structure on screen (not the content i agree, evidently)
33% more pixels (mirrors in case of dlp) verticaly by displaying 1080 vs 816.
and the benefit of vertical reduction of gap (humans are less sensitive about horizontal increased gap)

I am not aware of any research into "increased gap" of pixels. The only research that I know of measures the relative perceptual importance of vertical resolution vs horizontal. The work was done by using a CRT display and selectively applying Gaussian blur to either dimension and measuring the perceived score relative to blur factor. Taking that research and applying to pixel gap perception while OK on surface, requires a bigger leap of faith than I am prepared to accept .

Here is the SEM image of the DLP mirror:



Do you notice the vertical gap more than horizontal? I don't. What I do notice is that the gap is actually not very uniform.

In case of DLP, the mirrors actually tilt. Will that not change the gap? Here is an example of 10 degree tilt:



Here is a corner mirror:



Looking around, I found a close up image that I took for convergence testing of a 3-chip DLP, while illuminating a single color (and hence DLP). This was in fully zoomed 2.35:1 presentation so it is representative of what we are talking about:



As you can see, the woven screen material significantly blurs the pixel edges. Add two more chips and throw in even small amount of mis-convergence and you see that the edges will fill in very well on their own. Even without that, we see that the pixels actually blend better vertically than horizontal.

Given all of this, my sense is that Occam's Razer is true here: the simplest explanation must be true in that the anamorphic lens is simply softening the image, reducing contrast and details of the pixel edges. And that is which is preferred not some esoteric physics of how we see pixel gaps one way or the other.

Quote:


2. the lens will add in theory 25% more lumens also (the lumens lost in black bars otherwise) - the loss from the extra glass, about 5%...

True and that is what the topic of this new projector addresses. They are interpolating the image to the full screen and therefore, no light is lost. If I take your numbers of 5% light loss for the anamorphic lens, then they will be ahead that much if it matters .

In our case, we are using a dual bulb projector but running just one and with the level turned down at that. So not an issue in our specific case. I agree depending on the situation, it might matter to others.

Quote:


4. cinematic effect: call it what you want, i just like the combo great PJ + big quality lens and the sliding system by remote

Same effect occurs here. You hit the button, the masking opens, and zoom lens expands the image.

Amir
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is online now  
post #111 of 132 Old 04-03-2011, 06:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ericglo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Just below the US in South Florida
Posts: 6,211
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digital2004 View Post

a
Speaking of ANSI contrast, a fabric AT screen will affect (worsening) much more ansi contrast than a lens ( not even talking of lumens loss...)
stick with microperforated pvc

for japan cinema lovers this upcoming scope movie looks thrilling:
13 ASSASSINS
http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi3739983129/

I am sorry, but I am going to have to disagree strongly here. SMX's new 4k material is much better than anything I have seen out of Stewart. I could not see the weave even up close. Seymour makes some nice DIY screens, but I can see the weave at about five or six feet IIRC. Stewart was something like ten feet. If you would like to say it has an effect on audio, then I can't debate as I haven't done or followed any testing in that area.

My new favorite game is Save The Titanic

Ericglo is offline  
post #112 of 132 Old 04-03-2011, 06:16 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: everywhere
Posts: 12,535
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 118 Post(s)
Liked: 49
I don't think it does, having listened to a few systems with the mp and the woven 2k and 4k. I don't think the later impacts it at all.
CINERAMAX is offline  
post #113 of 132 Old 04-03-2011, 06:54 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

I am not aware of any research into "increased gap" of pixels. The only research that I know of measures the relative perceptual importance of vertical resolution vs horizontal. The work was done by using a CRT display and selectively applying Gaussian blur to either dimension and measuring the perceived score relative to blur factor. Taking that research and applying to pixel gap perception while OK on surface, requires a bigger leap of faith than I am prepared to accept .

Here is the SEM image of the DLP mirror:



Do you notice the vertical gap more than horizontal? I don't. What I do notice is that the gap is actually not very uniform.

In case of DLP, the mirrors actually tilt. Will that not change the gap? Here is an example of 10 degree tilt:



Here is a corner mirror:



Looking around, I found a close up image that I took for convergence testing of a 3-chip DLP, while illuminating a single color (and hence DLP). This was in fully zoomed 2.35:1 presentation so it is representative of what we are talking about:



As you can see, the woven screen material significantly blurs the pixel edges. Add two more chips and throw in even small amount of mis-convergence and you see that the edges will fill in very well on their own. Even without that, we see that the pixels actually blend better vertically than horizontal.

Given all of this, my sense is that Occam's Razer is true here: the simplest explanation must be true in that the anamorphic lens is simply softening the image, reducing contrast and details of the pixel edges. And that is which is preferred not some esoteric physics of how we see pixel gaps one way or the other.


True and that is what the topic of this new projector addresses. They are interpolating the image to the full screen and therefore, no light is lost. If I take your numbers of 5% light loss for the anamorphic lens, then they will be ahead that much if it matters .

In our case, we are using a dual bulb projector but running just one and with the level turned down at that. So not an issue in our specific case. I agree depending on the situation, it might matter to others.


Same effect occurs here. You hit the button, the masking opens, and zoom lens expands the image.


I didn't see anything about the pixel gap being greater in one direction or another only human visual sensitivity in this discussion .

I have what now is an old AT material and pixel structure becomes visible long before the perfs.

Your SEM shots above have nothing to do with this discussion, although they might in discussing consumer vs DCI projectors.

Art

My HT


iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
post #114 of 132 Old 04-03-2011, 07:29 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,013
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 688 Post(s)
Liked: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

I didn't see anything about the pixel gap being greater in one direction or another only human visual sensitivity in this discussion .

Your comment reminds of the line in one of my favorite movies, Ferris Bueller's Day Off where they ditch school and see Chicago for a whole day after which, this exchange happens:

Ferris: Cameron, what have you seen today?
Cameron: Nothing good.
Ferris: Nothing - wha - what do you mean nothing good? We've seen everything good. We've seen the whole city! We went to a museum, we saw priceless works of art! We ate pancreas!



Quote:


I have what now is an old AT material and pixel structure becomes visible long before the perfs.

Another factor might be you coming from CRT PJs. I still remember the first time I went from a CRT monitor to LCD for my photography workstation. Instantly I was a much better photographer with all of my images looking so much sharper .

Seriously Art, I have a simple theory here. I accept that you see pixel edges. Perhaps more so than other people due to CRT factor above but let's say you do see them. The issue then is what is the answer? I say that there is no reason to go spend thousands of dollars to soften those edges with an anamorphic lens. The only fix it is applying is softening the whole image. I realize that may be pleasing but why use the side effect of a tool instead of real? I am looking for proof that anamorphic lens does something else to improve the situation. You don't like my pictures, show me your proof point. I am not here to prove the other argument .

BTW, as a business, I am talking myself out of extra money we could make selling such things. Keep that in mind as you read my posts .

Amir
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is online now  
post #115 of 132 Old 04-03-2011, 08:26 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Alan Gouger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Florida
Posts: 18,726
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post


BTW, as a business, I am talking myself out of extra money we could make selling such things. Keep that in mind as you read my posts .

But you are also pushing a technology that you are a dealer for so your one sided endorsement is not surprising. It makes sense a dealer selling this projector would take the imposing side.

Regarding the matted scope projector you still have gray light making up the vertical bars that bleed onto the screen reducing contrast. The money saved not buying a lens will have to be spent on a masking system. No bars using a lens.

Having to scale the scope image to fill the chip will have the same impact as using an add on lens..

At the end of the day both techniques share similar trade offs.
Im not saying a 235:1 projector is not sexy but as the ole saying goes "choose your poison"
Alan Gouger is offline  
post #116 of 132 Old 04-03-2011, 10:10 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,013
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 688 Post(s)
Liked: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gouger View Post

But you are also pushing a technology that you are a dealer for so your one sided endorsement is not surprising.

You are both correct and not correct. I spent 9 months looking for a high-end projector to carry. Ability to use servo zoom was one of the key requirements for me. So in that regard, the selection of Projection Design as a brand came based on pure belief I have in this area, not the other way around as is often the case.

As I have noted a couple of times, anamorphic lenses can be fit on these projectors just the same. And if so, we would make more money. So it is not like I am recommending against something we can't do or can't sell. I simply wanted to service people like me who wanted a pure projection experience without the need for the extra lens.
Quote:


It makes sense a dealer selling this projector would take the imposing side.

Again, there is no other side here for us. A projector that has zoom memories can also be used with an anamorphic lens. Customer can choose. We simply recommend that they don't to our determent financially. The zoom may still come in handy for other aspect ratios.

BTW, I think you know this but I am not a "dealer." I started Madrona Digital because I love this area and had some free time on my hand since I left Microsoft. It is a serious venture for my team but for me, it is not a source of livelihood. It gives me tremendous access to technology and companies, hopefully resulting in more meaningful posts here.
Quote:


Regarding the matted scope projector you still have gray light making up the vertical bars that bleed onto the screen reducing contrast. The money saved not buying a lens will have to be spent on a masking system. No bars using a lens.

For us at least, servo zoom projectors are dual-bulb, $50K+ affairs, going into $300K+ theaters. Masking screens go hand in hand with that.

As you, my company offers lower cost projectors and people can do with them as they please, including using anamorphic lenses or not.

Amir
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is online now  
post #117 of 132 Old 04-04-2011, 01:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Digital2004's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Gotham City
Posts: 2,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
few points:
1. indeed woven material softens the image (but i have no experience with smx 4K new material)making it very hard to focus it. and i can see the structure of the fabric on white peaks or light skies at 5meters... this is not acceptable
also the need for black masking behind the screen to reduce light loss affect more the sound than microperforated pvc
microperforations is an issue if you sit closer than 3meters so it depends on screen size also. i recommand generaly a scope that is minimum 3meters so chances of people sitting at 3meters or closer are very low (besides never forget sound sweetspots too: sitting in middle of a room puts you in a bass null zone unless say you have a front infinite line of subs or subs at each wall middle point (rarely doable!).
i was talking of lens reducing vertical gap and increasing horiz gap (space between mirrors or pixels), human eye more sensitive to vert resolution (while it has a wide viewing field than vertical ie we see wider than higher)

2. back to topic: what about with 16/9 PJ the zoom in- out regarding focus ? will it be maintained ? vs not touching the pj but just sliding on/off the lens ?

i've seen BLACK SWAN recently in a digital theater: completely out of focus 3DLP, they use zoom function instead of using an anamorphic lens
we verified the white credits at the end: it was serious out of focus. (equal out of range for each color chip)

3. again, i wish we see something done for scope movies on blu ray ie more vertical res encoded (1080 would be nice). but also as important to continue to see a) improvement on digi cam (black level, improved detailing on panning, fast movements, more ability to absorbe the white peaks) b) and or directors still using 35mm or 65mm film cameras and going 48f/s. don't know about you guys but almost every blu ray i watch i end up checking how it was filmed and that explains a lot of things regarding the image quality on our blu ray!).
Digital2004 is offline  
post #118 of 132 Old 04-04-2011, 09:11 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Your comment reminds of the line in one of my favorite movies, Ferris Bueller's Day Off where they ditch school and see Chicago for a whole day after which, this exchange happens:

Ferris: Cameron, what have you seen today?
Cameron: Nothing good.
Ferris: Nothing - wha - what do you mean nothing good? We've seen everything good. We've seen the whole city! We went to a museum, we saw priceless works of art! We ate pancreas!




Another factor might be you coming from CRT PJs. I still remember the first time I went from a CRT monitor to LCD for my photography workstation. Instantly I was a much better photographer with all of my images looking so much sharper .

Seriously Art, I have a simple theory here. I accept that you see pixel edges. Perhaps more so than other people due to CRT factor above but let's say you do see them. The issue then is what is the answer? I say that there is no reason to go spend thousands of dollars to soften those edges with an anamorphic lens. The only fix it is applying is softening the whole image. I realize that may be pleasing but why use the side effect of a tool instead of real? I am looking for proof that anamorphic lens does something else to improve the situation. You don't like my pictures, show me your proof point. I am not here to prove the other argument .

BTW, as a business, I am talking myself out of extra money we could make selling such things. Keep that in mind as you read my posts .

My point isn't can't I see them but that your SEM images have nothing to do with the discussion (you were responding to a digital 2004's comment about human sensitivity to vertical and horizontal visibilty).Your series of photos would be good to show when comparing DCI to consumer projection but not in the discussion of the merits of quality anamorphic lens use compared to zooming.

I attended a seminar where I caught the speaker using a couple of techniques to adeptly skirt arguments. When I mentioned them to another attendee she wouldn't speak to me afterwards since she had consumed the Koolaid.

DCI 2K presentations choose to defocus routinely to avoid pixel visbilty even with DCI fill.

I choose to use all pixels,maximize light output and without significant loss of structure.

Art

My HT


iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
post #119 of 132 Old 04-04-2011, 10:11 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,013
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 688 Post(s)
Liked: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

My point isn't can't I see them but that your SEM images have nothing to do with the discussion( you were responding to a previous posters comment about human sensitivity to vertical and horizontal visibilty).Your series of photos would be good to show when comparing DCI to consumer projection but not in the discussion of the merits of quality anamorphic lens use compared to zooming.

There was a point to the SEM images but I am too lazy to try to make it again. I however, included an image shot by me (the red on black) showing clearly the pixel separation and how it was not worse in vertical dimension. It also showed that taking a study done for another reason, cannot be applied here when we have screen material which diffuses the edges in unknown ways together with convergence errors. So the notion that I said nothing useful seems to want to damn relevant data by the mere assertion of it. That debating technique doesn't work on me.

Quote:


I attended a seminar where I caught the speaker using a couple of techniques to adeptly skirt arguments. When I mentioned them to another attendee she wouldn't speak to me afterwards since she had consumed the Koolaid.

It seems that we have all drank the Koolaid on both sides of the argument. No doubt about that. You have invested in the opposite approach and any conclusion that says it is not the right approach is hard to take. And for me, I have made my claim the other way and I need to justify it just the same. So let's not elevate one of us as bing more of an angel than the other. The male psychology here to be right as strong as ever to put on the feet of one party or the other alone.

As to catching me, I thought I was the one doing that in reverse . In every thread of this discussion someone makes a reference to the study regarding preference for more vertical resolution, claiming therefore, that higher pixel edge filtering is needed in vertical dimension.

I explained clearly what that research was all about and how it does not apply here. Tell me how you think that was a trick to skirt the argument. I further went on to provide an actual picture of a real 3-chip projector, showing that study even if valid in this application, doesn't seem to apply in every situation and that the setup is far more complex than the claim seemed to want to make it anyway.

Your counter is simply, "it is all wrong" and "I caught you" without proving or even explaining why. Tell me how the red on black image doesn't apply here. Show me where in the research it studied pixel edges. Heck, tell me even what the research is called and who did it. If you have not even read the research itself, how do you even know my counter is just a trick???

Disappointing .

Quote:


DCI 2K presentations choose to defocus routinely to avoid pixel visbilty even with DCI fill.

Is "routinely" as in all the time? If it is not all the time, then it is a subjective choice as you are making to trade resolution for pixel structure. If that is the case, then it makes my point that this is all about loss of resolution to filter out the edges. The notion of anamorphic lens and such is all a smoke screen for us to sell you more than what you need for the job at hand. As with DCI example you are giving, you could choose to simply defocus, filter, etc.

Quote:


I choose to use all pixels,maximize light output and without significant loss of structure.

Once more, the projector being criticized in this thread uses the full imager area so there is no light loss. And the rest of us are not at the limit of our projector brightness. So why keep bringing that point up?

If you are saying your case is very specific to you, then OK. I already said I appreciate why you have done it. The discussion here isn't to criticize your system but rather, the merits of this new technology. And this new technology doesn't have light loss issues. Indeed, it has an advantage in that if you used a secondary lens, you would be losing light, not this projector.

Amir
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is online now  
post #120 of 132 Old 04-04-2011, 10:25 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,013
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 688 Post(s)
Liked: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digital2004 View Post

2. back to topic: what about with 16/9 PJ the zoom in- out regarding focus ? will it be maintained ?

Yes, both the the projection design projector and Wolf that I have tested with this feature maintain focus. The Projection Design lens we are using is not varifocal anyway.

Quote:


vs not touching the pj but just sliding on/off the lens ?

Again, we don't touch it all. Our automation system simply recalls the new zoom point and the projector does the rest. We hit a button on the touchscreen remote, the masking opens and picture size changes to adapt to any ratio we wish. You simply pick each size you want, store it in memory and then tell the projector to recall it.

Quote:


i've seen BLACK SWAN recently in a digital theater: completely out of focus 3DLP, they use zoom function instead of using an anamorphic lens
we verified the white credits at the end: it was serious out of focus. (equal out of range for each color chip)

Then it is a broken setup. Perhaps they did not pick the right focus settings for each presentation. Certainly not the first time a projector in a theater is not set up right . During the Avatar 3-D, I could not stand the green image. I took the glasses off and what a relief: the colors were correct then. If they can't be bothered to do that color correction, what hope is there otherwise?

Quote:


3. again, i wish we see something done for scope movies on blu ray ie more vertical res encoded (1080 would be nice). but also as important to continue to see a) improvement on digi cam (black level, improved detailing on panning, fast movements, more ability to absorbe the white peaks) b) and or directors still using 35mm or 65mm film cameras and going 48f/s. don't know about you guys but almost every blu ray i watch i end up checking how it was filmed and that explains a lot of things regarding the image quality on our blu ray!).

No disagreement but sadly there is no movement whatsoever that I have heard of to modify anything on Blu-ray format in that manner. Folks are busy trying to figure out how to stop the decline of the business due to sharply increased rental due to Netflix and Redbox. Providing enthusiast features is not even on the list, let alone being high on it!

Once we move to digital distribution, then the format can be a lot more flexible. While I don't expect the majors to go after these features even then, independent distributors might.

Amir
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is online now  
Reply Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+)

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